Sitting of 15 August 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (MR. COURTNEY,: I have to move a series of alterations in the Standing Orders which relate to private Bills. They have been rendered necessary by the disappearance of turnpike roads, the substitution of the London County Council for the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the interposition of tramroads as an intermediary between railways and tramways.
  Standing Order I was read, and amended:—In line 19, by leaving out after the words "Letters Patent," the words "confirming, prolonging, or transferring;" in line 51, by inserting after the word "port," the words "public carriage road;" in line 71, by leaving out after the word "tunnel," the words "turnpike or other public carriage road."
  Standing Order 8 was read, and amended, in line 1, by leaving out the words "for confirming or prolonging or otherwise."
  New Standing Order to follow Standing Order 8.
  Ordered—
  "That in addition to the ordinary notices, notice of the intention to apply to Parliament for a Bill relating to letters patent shall be published twice in the Official Journal of the Patent Office, before the introduction of the Bill in this House; and the total amount of fees, including the prescribed free for enlargement, under 17 of 'The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883,' due and to become due on the patent shall be deposited with the Comptroller before the meeting of the Committee on the Bill, and such deposit proved before the Committee."
  Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 9 was read, and amended, in line 3, by leaving out the word "and," and inserting the word "or;" in line 34, by leaving out after the word "days," all the words to the word "and," inclusive, in line 36.
  Amendment moved, in Standing Order 22, line 10, after "1870," to insert—
  "Except that in the case of tramways situate within the area of the county of London, the London County Council shall he substituted for the Metroplitan Board of Works."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MURPHY: I quite understand the meaning of this alteration of the Standing Order, but I should like to have an explanation from the Chairman of Ways and Means. As I understand Standing Order 22, it provides that the Local Authorities, under the Tramway Act of 1870, should give their assent to the promotion of any Bill for the laying down of a tramway before such Bill can be introduced into Parliament. In that Act the authority for London is described as the Metropolitan Board of Works. I understand that in London the practice has been to require not only the assent of the Metropolitan Board of Works, for whom the London County Council is now substituted, but also the assent of the Local Authorities, such as the Vestries and Local Boards. What I wish to know is whether this dual assent will still be required in the Metropolis. It does not appear to be a requirement

  1315
  in reference to any other part of the kingdom, and I wish to know if the new Standing Order will make any alteration in the old practice.
  MR. COURTNEY: The first part of the Standing Order will remain unaltered, and it requires the assent of the Road Authority, where in any district there is a Road Authority, distinct from the Local Authority.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Standing Order 28 was read, and repealed.
  New Standing Order to follow Standing Order 27:—
  Ordered—
  "That where the work or any part thereof will he situate within the Administrative County of London, or where powers are sought to take any lands within the said County, a copy of so much of the plans, sections, and book of reference as relates to lands within the said County shall, on or before the 30th day of November, be deposited at the Office of the London County Council."
  Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 34 was read and Amended:—
  In line 3, by leaving out the words "Metropolis, as defined by 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,'" and inserting the words "Administrative County of London."
  In line 4, by leaving the words "Metropolitan Board of Works," and inserting the words "London County Council."
  Standing Order 35A was read, and amended, in line 7, by inserting after the words "in all cases," the words "other than those of Companies registered under 'The Companies Act, 1862.'"
  Amendment moved, in Standing Order 37, line 2, after "Tramway," insert "Tramroad."
  Question proposed, "That Tramroad be there inserted."
  MR. MURPHY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain the necessity for this alteration. The word "tramway" is a well understood definition, and in some recent decisions it has received a distinct interpretation. Why should "tramroad" be substituted?
  MR. COURTNEY: It is not proposed to substitute "tramroad" for "tramway," but simply to add "tramroad." There is a distinction between the two; the "tramway" runs along an existing road, whereas the "tramroad" may make a way for itself.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Standing Order 43 was read, and amended, in line 1 by leaving out the the words "turnpike roads."
  Amendment moved, in Standing Order 45:—Line 38, after "plans," add the following new paragraph:—"The preceding paragraph should apply, in the the case of a Tramroad, wherever it is carried along a street or road."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. MURPHY: The words which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to add to this Standing Order do not square with the definition he gave a moment ago. He said that the distinction between a tramway and a tramroad was that one runs along an existing road, whereas the other makes a road for itself. I am afraid that the introduction of a new word which actually means the same thing will only lead to confusion.
  MR. COURTNEY: I fear that I did not make myself properly understood. I did not say that a tramroad for the whole of its way is made independently of a public highway. Part of it may be on its own road, and part of it upon a highway, and the object of this alteration of the Standing Order is to provide that if it runs along a portion of a street or a highway it shall come within the Standing Order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Standing Order 47 was read, and amended, in line 9, by leaving out the words "turnpike or other," and inserting the word "public."
  Standing Order 51 was read, and amended:—In line 1, by leaving out the words "turnpike road;" in line 7, by leaving out the words "turnpike road."
  Standing Order 52 was read, and amended:—In line 2, by leaving out the words "turnpike road;" inline 12,

  1317
  by leaving out the words "turnpike road or."
  Standing Order 62 was read, and amended, by adding, at the end, the words—
  "So far as any such Bill relates to a separate undertaking in any Company as distinct from the general undertaking, separate meetings shall be held of the proprietors of the Company, and of the separate undertaking, and the provisions of this Order applicable to meetings of proprietors of the Company shall mutatis mutandis apply to meetings of proprietors of the separate undertaking."
  Standing Order 75 was read, and amended, in line 2, by inserting after the word "Company," the word "society."
  Standing Order 132 was read, and amended, in line 2, by inserting after the word "Company," the word "society."
  Standing Order 145 was read, and amended, in line 2, by leaving out the word "turnpike," and inserting the words "public carriage."
  Standing Order 155 was read, and amended:—In line 3, by leaving out the words "turnpike road," and inserting the word "Tramroad"; in line 4, by leaving out the word "other"; in line 4, by leaving out the words "carriage way," and inserting the words "carriage road"; in line 6, by inserting after the word "Report," the words "and hearing the officer, if the Committee think fit."
  Standing Order 157 was read, and amended:—In line 9, by leaving out the words "turnpike road"; in line 9, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "Tramway, Tramroad."
  Standing Order 158 was read, and amended:—In (b) line 26, by inserting after the word "passengers," the words "and to such Clause the Committee may, if they think fit, add a proviso to the following effect;" in (d) line 7, by inserting after the word "years," the words "of a new Tramroad three years"; in (d) line 10, by inserting after the word "years," the words "of a Tramroad two years."
  New Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 166:—
  Ordered—
  "That every Bill by which a Railway, Canal, or Tramroad Company is incorporated shall contain a Clause to the following effect:—
  "Section 24 of 'The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," and any enactment which may be passed in the present or any future Session of Parliament extending or modifying that enactment shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to the Company in all respects as if it were one of the Companies to which the provisions of the said enactment in terms applied. Provided that the time within which the revised schedule of maximum rates and charges prescribed by the said section shall be submitted to the Board of Trade shall be three years from the date of the passing of this Act, or such further time as the Board of Trade may permit."
  Ordered, That the said Order be a-Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 167 was read, and amended:—
  In line 37, by inserting after the word "otherwise" the words—
  "And the Committee on the Bill shall report to the House whether or not they have allowed such interest."
  By leaving out lines 47 to 52.
  Standing Order 168B was read, and amended, by leaving out, in line 4, the words "Regulation of Railways Acts, 1873 and 1874," and inserting the' words "Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1873 and 1888."
  New Standing Order to follow Standing Order 168B:—
  168C. Ordered—
  "That in every Tramroad Bill the length of so much of any Tramroad as is to be constructed along any street or road, or upon any street or road, or upon any waste or open ground by the side of any street or road, shall be set forth in miles, furlongs, chains, and links or yards, or decimals of a chain, in the clause describing the works."
  Ordered, "That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House."
  Standing Order 175 was read, and amended, in line 1, by leaving out the words "confirming of," and inserting the words "restoring any."
  Standing Order 194 was read, and amended, in line 1, by leaving out the words "Metropolitan Board of Works," and inserting the words "London County Council."
  Standing Order 202 was read, and amended, by leaving out from the beginning of the Order to the word "and," inclusive, in line 6.
  Standing Order 207 was read, and amended, in line 3, by inserting after the word "amendment," the words "or any Motion relating to a Private Bill."

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
  SIR J. COREY SIR J. COREY (Armagh, Mid), moved for a Return—
  "Giving the number of Arrests for Drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin, the cities of Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, and the town of Belfast, on Sundays, between the 1st day of May 1888 and the 30th day of April 1889, both days inclusive, the Arrests to be given from 8 a.m. on Sundays until 8 a.m. on Mondays; and similar Returns for the rest of Ireland from the 30th day of April 1887 to the 30th day of April 1888 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 381, of Session 1888.")
  MR. SEXTON: In connection with this subject, I think it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would state, in view of the fact that the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill is included in the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the former Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: Her Majesty's Government sincerely hope they may be able to pass the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill this Session. But they have provided against the contingency by inserting it in the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. In case, therefore, the Sunday Closing Bill is not passed it will be thus continued for another year.
  Return ordered.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 339.)
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.) moved for a Return showing precedents for appointing public officers to the Commission of the Peace for purposes connected with the discharge of their public duties.
  MR. SEXTON: This is a Return which has been put down by the Chief Secretary in accordance with a demand
  1320
  made some time ago for information in regard to the extraordinary course which has been pursued in regard to the appointment of certain public officers to the Commission of the Peace. The House is aware that some time ago the Lord Lieutenant discharged certain gentlemen from the position of Resident Magistrates and that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland thereupon appointed them upon the Commission of the Peace so that by a side wind they continue to receive their salaries without being subjected to the constitutional review of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: If there is any opposition to this Return it must stand over.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I oppose it.
  Motion postponed.

QUESTIONS.

  FACTORY INSPECTORSHIPS—MR. GEO BATEMAN.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Mr. George Bateman has made an application for an inspectorship of factories; and, whether there is any prospect of his obtaining such an appointment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative, but at the present time there is no vacancy on the staff of the Inspectors of Factories.

  THE 4TH HUSSARS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 4th Hussars are about to be quartered in Royal Barracks, Dublin; and, whether the sanitary condition of the barrack is now considered satisfactory?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: There has been no question recently as to the healthiness of the cavalry barrack in the Royal Barracks. The other portions, Royal and Palatine Square, have been temporarily evacuated. The depôt of the 4th Hussars will be quartered in the cavalry barrack; and probably the

  1321
  regiment itself will be moved in at the close of the drill season, about the end of September.

  IRELAND—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, although the necessary notices to have a fair rent fixed have been served by certain tenant farmers in Dromin Division, Ardee Union, County Louth, so far back as October, 1887, the cases remain unheard, while cases connected with other divisions of the same union in which originating notices are of more recent date have been already decided; whether there is any special reason for the distinction thus made; and, whether any arrangement can be made by which the cases from Dromin can be heard at the approaching Land Court Session in Drogheda?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the list of cases from the union of Ardee, which was issued about two months ago, contained all the cases in which applications had been received from that union up to and including October 31, 1887. The cases on the list were grouped according to the electoral divisions in which they were situate for convenience of inspection; but otherwise no special distinction was made either in the selection of cases or in arranging the order in which the electoral divisions were placed. The Sub-Commission sat on July 31 and took up the hearing of some of the cases in the order in which they appeared on the list; but time did not permit of all the cases listed being heard at the sitting referred to. The chairman then proposed to fix another sitting during the month; but the solicitors engaged almost unanimously objected to have a further sitting before the vacation, and at their request the remaining cases on the list were postponed until after the vacation.

  COUNCIL OF THE INDIAN EMPIRE.
  MR. BRADLAUOH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, when the Queen was proclaimed Empress of India at the Delhi Assembly held on 1st January 1877, it was stated by Lord Lytton, then Viceroy of India, that Her Majesty—
  1322
  "Being desirous of seeking from time to time the counsel and advice of the Princes and Chiefs of India, and of thus associating them with the paramount Power in a manner honourable to themselves and advantageous to the general interests of the Empire."
  as one mark of the notable occasion, on which the Princes and Chiefs of India were assembled together, constituted a Council of the Empire to which, among others, 20 feudatory Princes were nominated; whether the Council has ever met for the transaction of business; and, if so whether he lay upon the Table of the House a record of its proceedings; if not, whether the Secretary of State will explain why a solemn promise of the Queen Empress has been wholly ignored, and a reform which promised to be of the greatest possible benefit in securing the stability of British rule in India has not been carried out; and whether, in view of the loyal and patriotic spirit displayed by the Princes in making provision for the defence of the North-Western Frontier of India, the Secretary of State will take immediate steps to give effect to Her Majesty's gracious desire to associate the Princes and Chiefs of India—
  "With the paramount Power, in a manner honourable to themselves and advantageous to the general interests of the Empire?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: At the Delhi Assembly on the 1st January, 1877, the Viceroy appointed 20 Counsellors of the Empress. Of these eight only were natives. 12 being Europeans. The title of Counsellor of the Empress was honorary. The holders were not to form part of any organised body, and were not to be summoned for collective deliberation, though on occasions of emergency consultations between the Viceroy and one or more of the Counsellors might strengthen the hands of the Executive Government. The Council have, according to the original design, never met for the transaction of business; but the Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that successive Viceroys have failed to avail themselves of the advantage of consultation with the individual Counsellors when occasion has arisen for their advice. It is the settled policy of the Government of India to associate the Princes and Chiefs of India with the Government of Her Majesty, and no

  1323
  more conspicious instance of the success of this policy can be cited than the recent arrangements repecting the Native Armies and the defence of the North-West Frontier.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there are now any native Princes and Chiefs who are Councillors?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; I did not say so. I said there were eight appointed in 1877.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: Are those eight alive now or not?
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Gentleman wants information upon that subject, perhaps he will give notice and put another question.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to say that, in reference to the answer of the hon. Gentleman to my question, I will renew the subject on the Indian Budget.

  THE CHANDALIN MAHARANI OF REWA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that the Chandalin Maharani of Rewa presented in June last a Memorial to the Viceroy' of India, setting forth her personal sufferings and the serious grievances endured by her since the death of her late husband, particularly in regard to the control and society of her son the minor Maharaja, and also setting out in detail alleged excessive increase of cost in the management of the affairs of the State without corresponding benefit accruing; and, whether he can inform the House whether any, or what, answer has been made by the Viceroy to such Memorial?
  SIR J. GORST: A Memorial of the Viceroy would be, in regular course, dealt with in India, and not forwarded to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has, therefore, no official information on the subject. The Maharani of Rewa could appeal to the Secretary of State if dissatisfied with any order passed by the Viceroy on her memorial; but no such appeal has been received.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State has no information. Surely the Secretary of State knows officially, or otherwise, that such a Memorial was presented to the Viceroy of India, and
  1324
  if so, is that consistent with the answer given to me the other day in regard to the position of the Maharani of Rewa?
  SIR J. GORST: It is quite consistent.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made as to this particular Memorial, because I shall deem it my duty to raise the question again?
  SIR J. GORST: The attention of the Government of India will be directed to the matter by the hon. Member's question.

  DECORATING HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Fir3t Lord of the Admiralty if it is true that some Naval Officers are in the habit of painting and decorating the outside of Her Majesty's ships at their own private expense; and, if so, will he prohibit a practice which may constitute a heavy tax on the poorer Officers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,: The establishment of paint material allowed to Her Majesty's ships is sufficient to paint the whole of the outside surfaces three times a year; and, in addition to this, the Commanders-in-Chief are authorised to allow an extra supply when they have satisfied themselves of the necessity for it. I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of zealous officers in their wish to supplement the allowance at their own expense.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the noble Lord give a direct answer to the question? He has given a very nice answer, but it has no bearing upon the question. Will the noble Lord kindly answer specifically whether officers do paint?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I thought I had answered the question of the hon. Gentleman, and had supplemented it with further information. I believe that certain naval officers are in the habit of supplementing the public funds allowed to them for the purpose of decorating their ships, and those most prone to the practice are unmarried men.

  IRELAND—THE DUBLIN UNIONS AND THE CATTLE DISEASE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it

  1325
  would be possible to throw the £8,000 demanded by the Privy Council from the Dublin Unions on the General Cattle Diseases Fund, considering that it was in the interests of the entire country that the Dublin cattle were slaughtered by order of the Privy Council?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Even if the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member were deemed advisable, in regard to which I cannot now express any opinion, it could only be carried out by further legislation. But, as stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a question put to him on July 15, the general subject will be considered by the Government during the recess.
  In reply to Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I do not think we can treat this question entirely apart from the general question of how far the Unions are to be made responsible when pleuro-pneumonia is existing in the district.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Estimates.

  SEIZURE OF FISHING NETS.
  DR. CAMEEON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the seizure of five fishing nets belonging to Martin Kennedy and Lachlan Curry, fishermen, in Loch-in-daal, on the night July 23rd-24th, by Major Wise, a lessee of certain fishings in Islay; whether it is true, as stated, that the seizure of nets referred to took place half a mile beyond the protected line, and was consequently illegal; whether it is true that a fortnight after the seizure of the nets Major Wise had not lodged any complaint with the criminal authorities, but retained the nets, and refused to deliver them to their owners; and if, on inquiry, it appears that the appropriation and retention of the nets was illegal, in view of the frequency of similar treatment of fishermen by fishing tenants in the Highlands, he will instruct the Procurator Fiscal to institute proceedings in this case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: Inquiries are being made into the circumstances
  1326
  of this seizure of nets, but I am not yet in a position to answer the question. I would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat the question next week.

  UNITED STATES CONSULAR CHARGES.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the leading article in the New York Evening Post, of 18th July, on the subject of United States consular charges on shipments from this country to the United States of America, in which it is stated:—
  "No Consular officer makes any mention of the charge of 2s. 6d. for declaration fee in the reports of fees received. … It is the gossip that the British notary, as a condition of his selection to be the notary at the American Consulate, divides these large aggregate fees with the Consul, and they go to swell the great perquisites of that officer, of which so much has been heard of late;"
  whether he is aware that on shipments from Germany to the United States no declaration fee is charged; whether he is aware that the total amount levied on shipments from this country exceeds £2,500 a year; whether it is a fact that last year the American Consuls ceased charging the fee of 2s. 6d., but that shortly after the appointment of fresh Consuls a few months back the charge was re imposed; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve British shippers of these unfair charges?
  THE UNDEE SECEETAEY OF STATE FOR FOEEIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: I am indebted to the hon. Member for sending me the article referred to. According to the information in our possession and the statements of the American Government, no declaration fee is charged in Germany when it is practically impossible to procure the attendance of a functionary qualified to administer oaths. We do not know the total amount levied on shipments in this country; nor are we aware that last year the American Consuls ceased to charge the fee; this, according to what I have before stated, would mean that they had ceased to insist upon the sworn declaration. It does not appear that any change in the existing state of things can be effected without a modification of American Law.

  IRELAND—LAW AND POLICE—CASE OF JOHN KINSELLA.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make inquiry into the case of a prisoner named John Kinsella, of Mourne Abbey, near Mallow, who was sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude in August 1882, for a violent assault on John Sullivan, of Kilavullen, during a drunken brawl, and who is now confined in Downpatrick Convict Prison; if he is aware that John Sullivan has been in good health ever since; and, in view of this fact (if true), and that the said John Sullivan signed a memorial in 1882 to the then Lord Lieutenant, Earl Spencer, praying for the prisoner's release, and that Kinsella's aged father, of whom he was the sole support, is now in Mallow Union Workhouse, and, further, that he has already spent seven years in penal servitude, will he bring the case under the notice of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to the prisoner's release?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The convict John Kinsella was sentenced with three others for the attempted murder of John Sullivan. They beat him on the head with iron bars and sticks, and left him as dead. I am not aware of Sullivan's present condition of health. No memorial on behalf of this convict was under the consideration of Lord Spencer. Memorials on his behalf, however, were considered by Lord Carnarvon and Lord Londonderry, the decision in each case being that the law should take its course. I cannot undertake to act as suggested with a view to his release.

  POLICE PROTECTION—CASE OF JOHN GALWEY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the reports in the Cork papers of the 9th instant of a summons for trespass brought by Mr. John Galwey against Mr. John Devane Charleville, County Cork, from which it appears that the summons was dismissed by the Magistrates; is he aware that on the day following the trial, John Galwey went to the field (which was the subject of the summons) accompanied by two police constables armed with revolvers, and assaulted a mason engaged in
  1328
  putting up a gate; and, is he aware that the said John Galwey goes about, accompanied by two armed policemen; and, if so, what is the reason alleged for this protection?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the newspaper report referred to is not accurate, but merely a very imperfect summary of the proceedings. Mr. Galwey summoned Mr. Devane for trespass on a field which he claims as his property, but his right to which is disputed on behalf of the townspeople of Charleville. A bonâ fide question of title having arisen, the Magistrates marked the case "no jurisdiction." They did not dismiss it in the sense suggested in the question. The police report that it is not a fact that on the next day Galwey assaulted a mason who was engaged in putting up a gate, but that he put his hand on the gate post and threatened to pull it down. He was accompanied by two policemen, one of whom had a revolver. Mr. Galwey is thus protected when he goes to this field—but not on other occasions.
  MR. FLYNN: Is this man Galwey entitled to police protection, and to be escorted by armed policemen, when engaged on the assertion of a private claim?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot lay down a general proposition of that character, but it is part of the duty off the police to see that the peace is preserved if they are of opinion that a breach of it is threatened.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. FLYNN,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I can pronounce no opinion as to the rights of the different parties; I have no opinion.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland what is the minimum all round per-centage required to obtain a pass in the B.A. honour course of the Royal University of Ireland; what is the minimum per-centage on any particular subject in cases where the candidate obtains the requisite per-centage on all the subjects taken together; were the papers last year less difficult than this year; were passes obtained this year on a less average than last year; and, if so, why; and, whether, in any case of petition or representation by a

  1329
  candidate, the Senate of the Royal University directs a re-perusal of his examination papers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The secretaries of the Royal University Report that there is no general all-round standard—the marking varying according to the general character and difficulty of the subject. Neither honour nor pass degrees are awarded on all-round per-centages. The secretaries cannot take it upon themselves to say whether the questions set at the various degree examinations this year were more or less difficult than those set last year, but they are of opinion that degrees were not granted on a lower standard this year. The Senate has not on any occasion found it necessary to direct a re-perusal of the answer of any candidate.

  REFUSAL TO HOLD AN INQUEST.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Dr. M'Grath, coroner for County Tyrone, refused to hold an inquest on the body of a woman named Murphy, who died suddenly at Caledon on 12th July last, and under what circumstances the refusal was made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the coroner expressed himself as satisfied that the death was due to natural causes and that no inquest was necessary. As I understand, the police did not consider that there was the slightest suspicion of foul play, although under the circumstances of the death they were anxious that an inquest should be held.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, on 18th July, the honourable Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Long), as Secretary to the Local Government Board, wrote to the Banbury Board of Guardians, acting as the Rural Sanitary Authority, calling their attention to the unsatisfied demand for allotments at Hook Norton, and to the fact that, under "The Allotments Act, 1887," it is the duty of the Sanitary Authority to provide a sufficient number of allotments by purchase or hire, and, if they cannot
  1330
  be obtained by agreement, to purchase land compulsorily; whether he is aware that it appears from the report in the Banbury Guardian of 8th August, that, upon such letter being read, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians said—
  "I would send the Board's compliments to the Local Government Board, and say we are perfectly aware of everything in that letter. It's a most ridiculous letter. … We are perfectly aware about the Act. We have read it till we are sick of it;"
  whether he is aware that not only at Hook Norton, but at Farnborough, Mollington, Horley, and other villages in the Banbury Union, there still exist admitted demands for allotments, which have repeatedly been urged upon the Sanitary Authority, but which now remain unsatisfied in consequence of the majority of the Authority having refused to put the powers of the Act into force; and whether he will take any steps to induce the Chairman of the Banbury Board of Guardians to treat communications from the Local Government Board in a more respectful manner, and to compel the Guardians to carry out the provisions of the Act, and to provide allotments at Hook Norton, Farnborough, Mollington, and Horley, and in every parish in the Banbury Union in which there now exists an unsatisfied demand for allotments?
  THE PEESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: It is the case that a letter was written to the Banbury Rural Sanitary Authority in reply to their statement that there was a desire for allotments by the labouring population of Hook Norton, but that there were considerable difficulties in obtaining suitable land in a convenient position. In that letter it was pointed out that if there was a demand for allotments, and such allotments could not be obtained at a reasonable rent, and on reasonable conditions by voluntary arrangements, it became the duty of the Sanitary Authority under and subject to the provisions of the Allotments Act, 1887, to purchase or hire suitable land which might be available, whether within or without their district, adequate to provide a sufficient number of allotments; and further, that if the Authority could not procure land by agreement for the purpose, they might under Section 3 of the Act apply for

  1331
  power to put in force the compulsory clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts in order to obtain such land. I have no information as to the observations said to have been made by the Chairman of the Sanitary Authority when the letter of the Board was read. The reply which the Board received was to the effect that the Sanitary Authority had endeavoured to obtain suitable land for allotments at Hook Norton, and that they would continue to do so. I am informed that the Chairman has been indefatigable in his endeavours to pro cure land for allotments, and that at Hornton, with a view to prevent difficulty, he took land himself and let it out in allotments, and further that when some land was offered for sale at Claydon he would have purchased it with the same view had the price been, in his opinion, reasonable. Applications for allotments have been made by persons living at Hook Norton, Farnborough, Mollington, Horley, and other villages in the Union, and I am informed that the Sanitary Authority have made great efforts to procure land for this purpose, but without success. It is stated that, no doubt, allotments would be accepted in the villages if they could be taken in close proximity to the dwellings of the applicants, and at very moderate rents. It is satisfactory to be able to add that, as I am informed, the Act has been the means of calling the attention of landed proprietors to the desire for allotments, and that in several parishes in the Union land has been let to applicants in allotments.
  MR. COBB: Do the Inspectors who go down to make inquiries in these cases see any people who are dissatisfied in the matter, or only the authorities?
  MR. RITCHIE: They see all people who, in their opinion, can throw any light on the subject.
  MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the Inspector who goes down to make inquiries to see me before he goes there?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; that would be quite unusual.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. COBB,
  MR. RITCHIEsaid: On the whole, I believe that the Sanitary Authority endeavoured to do its duty.

  LINE OF BATTLE SHIPS.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB&c): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the average total complement, officers and men, of line of battle ships in 1858–9; what was the average total amount of annual pay and allowances of the officers and men of the accountant branch borne in those ships in 1858–9; what is now the average total complement, officers and men, of battle ships; and, what is the average total amount of annual pay and allowances of the officers and men of the accountant branch now borne in those ships?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In order to give the comparison between the pay and allowances of the accountant branch in 1858–9 and the present time I have selected the Marlborough and Trafalgar as representative ships of the two periods. The complement of the Marlborough was 1,100 officers and men, and that of the Trafalgar is 536. In the former ship the number of officers and men in the accountant branch was 9, at an annual cost of £1,199; in the latter ship the number is 7, at an annual cost of £1,202.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Have not the expenses been doubled?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The expenses are about double per man.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, since the discussion which took place in December last on the Estimates, the position of the officers under the Scotch Fishery Board has been under the consideration of the Treasury; and, whether it is the intention of the Government, in view of the many and various new duties that have of recent years been put upon them, to sanction some increase to their salaries and allowances?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Memorial of the Fishery Board Officers is under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland; but in view of legislation which may affect their duties materially in the future, he is not yet in a position to make any recommendation to the Treasury.

  IRELAND—THE LIMAVAPY SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has heard any complaints as to the management of the Limavady Savings Bank, to the effect that moneys are paid out sometimes without authority from those whose names are registered as the depositors, and that moneys are lodged in the names of persons without their knowledge, with the object of enabling individuals to have large sums of money in the Bank and at their disposal under various names; and, whether he will order some inquiry to be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I have heard no such complaints as those to which the hon. Member refers. If he has any information on the subject and will communicate either with me or with the National Debt Commissioners inquiries shall be made.

  MR. HORACE TOWNSEND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state in what capacity Mr. Horace Townsend acted when he wrote the letter regarding the Ponson by estate to the secretary of the Land Corporation, Ireland, which contained statements as to the excess of the rents above the value of the land?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information on the subject.

  GREEN STREET COURTHOUSE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the observations of the Hon. Mr. Justice Harrison as to the state of Green Street Courthouse, and to the fact that the learned Judge suffered from blood poisoning after a prolonged Assize there; is it the case that for years complaints have been constant as to the unsuitable and unsanitary condition of this Court; that the strongest feeling prevails as to its inconvenient situation; and, will the Government obtain an estimate of the cost of providing for the erection of a suitable Court near or in the Four Courts?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The facts are correctly stated in the question. I find that the course suggested in the concluding paragraph of the question was taken in 1883 by the Government of the day. The Board of Works estimated the costs of the building, including the purchase of the site, at £40,000. Of this sum the Government agreed to pay £13,500, or a little over one-third. Having obtained Returns of the number of cases entered at Green Street from the city and county respectively, the Government proposed that the remainder of the costs should be borne in the proportion of one-third by the county and two-thirds by the city, and agreed that two-thirds of the amount so contributed should be advanced by the Board of Works by way of loan. The Grand Jury of the county accepted the proposals of the Government, which were also in the first instance acceded to by the Corporation of the city. Subsequently differences arose, into which I cannot enter in detail, the result of which was the proposals were ultimately rejected by the Corporation. A Memorial on the subject has been recently addressed to the Lord Lieutenant by the Incorporated Law Society, and I venture to express a hope that some arrangement may be come to with the Corporation which would enable the Government to carry into effect some such proposal as that which was made in 1883.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the Corporation of Dublin have to pay the Recorder and other officers who are required to sit in the Court, is not the hon. and learned Gentleman of opinion that they should have some voice in the matter?
  MR. MADDEN: That portion of the expenditure which is not borne by the Treasury, is allocated between the city and the county, and it is based on the amount of business contributed by each respectively. I venture to hope that some arrangement may be possible.

  LAND COMMISSION—CASES AT ATHY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on 13th August the two lay Sub-Commissioners sat for land cases at Athy without the legal Commissioner, who was absent through illness in his family,

  1335
  and that the professional gentlemen engaged in the cases protested against the arrangement; can he explain why the Chief Commissioner did not send a substitute for the legal Commissioner; is there any precedent for the two lay members of a Sub-Commission deciding legal questions by themselves; and, will steps be taken to prevent a recurrence of this practice when fatality prevents the legal Sub-Commissioner acting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that in the unavoidable absence of the legal Sub-Commissioner, Mr. Kane, two lay Sub-Commissioners attached to his Commission sat to hear cases under a special delegation at Athy on the 13th inst. The Chief Commissioners did not send a substitute for Mr. Kane, as no other legal Sub-Commissioner was available at the time. The two lay members were not authorised to hear cases involving legal questions, which they were directed to postpone until they were joined by a legal Sub-Commissioner. This course has been frequently adopted under similar circumstances. There is nothing either in the Act or the rules to render necessary the presence of the legal member of the Sub-Commission.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right Ion. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction has been created among practitioners in consequence of the appointment of two lay Commissioners only?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That could not be so in a case where the arrangement was entirely by the consent of the parties concerned.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the day school for 400 girls, provided by Sections 64 and 65 of the Christ's Hospital Scheme, approved by the Committee of Council on Education more than a year ago, is likely to be proceeded with; and whether, seeing that middle class schools for girls have lately been approved, one for 250 at Stamford Hill (actually commenced), and another by Scheme 660, for 400 at or near Bishopsgate Without, it is still intended that the said
  1336
  "Girls' day school shall he maintained in the County of Middlesex at a distance of not more than three miles, measured in a straight line, from the Royal Exchange;"
  notwithstanding the great needs of the Metropolis south of the Thamas, as set forth in the Memorial presented to him by the 24 Members of Parliament for South London, and which up to the present has been ignored?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The Memorial to which the hon. Member refers did not reach me until the scheme had been sanctioned by the Department. The further progress of the scheme is now beyond the control of the Committee of Council, and must await the decision of the Judicial Committee in respect of those points which were the subjects of the recent appeal.

  THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the 9th instant, four members of the Salvation Army, who had been convicted of causing an obstruction by preaching in the square at Whitchurch, were handcuffed, and were in that condition conveyed from Overton to Winchester Prison, notwithstanding the protest of the defendants' solicitor to Mr. Joseph Waters, the Superintendent of Police at Kingsclere, who was present; and whether he will take effectual steps to secure obedience to his own declaration that, unless the police had reasonable grounds for fearing the Salvationists would run away, handcuffs should not be used?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. I am informed by the Chief Constable that the fact is as stated, and that the Superintendent, in the exercise of his discretion, handcuffed the prisoners, because it came to his knowledge that the friends of the prisoners had telegraphed to Winchester that they were coming, and he feared a repetition of what had taken place on the 16th of July, on which occasion an escort of police convoying two Salvationists from Whitchurch to Winchester had great difficulty in preventing a rescue of the prisoners by a large crowd of sympathisers. On that occasion a complaint was made to me as to the use of handcuffs, and I called the

  1337
  attention of the Chief Constable to the declaration quoted, so that he is in possession of my views. I can only lay down general principles for the guidance of the police, who must act according to the circumstances of each case.

  CONSERVATIVE REGISTRATION AGENTS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Panton, an official in the Probate Court at Lincoln, and in receipt of a salary from Somerset House, is the secretary of the Conservative Association of that town, and that he has been in the habit of attending the Revising Barrister's Court at Lincoln as the registration agent of the Tory Party; and whether Mr. Panton is justified, as a Civil servant, in acting as the secretary and as the registration agent of the Tory Party?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware what post Mr. Charles Panton holds in the Probate Court at Lincoln, or whether he is or is not a Civil servant; but I have no hesitation in saying that no permanent member of the Civil Service, who is required to give his whole time to the country, should act as secretary or registration agent to any political Party.

  TYPHOID IN INDIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India; (1) whether the Government of India have discovered anything throwing light on the causes of the great spread in Indian European cantonments in recent years of a disease formerly unknown in India—namely, typhoid, and its prevalence last cold season in the camps of exercise at places hitherto deemed the most healthy; (2) whether the disease has at all extended to the Native Army and Native population; and (3) whether anything is being done to combat it, and guard against its recurrence next season?
  SIR J. GORST: (1) No, but the latest returns show that the disease received a check. (2) The Native Troops are particularly exempt from the disease. (3) In consequence of the recent epidemic of typhoid fever at certain stations, the Government of India, in March last,
  1338
  appointed a Medical Committee to inquire on the spot into the cause of the disease.

  CANADIAN PACIFIC ROUTE TO HONG KONG.
  SIR GEOEGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury by what calculation it is stated in the Treasury Minute of 18th July that the new Canadian-Pacific route to Hong Kong saves several days, as compared with the Suez route, for postal purposes; what is the present contract time for letters from London to Hong Kong viâ Suez, and what will be the time by the new route, the Atlantic voyage and stoppages included; who are the parties who have continually pressed on the Treasury the importance of the new route for military and naval purposes; and whether the Secretary of State for War and Board of Admiralty have done so; if so, for what particular purposes; what the cost of each soldier or sailor sent by the new route is calculated to be, in addition to the subsidy; and, whether to India the alternative route by the Cape of Good Hope is quicker, much easier, and infinitely cheaper than the Canadian?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am afraid that in the desire to be concise the Treasury Minute is not quite so clear as it might be; the saving of time referred to is really on certain sections of the line—namely, between London and Shanghai, and London and Yokohama. The times are: Shanghai—eastern route, shortest 37½ days; longest, 42½; western route, shortest, 30½; longest, 32½; the saying being seven and ten days respectively. Hong Kong—eastern route, shortest, 32½ days; longest, 37½; western route, shortest, 34; longest, 36. To Yokohama—the eastern route is 15 to 18 days longer than the western route; but the P. and O. service is not a contract service to Yokohama. The importance of the Canadian Pacific route for military and naval purposes was urged upon the Government by Members of Parliament, public bodies, and members of both professions, and was one of the factors that led Her Majesty's Government, including the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, to agree to the grant of a subsidy. I am afraid that I should be travelling outside the limits

  1339
  of an answer if I were to specify the purposes aimed at; but their general nature is sufficiently obvious. As regards the cost of the conveyance of troops, I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 9 of the second schedule to the contract. To the figures then given would have to be added the cost of transport to Halifax or Quebec, which would depend on the arrangements that might be made at the time. I believe the alternative route by the Cape might possibly be somewhat cheaper and easier, but certainly not so quick or advantageous in other respects. I believe that a letter was addressed to the Prime Minister in favour of a subsidy, signed by nearly 300 Members of this House, and I am told the number would have been increased if more time had been afforded.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask on what authority the Secretary to the Treasury says the route to India by the Cape is not shorter and quicker than the western route by way of America?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think I said that.

  IRELAND-MOONLIGHTING AT KANTURK.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Report has reached the Government of an attack made upon the house of James Tobin, living near Kanturk, on the 8th August; whether it is a fact that Tobin's son has been working on evicted farms in the neighbourhood: whether any motive for the attack has been alleged; and, whether any persons have been made amenable to justice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that a little after midnight on August 7 a large party of men with their faces disguised, and being armed with hurleys, broke into the house of James Tobin, near Kanturk, and assaulted one of his sons and his wife, who received rather a bad cut on the top of her head. The attack is believed to have been made because one of Tobin's sons has been working latterly on evicted farms, and that members of his family are suspected of having assisted caretakers in procuring provisions. Seven men have been arrested.
  MR. FLYNN: Is this a district in which the National League has been suppressed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  LAND UNDER THE ALLOTMENTS ACT.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is true that the Guardians of the Westbourne Union, Sussex, have taken land under "The Allotments Act, 1887," at a rental of £2 per acre; whether the land was hired from one of the Guardians; and, whether they are charging the labourers of Great Stoughton after the rate of £4 per acre, though the average rent of similar land in the neighbourhood is about 15s. per acre?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have received communications with reference to the land in question, and they directed one of their Inspectors to visit the district with the view of obtaining information as to the facts. It appears that the applicants for the allotments, through the clergyman of the parish, named two particular fields, parts of which they wished to be taken for allotments. These fields were the best land in the parish. The authority assented and came to terms with the tenants, who agreed to give up three acres and two and a half acres respectively. As the tenants were giving up parts of their best fields and what was practically accommodation land, the tithe rent of which was 4s. an acre, the authority considered that they were justified in paying a rent of 40s. an acre. They then appointed a committee to consider what should be charged for enclosing, road making, compensation for crops, and rates and taxes, instructing them to fix a sum which could be maintained before any competent valuer. The committee reported that an additional 40s. per acre should be charged for the extra outlay, making a total of £4 an acre to the hirers of the allotments. Forty shillings an acre for the incidental expenses appears high; but the committee explained that they had taken into account the probability or certainty of some of the allotments being unlet and thrown on their hands.

  1341
  Upon the facts ascertained by the Inspector, he came to the conclusion that the Sanitary Authority had honestly endeavoured to provide allotments, and that it would be difficult to prove that, under the circumstances of the case, £4 an acre was too high a rental.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Penrith Division (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether Mr. Lea, the Trustee of the Broughall Charity land, after being directed by the Charity Commissioners to carry out the provisions of "The Allotments Act, 1882," still declines to take any action in the matter; and, if so, whether the Charity Commissioners have taken any steps to compel the said Trustee to carry out the provisions of the Act, as directed; and whether the Commissioners will forthwith appoint other Trustees for the charity land in question?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners having been informed that up to the 9th of August Mr. Lea had failed to carry out the provisions of the Allotments Act, 1882, served him personally, through their solicitor, with a compulsory order under Section 10 of the said Act. No formal application has yet been made for the appointment of new trustees; but the matter is under consideration, with a view to adopt means for securing the letting of the land in allotments with the least possible delay.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: May I ask whether in appointing new trustees the Charity Commissioners will consider the propriety of selecting one or more suitable persons from the labouring classes?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir; certainly.

  DANGEROUS OVERHEAD WIRES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board to what kinds of regulations and what classes of nuisances the following provision of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 and Local Government Act of 1888 applies, if Local Authorities cannot make bye-laws against dangerous overhead wires across public thoroughfares and dangerous barbed wires along public paths:—
  "The council may from time make such byelaws as to them seem meet for the good rule and Government of the borough (or county), and for the prevention and suppression of
  1342
  nuisances not already punishable in a summary manner, and may thereby appoint such fines not exceeding five pounds as they deem necessary.
  MR. RITCHIE: With respect to nuisances which come within the provisions of Section 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, it is very rarely that the Local Government are applied to to sanction bye-laws for the suppression of nuisances under the section referred to. One of the most recent cases related to nuisances arising from the burning of bricks or coke within a borough. As regards bye-laws made by a Local Authority for the good rule and government of a borough, these take effect subject to the provisions of the section without any reference to the Board. The Board find from a recent series submitted to the Home Secretary, that they relate to such matters as shouting, &c., for the purpose of hawking goods to the annoyance of the inhabitants, singing or playing any noisy instrument after having been requested to desist on account of illness, loitering about the carriage way or footway of a public street so as to prevent free passage, riotous or indecent behaviour, posting advertisements or handbills on churches, chapels, &c., without the consent of the owner or occupier thereof, &c., &c. Of course, if the Council of any county or borough consider that the circumstances connected with overhead wires, or barbed wire fences, in their district are of such an exceptional character as to bring the case within the provisions of the section as to the good rule and government of the county or borough, it will be open to them to submit bye-laws to the Secretary of State on the subject, who will then give his decision upon the question.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will do nothing to prejudge the question?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am open to consider any bye-law that may be submitted to me.

  THE DUBLIN RATES.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Collector General of Rates for Dublin, or the Auditor of the Local Government Board, has ever made any Report,

  1343
  either to the Lord Lieutenant or to himself, as Chief Secretary, on certain official irregularities of Mr. R. G. Pilkington, Inspector, in the Collector General's Office, of vacant and otherwise unrateable premises, the irregularities consisting of his giving his official certificate that the rates on certain premises were irrecoverable, when, as a matter of fact, the said rates had been twice paid, once by landlord of premises and once by tenant of same, to a collector of rates, who fraudulently retained them; whether, if no such Report has been made either to the Lord Lieutenant or himself, he will call upon the Collector General of Rates to report on such grave official irregularities as above indicated, and direct a general inquiry into the matter; and, whether the defaulting collector above alluded to was ever prosecuted, or his sureties proceeded against.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Neither the Collector General nor the Auditor has made a Report to the Government of the irregularities on the part of Mr. Pilkington other than the Report received from the former in reply to the hon. Member's question a few days ago when it appeared that in the opinion of his Department there was nothing in Mr. Pilkington's official conduct calling for censure. The Acting Collector General reports that a warrant was obtained for the arrest of the defaulting collector, who, however, managed to leave the country before his arrest could be effected. His surety was proceeded against, and has paid the amount of the defalcations in full, together with the costs.
  DR. KENNY: Is it the fact that the rates were twice paid on these premises?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that something of the kind did occur, but an error of this kind is sometimes inevitable.
  DR. KENNY: Was a Report made to the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no cognisance of the fact.

  NAVAL RESERVE DRILL BATTERY AT BELFAST.
  SIR JAMES CORRY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether money has been voted for the Naval Reserve Drill Battery at Belfast; whether the lease of a site has been
  1344
  arranged with Belfast Harbour Commissioners; and when the work will be commenced?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Money has been voted in the Civil Service Estimates for this year for the erection of a Naval Reserve Drill Battery at Belfast, but the lease of the site has not yet been finally arranged. On the strong representations of the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves the commencement of the work has been suspended for a time, as questions have arisen which might, in the future, render the site a less desirable one for the battery than was at first supposed. Under these circumstances, the Admiralty are of opinion that it would be more prudent to make further inquiries before actually commencing the work.

  THE HIGHLAND MAILS.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the amount of the annual subsidy paid to the Highland Railway Company for carrying Her Majesty's mails; whether there has been a recent increase of that subsidy, and, if so, what is its date and amount; whether the Highland Railway Company has given an adequate, or any, increased postal facilities in consequence of such increase of subsidy; whether postal facilities on that part of the Highland Railway system to the north of Tain are not less now than they were six years ago through the withdrawal of the sorting van; and whether he will use his influence to get back for the public of the district referred to the postal facilities which they enjoyed before the increase of the said subsidy?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The payment made to the Highland Railway Company for mail service is now £55,526 a year under an award in arbitration before the Earl of Derby last November. Previously the payment was £43,080 a year. The services for which the higher amount is paid are practically the same as those which existed previously to the award. A greater train mileage, however, has by statutory notice been brought under the control of the Postmaster General. No sorting carriage proceeds beyond Tain, and the postal

  1345
  facilities of places north of that town are now somewhat less than they previously were. The outlay already incurred in conveying the mails to the North of Scotland is so large that I regret that I am not prepared to incur further expense in providing facilities which the amount of correspondence to be benefited would not warrant in view of the enormous sums now paid to the Highland Railway Company.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I will call attention to this matter on the Post Office Estimates.

  THE HOLYWOOD FORESHORE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that the deposit of seaweed enfiltrated by sewage on the Holywood foreshore was described by a medical man, in evidence given before the Holywood Petty Sessions on the 22nd ultimo, as most offensive, sickening, and dangerous, and that the Magistrates dismissed the summons brought by the Belfast Board of Guardians against the landlord, and intimated that they considered it the duty of the Board of Guardians to remove the nuisance; and, whether the Irish Local Government Board may now be expected to take any effective steps in the case for the protection of the public?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The Guardians appear to have referred the matter to their solicitor on the 13th instant, to advise as to their liability and power to abate the nuisance complained of.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: I do not know that the Local Government Board have any power to interfere.

  EVICTIONS ON THE CLONGOREY ESTATE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that the Relieving Officer for the Clongorey District was on 6th August served with notices that five families on the Clongorey Estate, against whom decrees for possession of their holdings were obtained at the Summer Assizes, are to be
  1346
  evicted; whether the evictions about to be enforced owe their origin to the nonpayment of arrears of rent which accrued due before the fixing of judicial rents; whether Mr. Barrington, the valuer appointed by Judge Darling, the County Court Judge of County Kildare, reported recently that, in his opinion, the rents on this estate should be reduced by 29½ per cent; whether the original demand of the tenants was 30 per cent abatement, and the abatement offered by the landlord 10 per cent; whether Judge Darling, acting on this Report of his Court Valuer, asked the agent in open Court at the last Quarter Sessions at Naas to consent to grant the reductions recommended, and, on his refusing to do so, whether the Judge stayed the execution of the decrees until October, 1891; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will permit the forces of the Crown to be employed in carrying out these evictions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question for a few days.

  MOUSSA BEY.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement that a Petition was presented to the Grand Vizier at Constantinople by a deputation of Armenians on behalf of 500 Natives of Moush, temporarily residing in Constantinople, praying for the punishment of Moussa Bey, and that six Armenian members of this deputation have been arrested and thrown into prison; and, whether Her Majesty's. Government have inquired into the matter, and received confirmation of all or any of the particulars of this statement?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Inquiry has been made, and the report, according to information from trustworthy sources, is without foundation.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to obtain the release, or, failing that, a fair and open trial of the Armenians, several of them teachers of schools, who were exiled, without trial,

  1347
  to Tripoli so long ago as 14th March, 1888?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is somewhat difficult to identify the particular case to which the hon. Member refers; but he probably alludes to a case mentioned at page 85 of Turkey, No. 1 (1889), where Her Majesty's Consul at Van reports that the Vali was said to be about to request that certain exiles should be allowed to return home, and three of these exiles are stated to be at Tripoli. As regards the intervention of Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Ambassador is authorised to make representations to the Porte whenever, in his judgment, he can do so with advantage to those concerned; but Her Majesty's Government have no control over the action of the Turkish Government in reference to the administration of the law regarding Turkish subjects.

  THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the absence of the so often promised Treasury Minute, he will explain why, after the Ridley Commission had made their Second Report, and before any action had been taken thereon, the Treasury sanctioned a scheme of classification for a subordinate Department of the Inland Revenue—namely, the "Stamps and Stores Department," last November, with salaries largely in excess of those of their colleagues of equal length of service in more important branches; and, if so, whether he is prepared to say that any scheme for the amelioration of the position of the clerks in the more important branches of the Service will date from the same period as that adopted in the Stamps and Stores Department.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have never maintained that no reform in any Department, however urgent, ought to be carried out, until the Government had taken a general decision upon this very valuable Report. The re-organization of the Stamps and Stores Department was rendered necessary by legislation which threw increased work upon that Department, and it seemed better to meet the exigencies of the case by rearrangement than by simply adding new clerks, and thereby increasing the number of pension-earning Civil ser-
  1348
  vants. The scheme sanctioned by the Treasury was an economical one. It not only provided for the additional work, but effected a reduction of £1,400 a year on the maximum cost of the establishment. With regard to other (I demur to the expression "more important") branches, I am not prepared to give the pledge which the hon. Member asks for. The question of re-organising each separate Department must be dealt with on its own merits as the necessity arises.

  DR. RICHARD NICHOLLS.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Dr. Richard Nicholls, of Navan, who was for over 17 years Civil Medical Officer to the regular troops stationed in that town, and also for some years Medical Officer to the Meath Militia, has recently, under some new regulation, been deprived of these appointments without compensation; and, whether, considering the length of Dr. Nicholls' service, he will recommend his case to the Treasury for compensation?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Dr. Nicholls held no appointment. He was employed, as medical men are all over the kingdom, to attend at contract rates detachments of troops when no Military Medical Officer should be present. A Military Medical Officer having been stationed at Navan, the necessity for Dr. Nicholls's service ceased. It has always been a condition of the employment of a civilian medical practitioner that his employment might cease at any time without notice and without the creation of any claim to compensation.

  THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since the passing of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," any applications by leaseholders were heard for that part of County Kilkenny which is in the Union of Waterford; whether notices of application by leaseholders from that district, entered before 29th September, 1887, are still unheard; whether the landlords, in those cases, have exacted the unreduced rents from which relief was sought; and, whether tenants, whose lands are valued at more than £50, have any protection from the execution

  1349
  of writs of fieri facias for the recovery of their unreduced rents?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that there are at present 56 applications in leasehold cases to fix judicial rents outstanding in that part of the Union of Waterford in the County of Kilkenny. Of these, 45 were received before and 11 since the 29th of September, 1887. No leasehold cases for the district referred to have yet been heard, as it was necessary to hear a large number of applications in respect of yearly tenancies which had been earlier received. A Sub-Commission is at present sitting in the County Kilkenny, and will, it is proposed, continue its sittings there after the vacation, taking the Waterford Union in its turn. The Commissioners are unaware whether the landlords in the cases referred to have, since the date of the tenants' applications to have judicial rents fixed, exacted the former rents from which relief was sought; but if so, and if these rents are reduced when the judicial rents are fixed, the landlords will have, pursuant to the 5th section of the Land Law Act, 1887, to allow to their tenants the difference between the amount received and the judicial rent for the period which has elapsed since the date of the tenant's application. It has been decided by the Queen's Bench Division that in the case where a tenant's holding or holdings is or are valued at more than £50 a year, the Court has not jurisdiction under the 30th section of the Act of 1887 to stay execution of writs of fieri facias.

  ELEMENTARY TEACHERS.
  MR. CONWAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of his expressed intention to press upon the attention of the Government a Superannuation Scheme for the benefit of Public Elementary Teachers, he has any objection to give the Return of which notice has been given for today?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I regret to say that it would be altogether out of the power of the Department to furnish the Return asked for. All the information of value which the Department have on the subject is included in the
  1350
  General Report annually submitted to Parliament, and will be found this year on pages 20–22 of that Report.

  THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  MR. CONWAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Science and Art Department has fully considered the effect that portion of Regulation 12, printed in italics, page 56, of the Science and Art Directory for 1889–90 is likely to have in Ireland, where so few boys can remain at the National Schools until they have passed the second stage of the sixth class; whether the rule up to the present has been for pupils to have passed the second stage of the fifth class before presentation for examination in the principles of agriculture; and, whether the Science and Art Department will re-consider the part of Rule 12, which is specified in the first paragraph, and let the House know the result of such consideration before the Science and Art Vote comes on for discussion?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The rule was modified in the form suggested by the National Board of Education in Ireland in order to meet the objection made by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the duplication of payments in respect of certain children examined in agriculture. I do not think the change will have any ill effect, as the National Board have stated their opinion that the course of instruction in agriculture prescribed in their programme is suitable and sufficient for the pupils of national schools, and the alteration will only affect these pupils.

  IRELAND—DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is by his authority that letters addressed to the hon. Member for Cork City, including letters addressed to him by his mother, Mrs. Parnell, from America, are opened in the post office; and, if so, whether this is done by a general warrant, or by a particular order for each letter opened; whether it was by his authority that a letter addressed to the Lord Mayor of Dublin by the President of the United States was recently opened in the post office; and, whether this system of opening letters is to be further continued; and,

  1351
  if so, whether he will enable persons whose letters are opened in the post office to protect themselves by being present, either in person or by deputy, at the opening in the post office of letters addressed to or by them?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I beg leave to state, in reply to the right hon. Member, that I have no reason to suppose that any letters addressed to the hon. Member for Cork have been opened in the post office, and I have given no authority for such letters to be opened. The tame answer applies to the alleged opening of a letter addressed to the Lord Mayor of Dublin by the President of the United States; but I have consulted the Postmaster General, who informs me that in this case he is making inquiry. There is no system of opening the letters as suggested in the question.
  MR. SEXTON: If the right hon. Gentleman has ceased to exercise his functions are we to understand that if letters have been opened it was without official authority?
  MR. MATTHEWS: If opened they have been opened without any authority from the Home Office, or, as far as I am aware, from any other Government Department in this country.
  MR. SEXTON: Is there any authority to direct the opening of letters but the Home Secretary?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In this country only the Secretary of State.
  MR. SEXTON: But in Ireland?
  No answer.

  THE LOWER PROVINCES OF BENGAL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with regard to the statement of the Secretary of State, in his Letter, No. 937, dated 25th May 1889, to the Government of India, that he had received 66 memorials, letters, &c., from associations, public meetings, and the like, in the Lower Provinces of Bengal, praying for alterations in the Constitution, and to his direction that "the memorialists be informed that their representations will receive the careful attention of the Secretary of State," whether he is now in a position to state his decisions on such memorials?
  SIR J. GORST: I am not able to make any statement. The Constitution of India is still under consideration.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: But it has been, under consideration since the early part of 1887.
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman, must be aware that the Constitution of India can only be altered by Act of Parliament; and when there is a prospect of passing it through Parliament the Secretary of State will embody his views in a Bill.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to convey by that answer, that the Secretary of State has some legislation in contemplation?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; the Secretary of State has no legislation in contemplation. In the present state of public business it Would be hopeless to expect to pass a measure through Parliament.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Has that been the state of affairs since 1887?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir.

  POSTAGE UPON ORDERS FOR GOODS.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether orders for goods from Co-operative Stores in London are treated as circulars, and pass at halfpenny rates, subject to the right expressly reserved of keeping them back if there is a pressure of business; whether such orders in any way differ from Railway advices of goods and notices of default by loan fund banks in Ireland, which are held to be letters; and, whether he can see his way to treat both classes alike?
  MR. RAIKES: Orders for goods have, no privilege as circular letters, but, provided they are not in the form of letters, at all, they have been held admissible at the book-post rate. The railway advices of goods and notices of default by loan fund banks in Ireland, to which on a former occasion the hon. Member has called my attention, are distinctly letters, and, not being circular letters, are chargeable with the ordinary letter rate of postage. I regret I am not in a position to treat the advices and notices referred to otherwise than as letters. But I propose to examine carefully during the Recess the existing regulations with regard to circulars, which in their present form appear to present many anomalies.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the publication of information by certain Press correspondents with the Fleet of information as to the results of trial speeds of ships and disguises to be adopted by certain vessels; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to stop the circulation of information calculated to defeat some of the objects of the Manœuvres?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have read the statements referred to by my hon. Friend, and I think that they would convey to the Admiral commanding the opposing Fleet information which would be useful to him. I have no doubt that such was not the object of those who wrote the letters referred to, and that their attention having been directed by the question of my hon. Friend to the probable consequences of their indiscretion they will be more careful in the future.

  SCHOOLS IN CAITHNESS AND SUNDERLAND.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what has been the result of the reference to the Law Officers in regard to payments under Section 32 (a) to schools in Caithness and Sutherland.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Law Officers are of opinion that the general terms of the Statute cannot safely be held to authorise the inclusion of other counties than those named in the 67th section of the Act of 1872. The Government are willing to introduce a very short Bill to settle the matter in favour of Caithness and Sutherland; but this can only be done provided there is no opposition, and if we have the help of hon. Gentlemen opposite in enabling us to do it in the short time available.

  CROWN RIGHTS TO SCOTCH SALMON FISHINGS.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to appoint the Royal Commission promised by the Government to inquire into Crown rights to salmon fishings in Scotland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: A Commission will be appointed
  1354
  at once to inquire into the present exercise of Crown rights of salmon fishing in Scotland, and on the coast and in the sea adjacent thereto, and their effect on the preservation and supply of fish, and to report the evidence.

  CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state definitely when the Treasury Minute respecting Civil Establishments, which was promised on the 26th ultimo to be in the hands of Members in a few days, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will lay the Minute on the Table this evening. When the House is in possession of the Minute, and sees the numerous and complicated questions with which it has been necessary to deal, there will, I think, be no surprise at the delay in its production.

  COMPENSATION FOR CATTLE COMPULSORILY SLAUGHTERED.
  MR. H. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if the Government has come to any decision as to from what source compensation is to be paid in the future for cattle slaughtered owing to pleuropneumonia.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 15th ult. in reply to the hon. Members for South-East Essex and Saffron Walden, which was to the effect that the question would be considered during the recess.

  THE COMMISSION ON ROYALTY RENTS.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Royal Commission on Royalty Rents has been finally constituted; and, whether he can state when it is likely to enter upon the discharge of its duties?
  MR. OLDROYD: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any representations from colliery owners and workmen in the Midland districts complaining of the non-representation of their interests on the Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Commission has been constituted, and includes some representatives of the Midland districts, which it was suggested were not sufficiently represented. The Commission will be gazetted in the course of a day or two.

  THE CRINAN CANAL.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the dues of transit of the Crinan Canal are nearly as heavy as the dues of transit of the much greater length of the Caledonian Canal; whether he will consider whether the dues on the Crinan Canal can be reduced; whether he is aware that the lock gates of the Crinan Canal are not opened to passing vessels by the employés of the canal, as is the case on the Caledonian Canal, and that it is the practice of the authorities of the Crinan Canal to insist upon each vessel taking an extra hand on board to open the lock gates, to whom the owner of the vessel is obliged to pay a fee of 10s.; whether this practice is legal; and, whether the authorities of the canal are bound, on payment of the transit dues by a passing vessel, to provide without further charge for the opening of the lock gates?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The dues on the Crinan Canal are regulated by bye-laws approved by the Commissioners, and are according to Statute. The dues are proportionately higher than those on the Caledonian Canal, owing to the fact that the Crinan Canal passes through no natural lakes, and so requires an artificial water supply. No general reduction of dues can be given; but from time to time reductions are made when it is clearly proved to encourage traffic and to be of advantage to the Revenue. The lock gates are opened by the employés, and it is not the practice of the authorities to insist on extra hands being employed, as they are bound to provide for the opening of lock gates without further charge than the payment of dues.

  THE TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House with reference to the business of to-morrow. He was kind enough to consent to a
  1356
  motion yesterday to report progress, in order that we might see the Amendments of the Government to the Tithes Bill. I have had an opportunity of briefly looking at these Amendments, and I find that the effect of them is that of the old Bill two lines remain. But that is not all. In the form in which, the Paper stands at present, we have not only the Government Amendments on the new Bill, but also on the old Bill, which still remain, and I have got the two put together as they now stand on the Paper, and they constitute some yards—that is to say, the Amendments of the Home Secretary to the old Bill and the Amendments of the Attorney General to the new Bill. Now, that is not the most convenient form in which we can deal with them, and in the ordinary course it would be the custom of the House that the Government, making material alterations in a Bill, should move formally that the Bill be recommitted, in order to insert the Amendments they desire to insert and to exclude those parts they do not desire to retain. Unfortunately there is an obstacle in the way of that—namely, that all the Amendments upon the Paper are excluded by the ruling of the Chair upon the instructions rejected by the Government. The Chairman of Committees laid it down that nothing could be admitted which sought to lay the burden on the owner only. Now, these Amendments do that. Therefore the whole of the Amendments proposed by the Government are Amendments that cannot be put. In these circumstances I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury at all events not to attempt to go on with the Bill to-morrow. It is quite impossible in a Bill of this magnitude, affecting a great interest and many millions of what has been called, and I think properly, national property, and containing important propositions—propositions to which I have no objection, on the contrary, as far I understand them, I am very much in favour of the general proposals of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is now travelling beyond the appeal he proposed to make to the Leader of the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am making an appeal, Sir, to the right hon. Gentleman not to put this Bill down for tomorrow, and I do so now in order that

  1357
  the Bill may not be met to morrow with a Motion that the Bill shall not be proceeded with. It would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would arrange to set down other business which at this period of the Session it is necessary to go on with. If the House will indulge me, I will not go into any argumentative matter except to point out that this Bill includes extremely important matter which we should be allowed to consider fully, so that, if necessary, we might be able to put down Amendments. We ought not to be called upon at 24 hours' notice to take this Bill into consideration. It is one of our rules of legislation that we do not deal with property of any kind without giving the owner notice. With reference to this new Bill, I do not speak adversely to its principle. I should be very glad to see that principle carried out; but it is absolutely necessary that the House should be placed at least in as good a position as it would be in after a Second Reading. If I were adverse to the Bill I should certainly demand that we should have a Second Reading discussion, but all I now say is this, that the House must be placed in as good a position as it would be in after the Second Reading of a new Bill—that hon. Members should be able to move such instructions as are necessary for dealing fully with the Bill in Committee. Generally speaking, it seems to me perfectly clear that we cannot go on with this Bill to-morrow. We have no time to put down Amendments which are necessary for dealing with it and, on the whole, these are matters as to which gentlemen ought not only to know what they think themselves, but also, I venture to say, what their constituents think of the provisions of a Bill so utterly novel as this. Therefore I venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it is quite idle to endeavour to go on with Committee on this Bill to-morrow, and I would suggest that he should postpone it, at all events until next week. I would also submit that instead of endeavouring to cobble up a Bill by striking out all except two lines and putting in Amendments, it would be far better to withdraw this Bill and introduce to-morrow a new Bill, and then to proceed to the consideration of that new Bill in the proper manner. That would be by far the most convenient
  1358
  course, because practically we shall have to deal with the Bill in that manner, however the question is put before us.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is highly satisfactory to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely in favour of the principle of the Amendments the Government have put on the paper in reference to this Bill. He must, therefore, be most desirous that the Bill should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. I gladly recognise the extremely kind consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. He has objected that the Government are proposing a new Bill. What the Government are doing is simply this. They are inserting and giving effect to an instruction—a Debate, which was supported by the right hon. Gentleman himself and by almost every Member on that side of the House—an Instruction that the Bill should place the liability on the owner. The right hon. Gentleman in supporting the proposal, obviously saw his way to giving practical effect to it in the Bill, or he would not have supported it. Now, following up that desire he says that it is absolutely necessary to have more than 48 hours to consider a proposal which all who desire that the Bill should be effectual think should be at once ratified by the House of Commons.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite understood me. What I said was that you must revoke the decision of the House rejecting the Instruction.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, incorrect in his views. I think he will find it is possible for the Committee to entertain the Amendments put on the paper by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. At all events it does not rest with him or me to determino whether that is so or not. It was understood that the Amendment which stood on the paper in the name of the hon. Member for Essex, and several other Amendments which put the liability on the owner, would have been accepted.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Chairman of Committees laid emphasis on the point that no Amendment which sought to put the liability on the owner would be admissible.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall see when the time comes what the Chair-

  1359
  man of Committees thinks. I am sure the House will think I should not be justified in responding to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. We wish to prosecute this Bill Hon. Gentlemen opposite have had 48 hours for the consideration of the Amendments of my hon. and learned Friend, because they were indicated as clearly as they could possibly be by my hon. and learned Friend yesterday. They are admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself to be valuable, useful Amendments, involving all the principles required for the settlement of this question, and we shall ask the House to deal with the question, and to deal with it without any loss of time.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I rise to a point of order, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has just stated to the House that the Amendments now placed on the Paper are Amendments to carry out an Instruction which was defeated by a majority of four. That being so, I ask you whether the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Maiden having been negatived on Monday night, it is competent for the Government to place on the Paper Amendments practically in the spirit of that Instruction?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is hardly a question that ought to be addressed to one, but I do not think the Committee would go back on the Instruction.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Will it be possible to issue a Memorandum showing the Amendments, and giving a clear idea of the alterations intended to be made in the Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: For the convenience of Members I have directed that a number of copies of the Bill showing my Amendments shall be deposited at the Vote Office by 5 o'clock.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On a point of order, Sir, I would put a question to you in reference to a decision of Mr. Speaker Brand in 1880. When Mr. Forster introduced a clause into the Irish Relief Bill as a new means of dealing with relief—namely, that the tenant should be compensated for certain cases of disturbance—the Speaker ruled that a now Bill was required, and a now Bill had to be introduced. Now the House has decided to reject the
  1360
  Instruction carrying out the principle which the Government are embodying in their Amendments. In these circumstances, I ask whether it is not necessary that an entirely new Bill should be brought in which the House may have the opportunity of passing under the ruling of the Chair? And if the Amendments of the Government are proposed, will not the House be deprived of the rulings of the Speaker and—I am not making any complaint—left entirely to the rulings of the Chairman of Committees?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: On the point of order, Sir, I desire to call your attention to the fact that yesterday there stood on the Paper a series of Amendments proposing to change the word "occupier" into "owner," and as far as I could I ascertained these Amendments would not be ruled out of order. The statement I made yesterday was that I should be prepared to accept those Amendments. My present Amendments are to the same effect.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I also rise to the point of order. The Attorney General has missed the point. It was indeed ruled that the word "owner" might be substituted for "occupier," if it was not a matter of being the owner only, instead of the occupier, as an alternative. In the same way the ruling was in respect of distress—that distress could not be struck out of the Bill; it must remain in the Bill as an alternative. But the Government Amendment propose to strike out distress without alternative, and to leave the responsibility on the owner only. But as the right hon. Gentleman insists, I now beg to give notice——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! We must decide upon the point of order first. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me a question whether an Instruction having been refused by the House, the Amendment might not contravene that Instruction. It will be for the Chairman of Committees to decide when the House is in Committee, whether the Amendments on the Paper are such as can be moved, notwithstanding the refusal of the House to grant the Instruction at an earlier stage. I do not anticipate any discrepancy between the ruling of the Chairman and my own. The Chairman in Committee is within

  1361
  his jurisdiction and considers what is proper and right, and I have every confidence that he will give a right and fair decision.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps, Sir, I have not made myself clear. What I wish to point out is that on the occasion of the ruling to which I have referred the House was in Committee, and Mr. Speaker Brand decided that the particular Amendment was outside the scope of the Bill. The corresponding question is—the House having refused a particular Instruction, and the Government having put down an Amendment within the scope of that Instruction—is it in order to submit to the Speaker whether the proposed action in Committee can, as a matter of order, be taken, in view of the fact that the particular Amendment in Committee on the Irish Bill was submitted to Mr. Speaker Brand.
  MR. SPEAKER: This matter is, if I may respectfully say so, rather improperly brought before me. It is difficult to say whether the ruling of my predecessors affords an exact parallel to this case. But, as I have said, I am quite content to leave the matter in the hands of the Chairman of Committees, who will deal with the question when it arises. I do not think that any case has been made out for reference to me as Speaker.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg leave to give notice that I shall oppose proceeding with the Tithe Rent Charge Bill to-morrow.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would not be more decorous, not to say more decent, as the Bill affects the whole agricultural interests, to wait until the new Minister of Agriculture is present to give us his views of the matter.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they be agreed to—Palatine Court of Durham Bill [Lords] with Amendments.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [RECOMMITTED]. (No. 377.)
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: It is not my intention to divide the
  1362
  Committee in regard to the new clause. I will only say that I think the position taken up by those of us who raised a Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill is at least justified by the action of the Committee upstairs. I am, of course, glad to find that some concession has been made to our demands on behalf of the people of London. I am not satisfied with the extent of that concession; but, under the circumstances, we do not offer further opposition to the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment, read the third time, and passed.

  COINAGE LIGHT GOLD BILL (No. 321.)
  As amended, considered (Queen's consent signified); Bill read the third time, and passed.

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

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £285,376, 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 Public Education in Scotland."
  MR. HUNTER: There are one or two points I desire to touch upon before we come to a decision. I observe from the Report of the Department that the Technical Education Act of 1887 has, after its two years' test, proved au absolutely dead letter. I predicted, as the Bill was passing through the House, that it would prove a useless measure. The hon. Member for St. Rollox is, I think, right in criticising the statistics of the Department, in making the comparison with the state of things in 1872. The figures are undoubtedly misleading, and it is worth the consideration of the Department whether they should nut in future give the information the hon. Member suggested. There is one other point to which I wish to refer. The Department is very anxious to encourage the attendance of children in schools. The children in Scotland do not go to school at quite so early an age as the children in England. But I find in this Report two statements which in reality neutralise each other.

  1363
  The first is that the children are too long in going to school, and the second is that they leave school too soon. It is, however, admitted that the children in Scotland acquire all the elements of education, and it is admitted that they learn more in less time than the English children—principally, no doubt, in consequence of the superiority of the Scotch schoolmasters. I regret that children leave school at so early an age in Scotland, but I do not lament the absence of very young children from school. In Germany the age at which children go to school is rather higher than it is in Scotland, and I think that what the children lose in education between the ages of four and seven, they more than gain physically, and they lay the foundation of a healthy education afterwards.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: I understand that it will be for the convenience of this House if I say now the few words that are necessary in reply to the general observations that have just been made. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has referred to the enormous field of controversy which was traversed by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Caldwell) yesterday. The question raised by the hon. Member for St. Rollox is, after all, only indirectly connected with the present Vote, and arises out of a reference made in the Report to the state of matters in 1872. I can most honestly say that the Report states the facts quite fairly. I do not intend to enter into the matter, because it has been discussed at the instance of the hon. Member for St. Rollox every year since this Parliament met. The very same battles have been fought, the very same accusations made, and the very same answers given every year as would be fought, made, and given now if I entered into the question; and accordingly I must reserve the time at my disposal for answering Members who have spoken at less length than the hon. Member for St. Rollox. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. A. Sutherland) has raised a very important question with reference to directing more attention to class instruction and less to individual instruction than has been hitherto the case. That is not a subject which has escaped the attention
  1364
  of the Department in recent years. A great impulse has been given to class instruction, and class subjects are now receiving a greater amount of encouragement than heretofore. I should say further that all the children in the lower standards are now examined in classes, and not individually.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: How high does that go?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In the three first standards there are only class examinations. The Department has the subject fully in view, and will watch for apportunities of further extending the system. An hon. Member spoke on the subject of drawing, and many representations have been made to the Department on the subject, but I must remind the Committee that it is not a question with which the Education Department is chargeable or which arises upon this Vote. It was practically by the choice of those who are locally in charge of education in Scotland that the present system was adopted. I must refer gentlemen interested in the subject to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Education Department, because he has charge of it and it does not fall within the present Vote. I am not aware that there is any other separate point which was taken except the one raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. He thinks that the figures with regard to technical instruction are not as hopeful as they ought to be. Let us be just. Five School Boards have in operation the necessary procedure for taking advantage of the Act, and it is necessarily a subject in regard to which we cannot expect a very large number of School Boards to take action.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise to move the Motion of which I have given notice, the rejection of the amount set down in this Vote for training colleges. I have already had an opportunity of stating my opinions on this subject, and therefore will content myself with the briefest possible statement. My objections to the present system may in the main be said to be two. In the first place all the training colleges are denominational institutions, though the public school system of Scotland is becoming less and less denominational. In the second place the work which they profess to do would in my judgment be better performed by the national Uni-

  1365
  versities. The Committee is aware that all the training colleges are denominational, and that the public school system of Scotland has year by year become less denominational. The increase in the number of public schools and the decrease in that of the denominational schools observed in previous years has been continued during the past year. Therefore to maintain denominational training colleges is really to act in a spirit out of harmony with that existing in the schools. The Universities are perfectly willing to frame schemes for conducting the work of the training colleges. Of course it is a matter of opinion whether is is possible for them to do the work or not, and what additional facilities they may require to carry it on properly. I want to call attention to what is said in the Report of the Committee of Council on Education upon training colleges, and I venture to submit that the rather guarded references in that Report almost justify me in inferring that my views are really shared by the Scotch Education Department. There is a certain amount of faint praise of the institutions, no doubt, but on the main points on which I have laid stress, I maintain that the spirit of the Report is really in harmony with what I say. Everything they say about the denominational character of the colleges is of an apologetic character, and they state that they are denominational only in name and not so in character and effect. I want to know why they should be denominational in name even, seeing that it is an excellent thing in the eyes of the Education Department that they should not be denominational in character. It appears that these denominational institutions, whatever virtues they may possess in the eyes of the Church, make no successful appeal to the pockets of the churches. As to the question whether the Universities could be usefully employed in connection with this work, I venture to submit that the Report of the Committee of Council is very much in my favour. It lays stress on the encouragement given to the University education of teachers, and indicates clearly that that encouragement will be continued. It also refers to statistics as showing that "not a few of the future Scotch teachers are acquiring some higher culture" in a
  1366
  sphere larger than that of any institution devoted to training alone. Having admitted the desirableness and the necessity of this higher culture in the case of a limited number of students, the Department ought, instead of limiting opportunities in this way, to throw the benefit open to all the students. The Universities have no doubt as to their competency to undertake the work, and, as I have already stated, some of them have prepared schemes which, as far as I have examined them, seem to be perfectly fair. I regret that the date at which we are discussing this matter is so late that there is very little hope of obtaining the opinion of the Scotch Members as a whole. In some other Session, however, I hope we shall be able to raise the question in a more effective fashion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item H, £28,706, for Annual Grants to Training Colleges, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I concur with my hon. Friend in regretting that so small a number of Members should be present for the discussion of this interesting question, and especially that there is so small a number from Scotland. The chief difficulty I find in replying to my hon. Friend's attack is that he has referred us to arguments which he has used in former years, but has, with great consideration for the time of the Committee, been exceedingly brief in stating those arguments. The first of them was that the Training Colleges are denominational, whilst the system of education in Scotland is almost entirely undenominational. I admit the force of that argument, but I think it is overstated. I think those who closely examine the system of education in Scotland can hardly deny that there is still a very large denominational element. There is the teaching of religion, and although each School Board in Scotland can do as it pleases in this matter, there is almost invariably a working majority in favour, not only of teaching religion, but also of teaching the old Westminster Catechism. It can hardly be denied that in this respect the schools favour one denomination. I may mention an illustration as having come under the notice of the Committee upon which I had the honour to serve. We had a

  1367
  complaint brought before us from the Episcopalian Training College, that when they had, trained their teachers they could not as a general rule get one of them accepted in Scotland. The Episcopalian schools are usually too poor to employ trained teachers and the Board Schools will not employ Episcopalians, so they have to go to England. So far, therefore, the Scotch Estimates are bearing the cost of training teachers for England. Presbyterian denominationalism is so strong that no Episcopalian would be allowed to teach a Scottish Board School. The other side of the question is that the Training Colleges are much less denominational than is generally supposed. The Committee took evidence from teachers, Inspectors, Training College Authorities, University professors, and others interested in the subject, and they all of them seem to agree in saying that there is next to no denominationalism. The management, no doubt, is entrusted to a particular Church. But members of all Churches attend the Training College, and even serve upon its staff. In fact, it appears that in choosing, say, an Established Church College in preference to a college of some other religious body, the students are influenced by companionship, and considerations of that kind, rather than by regard for denomination. The difficulty I find in attaching much weight to my hon. Friend's authority is, that he has not supplied the want which we find to exist of an alternative system for giving teachers adequate professional training. I do not remember that either on this or on any former occasion he has developed his views—at any rate, so far as he has done so, they are views which nearly all Educational Authorities in Scotland hold to be impracticable. The hon. Member seemed to draw a distinction between the tone of the Report of the Committee of Council this year, and the tone of the Report of the Departmental Committee. I do not know whether he thinks that the two are at variance; but if hon. Members care to consult the Report of the Departmental Committee on Training Colleges they will see that, on the contrary, it laid the foundation for the action taken by the Education Department this year. The first recommendation,
  1368
  no doubt, is that professional training should be conducted in establishments set apart for that purpose; but it is added that, in order to avoid professional narrowness, it is desirable to combine that training, as far as possible, with a liberal University education. That was the desire of the Committee; that was their recommendation; and the Department states that, in consequence of that recommendation, they are giving further opportunities in the Training Colleges to all who are qualified to profit by University training. But the hon. Member is not content with this. He says that the whole of the teachers should attend the Universities. Let me remind the House how the matter stands in foreign countries. We think a great deal of the German and Swiss systems, but I am not aware that in any country the training of teachers in the Universities is carried anything like so far as it is in Scotland. My hon. Friend spoke as if Scotland were behindhand in this respect, but, on the contrary, I say that Scotland is the one country in Europe which possesses teachers who combine—many of them—University degrees, and more of them some University teaching, with their professional training in the Training Colleges. Now, let me look at the feasibility of the system recommended by my hon. Friend as a whole. We have female teachers, as well as male teachers, who have been pupil teachers in the ordinary schools of Scotland. Can it be contended that the Universities are at present equipped with the requisite machinery for teaching to young girls of that age and class geography, arithmetic, English grammar, singing and sewing? I should be happy to see these girls attending University classes, but many of them are-so far below the University standard that it would be useless to send them there, and the same remark applies to many male teachers. You cannot get the candidates to come up to that standard. The Universities do not teach arithmetic, geography, English grammar and the sol-fa system, and you would require a special staff to do it; and even if you had that special staff the instruction they would give would be less practical than what the teachers get in the Training Colleges. The hon. Gentleman has said the Universities are willing

  1369
  to undertake this work. But the Departmental Committee conferred with all the Scotch Universities. Those of Edinburgh and Glasgow were not willing. There was no such proposal from those Universities, although there were proposals that the students in training should be set more free to attend University lectures. There had been a proposal that the University of Aberdeen should itself train teachers. We went into the matter with the professors, but, on the whole, the conclusion arrived at was that the University did not see its way to undertake the training unless more favourable financial considerations were allowed than the Government were likely to entertain. St. Andrew's is the one University which is prepared to train teachers, male and female, for the ordinary schools, and, for my part, I should be glad to see the work entrusted to this University. I have pointed out to the Principal of St. Andrew's and to those interested there that there is a recommendation of the Committee on which they may found a claim. It is true that in the body of the Report the Committee did not see their way to recommend direct grants to one of the Universities as a Training College, but the principle was laid down that if any other body should come forward and make themselves responsible in the way that the Training College Authorities do—especially if they assumed financial responsibility—it should have a share in the training of the teachers of Scotland. I should be delighted to see St. Andrew's, in connection it might be with Dundee, organise a Committee and frame a scheme by way of experiment, and if it succeeded, it might then be extended. But it seems idle to propose at present that all teachers should be University men. The country will not go to that expense. I believe that in Scotland we have already more training of elementary teachers at the Universities than is to be found in any other country in Europe, and I do not believe the Universities are willing to undertake more; while if we were to press more upon them I am afraid it would be found that the Universities would become less efficient for the higher purposes which they now subserve. All countries that stand high in regard to education find that an important part of their system is in the
  1370
  creation of teachers; but you cannot create teachers without a special training. It is generally admitted that a young man from a University, whatever honours he may have obtained, when made a School Inspector is not always found thoroughly to understand his work, and the same is true of teachers trained in Universities only. I trust the Department will maintain, but also improve and liberalise the present system of professional training for teachers, combining it as far as may be practicable with attendance in University classes.
  DR. McDONALD: We have heard a good deal about the teaching of religion in. the Scotch Colleges, but the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken knows as well as I do that we have three religious denominations in Scotland—namely, the Free Church, the Established Church and the United Presbyterian Church, and if any one can say that the definite limits of either of these three religious bodies are being taught in any of the schools in Scotland I reply that he is mistaken, and that that is not the case at all. An inspection of our public schools will show that there is really no difference in regard to religious teaching as between Free Church and Established Church. It is to be said that the schools are denominational, because the catechism is taught in them, inasmuch as the catechism is purely Protestant, and applies, equally to all three denominations.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I did not for a moment intend to convey that there was denominationalism as between the Free and Established and the United Presbyterian Churches; but there is as against Catholics and Episcopalians.
  DR. McDONALD: Certainly, they are denominationalist as against Catholics and Episcopalians; but we have hardly any Catholics or Episcopalians in Scotland. Well, the hon. Gentleman talks about denominationalism in the School Boards, and the same answer applies there—namely, that there is really no difference between the Free, Established, and United Presbyterian Churches. There can be no doubt on this point. A great deal has been made of the professional training which is given in these Training Colleges or normal schools, as we call them in Scotland. I myself have been

  1371
  there, I am sorry to say it is now more than 20 years ago, and I know that at that time they did their work admirably. All the time we devoted to profeesional training was about two or three hours a week; the rest of the time was devoted to the ordinary education given in the secondary schools. But now these schools are to be met with all over Scotland, and especially in the large towns; hence the non-necessity for the higher education which is given in these colleges, the reason for supporting them being as great again then as it is now. Again, we have been told about the bursaries being lost, if given to students in the Universities or in Secondary Schools. The fact is, that they have got into the same position as that in which we find the students in the Training Colleges. We cannot compel these to become teachers. They leave the Training Colleges (though I believe they are now compelled to give two years' teaching) and then they may go away just as those who leave the Universities and in the same way be lost as teachers of education. With regard to the female students, there certainly is a difficulty in their case, and I think it would be found better to keep up one or two Training Colleges for females alone. I have before spoken about the denominational schools, called Free Church Colleges and Established Church Colleges, in Glasgow and Edinburgh. What do we find? Why there are two of these colleges within 200 yards of each other, each maintaining a large staff, so that a double amount of money is expended. Does anyone imagine that the tenets of either the Free or the Established Church are taught within the walls of those Training Colleges? If not, why do we waste money in the keeping up of two large schools which differ in name and in nothing else, when both might be put into one building and served by one staff? I would suggest that this would be a good way of reducing the expenditure on these denominational colleges, in which, at the present time, there is a great waste of power and a large waste of money. This, I think, would be a good and proper beginning.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth (Mr. Parker) to apologise for these denominational
  1372
  schools, but I think the result of his statement goes far to confirm the view which many of us here entertain. He tell us that the pupils from the Episcopalian Training Colleges do not teach in Scotland, but go away to England, because there is no demand for them in Scotland. With regard to what has been said about the other colleges, I have more faith in my countrymen than to believe they are as bigoted as the hon. Gentleman supposes them to be. I cannot believe that our School Boards are so bigoted that a teacher who does not profess the form of religion they affect is not likely to be employed by them. I refuse to believe this. I may say with regard to candidates for Parliament, as to whom my experience bas a wider range, the constituencies do not show themselves particularly ready to refuse a man because he is an Episcopalian. I know a great many Episcopalians who represent Scotch constituencies. It is my belief that if ever there was religious bigotry in Scotland it is softening down and gradually disappearing, and in point of fact it can hardly be said to exist at the present time. It may be that the catechism to which allusion has been made is still nominally taught in the colleges; but it is not likely to subsist very long. Public opinion in Scotland with pull all this down. On general grounds I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross-shire, who has pointed out the waste of power, and the unjustifiable expenditure of money for denominational colleges, that are placed side by side in Edinburgh, and Glasgow. I do not want to abolish these denominatonial colleges; but I wish to see a system of education in Scotland which shall be national, and also Training Colleges which shall be under the control of the Government. I am not so clear as to the argument of the hon. Member for Dundee, that you ought to transfer the school teachers to the Universities. I am not a very strong believer in the higher culture of the Universities. I think it would be a very great deal wiser to maintain the Training Colleges on a modernised basis, and to give our teachers the training which will fit them for the public schools and enable them to give instruction in the natural sciences and

  1373
  useful arts in which our schools are to some extent deficient because of the deficiency of the schoolmasters. I admit that something must be done to improve the Universities of Scotland, though I sympathise with what was said by the hon. Member for Perth. The University of St. Andrew's has several very excellent professors, but somehow or other they have never succeeded in the training of schoolmasters. The Duke of Argyll and others tried to popularise the University of St. Andrew's, but they were not able to do so; still I think it might be so modernised as to make a charming University where could be combined the training of young women with the training of young men to fit them as teachers in the highest standards. I do hope the Government will tell us that they intend to get rid of this, to a certain extent, obnoxious denominational system of Training Colleges, and that they will substitute for it a system which is more rational.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The action of the Government towards these Institutions has rested upon most intelligible grounds. Nobody suggests that à priori, or as a matter of theory, there is any necessary connection between the denominationalism of the country and the Training Colleges. We must take things as we find them. We find that there are Training Colleges which are doing their work to the satisfaction of the School Boards. And I emphasise that by saying that it is never to be forgotten that School Boards in many parts of the country almost invariably choose the students of those Training Colleges as teachers. It is suggested that the Universities should take up this business of the training of teachers. As a matter of fact they do not do so, and we have to look to the Training Colleges which are actually existing and which do this work. As to the denominational character of the teaching, the report of the Department is absolutely accurate. There is no shadow or trace of denominational bias in the training of our teachers. I understand that the action of the School Board is very impartial, and they take either the students of the Free Church or the Established Church. There is no overlapping of the work between these different Institutions, and the supply of teachers they send cut is not in excess
  1374
  of the requirements of the country. I do not see that any good would be done by throwing the two Colleges into one in Edinburgh and Glasgow. As to the Universities, if you ask them to undertake the training of teachers, the fact of whether they may or may not be adapted to the work is a matter to fee watched for the future. Be it observed that the Department have of late years given great and increasing encouragement to the students to attend a University by giving the Colleges allowances to send them there in the third year. Although, therefore, the system of these Training Colleges in the abstract is not perfect in theory, good results come from it, and the money paid by the State is well spent.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Mr. Courtney, we have had so far to apologise for this present system of denominational training. It is very easy to understand the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman defends these institutions. He falls back on the position that "we must take things as we find them." These Colleges are denominational at the present moment; therefore we must not do anything to reform them. If he held out any hope that denominationalism would be got rid of, my view might be changed; but he is prepared so long as he is in authority to maintain denominationalism in the Training Colleges. I do not understand the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth. Are we to understand that he favours denominationalism? Does he defend these Colleges because there is so much denominationalism in the system of education in Scotland? At any rate, he might have gone this small step with us and protested against this system of denominationalism being kept up. It is perfectly true that these Colleges are kept up at a very considerable and unnecessary expenditure to the taxpayer, because you have in one place two or three different training colleges maintained where one would suffice. The fact that there is no shade of difference, practically speaking, between the principal Churches of Scotland is an additional reason why the Government should not encourage denominationalism by sanctioning the maintenance of denominational Training Colleges in different centres.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Sir, I was rather astonished to hear the argument used by the Lord Advocate, that, because these Training Colleges exist, therefore we are bound to carry them on. That argument might have been applied in favour of continuing the old parish schools at th9 time of the Act of 1872. I think the whole argument lies in the waste of money involved in keeping different colleges in close proximity. I have no objection to these Training Colleges, and think they are doing the work imposed upon them. At the same time I do not agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Robertson) that the Universities are qualified to do the work of training teachers. The work of the Training Colleges is well done; but that is no reason why it should continue to be done by the denominations. It is all very well for the Lord Advocate to say that there is no connection between the schools and denominations in the colleges; but my experience has been that teachers from a Training College have got appointments simply because they belonged to a certain Church. I vote for the Amendment as a protest against these institutions being carried on, really, as I understand, at a profit. The whole of this money for the maintenance of these colleges is public money, not supplemented to any extent by money derived from the denominations. I do not say that the money has not been economically spent, or spent in the best way; all I wish to do is to make my protest against the continuance of this system. If I saw any disposition to put an end to it I should be content to give them an opportunity. But no such policy has been manifested by the Scotch Department, and, deprecating the absence of such a policy, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. HUNTER: Sir, there is one point which has not been brought before the Committee. The Schoolmasters' Association in the North, of Scotland is a body of as excellent, intelligent, and successful teachers as there are in Scotland; and it is their unanimous opinion that it is most desirable to make the Universities training schools for teachers. We are agreed that the Universities at the present moment have not the machinery of Training Colleges;
  1376
  but it is suggested that it is possible, if they are encouraged, for them to find the means to give effect to the principle laid down in the statement for the University of Edinburgh; that the teaching, like all other of the learned professions, ought to be provided for in the University curriculum. One reason why my hon. Friend has brought forward his Amendment is that we are anxious to impress upon the University Commissioners the propriety of directing their attention to this subject. At present the Education Department spend £30,000 a year on Training Colleges in which there are only 860 students being taught. The number of the students in the Scotch Universities, on the other hand, amounts to over 6,000, yet the cost to the nation is no more than the expenditure on the Training Colleges. The teachers in the North are very anxious that some portion of this money should be given to the Universities under a properly devised scheme. It would be entirely impossible for th9 Universities to undertake the work with their existing funds. If the change were made, a great saving would be effected to the public exchequer, because, whereas each student at present costs the nation £35, the cost under the Universities would be very much smaller for obtaining an adequate supply of teachers. Another consideration which weighs with the teachers in the North of Scotland is, that the status and pay of teachers would be raised. The State at present tempts a certain number into the teaching profession by giving them a gratuitous education. In that way the salaries of teachers are depressed below a proper level, and the consequence is that School Boards find that they can get certificated teachers from these Colleges at a rate at which they could not hope to obtain them, had the students to pay for their education as in all other professions. I cheerfully admit, from a secular point of view, that the Training Colleges have done their work in a perfectly satisfactory manner according to the standard set before them. And I admit that it was perfectly inevitable we should have had them, because there was no other machinery for the training of teachers. It is to be regretted that the Universities did not undertake the work earlier, but I hope they are in a more re-

  1377
  pentant mood, and are willing and anxious to discharge what is their true function. I hope that the University Commission will be prepared to recommend to Parliament that some portion of the money now given to these Training Colleges should be given to the Universities, which would do the work much more cheaply, and give the teachers a much higher status and better training than they get at present. The hon. Member for Perth imagines that ladies could not possibly enter the Universities. That is really an antiquated notion. The attendance of ladies at college is so familiar that I should have thought the hon. Member would not have been startled by the suggestion. Certainly the attendance of ladies at colleges has an effect both beneficial to themselves and to the young men who attend. My hon. Friends the Members for Perth and Inverness were the only two Scotch Members of the Committee, and, on reading their Report, what convinced me there was something weak in the position of the Training Colleges was their statement that in the Universities it was impossible to give close attention to the moral and religious training of the teachers. Now, if they could have put forward any tangible result of this training in the colleges, certainly they would have done so; but they have not, and have fallen back upon language vague and obscure. Another objection is that the students are not qualified to attend the University classes. That would be so, if they were asked to attend the whole of the curriculum. But what we suggest is that a special faculty, or course, shall be prepared, alongside medicine, law and divinity, called the faculty of education. That, I think, is the true course which reform should take in Scotland. I can only say with regard to the remarks of the Lord Advocate that I think they show he is open to receive impressions, and to consider the whole state of the case, and I hope we shall find him joining in efforts to enable the Universities to train teachers.
  MR. S. SMITH: Mr. Courtney, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. I think on this side of the House more stress than is warranted has been laid by some hon. Members on the description of Training Colleges as "denominational." In Scotland
  1378
  there is little or no difference of religious principle between various denominations. We should bear in mind that it is always desirable that those who are to train the young should themselves be brought up carefully and religiously. These is one other observation I would like to make. It has been said that the Universities are capable of giving all the education that those who intend to be teachers required. I am very strongly of opinion that it is not so. The great difficulty is to know how to impart knowledge to others, and I believe that those who intend to take up teaching require special training. Again, I am bound to say that the supervision exercised by the University Authorities is not sufficient. In my time, as long as a young man attended his lectures they did not care what became of him. The consequence was that many of the men who were at the University with me made sad failures in life. I consider it very important that young men and young girls at the impressionable ages of 15 to 18 should be under some sort of supervision, and that supervision will be best obtained at the hands of religious bodies.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I must apologise to Scotch Members for interfering in the Debate at this stage, but as my hon. Friend has broken the ice I will follow him. In the first place, I may be allowed to say that I do not think my hon. Friend is a bad specimen of the training of the Scotch University. In the great Universities of this country, when they were par excellence religious Institutions, there was as large a percentage of failures as ever came out of the Scotch Universities, where no regard is supposed to have been paid to the religious welfare of the students. The English people are conscious that upon educational, as well as upon other matters, Scotland always leads the way for Great Britain, and when the subject now under discussion is definitely settled it will be easier for England to follow in the wake of Scotland. These separate Training Colleges are kept up on the one side for the purpose of getting quit of the Establishment, and on the other for the purpose of maintaining it. Why cannot the Presbyterians of Scotland combine, seeing there is really no difference in their religious tenets? The case for the

  1379
  Training Colleges in Scotland is weaker than it is in England, where it is considered of the first importance that doctrinal differences should he recognised and emphasised. In Scotland no effort of the kind is necessary, because they are all of one opinion. For my own part I think the Universities would be eminently qualified to do the work which is now being done by the Training Colleges. I believe much harm is done in this country to young people by compelling them to recognise denominational differences. I think Scotland is quite right in demanding this change, and it cannot be long before it is conceded.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have to thank, on behalf of Scotch Liberals, the hon. Member for Bradford, for having, by taking part in this Debate, added another to the many debts we owe him for his fearless, long continued and consistent advocacy of Liberal principles. Sir, this Debate has sounded the death knell of denominationalism in Scotland, particularly after what has fallen from the Lord Advocate. He said that we were not dealing with these Institutions de novo, which is an abandonment of the entire principle on which they are founded. He went on to say that these Colleges are kept up by denominational Institutions. But what I want to point out is this, that they are kept up, not by the denominations, but by the public money. The right hon. Gentleman said the Universities are not ready to train teachers. Of course they are not. He knows that they cannot be expected to be ready so long as the State keeps these Training Colleges at its own expense. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) has quoted the Member for Perth in support of the denominational character of these Institutions, and I can only hope he will not think me rude when I say that I am glad he is not a Scotchman. The hon. Member for Perth made one significant remark. He said:—
  "If you take away the money and give it in the shape of bursaries to the Universities you will have students who had entered to he schoolmasters going into other professions."
  That observation expresses what used to be the spirit of the Privy Council's system; but I feel pretty sure that the Scotch Educational Department are too liberal to be prompted by such a spirit, which would mean that you would deliberately mutilate the training of
  1380
  young men in order that they should not be fitted to enter any other profession than that of teaching. There is most force in the objection of my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Sutherland), that the Universities cannot do this work. But I do not propose that they should undertake the work without special provision being made for them. I do not see why the business of the Training Colleges should not be brought within the University system, just as is the professional training of lawyers, ministers, and doctors. Now, my hon. Friend expressed some little doubt about the value of University training. I am deeply impressed with the high value of University training, and I believe that the Universities, both in England and Scotland, afford by far the finest and best intellectual training that anyone could have. What I object to is this—that you should divorce those who are to teach the children of the country from this higher intellectual culture. It is not the mere Degree which gives this University training a high value. It is rather what I may call the moral education and intellectual culture obtained, not so much in reading for the Degrees and in listening to the lectures, as in the common membership of the University system. It is not what the professors teach the students that is valuable in University life, but it is what the students teach each other. If you insist upon excluding schoolmasters to whom the destinies of the children of the future are to be entrusted, I think you will be inflicting a grievous harm upon that body. I believe that the people of Scotland at large are entirely in sympathy with the stand which is now being made for the freeing of the Training Colleges from all connection with denominational schools, and enabling schoolmasters to share in the higher intellectual culture already provided for in the Scotch University system. I do not intend, neither do I desire, that the already overgrown Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow should be swollen by a further accession of students through transferring to them this work of training. I think those Universities are already much too large, but I have always held that the smaller Universities, such as St. Andrew's and Aberdeen, are perfectly competent to undertake this work. I know that

  1381
  Aberdeen and University College, Dundee, are desirous to undertake it, and I believe that, under proper management, these three Institutions could easily take over the 860 normal scholars and perform the work of training them quite as well as it is being conducted under the sectarian system.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I want to clear up one point. I understand that the sum to be devoted to the Training Colleges is considerably in excess of that voted last year, and I am told that if we did not take advantage of these Institutions we should have to pay a great deal more. The hon. Member for Dundee asserts, however, that the denominations contribute nothing towards the expense of these schools, but that on the contrary they make a profit out of them. I should like to know if it is so, and if the schools are maintained solely and exclusively at the expense of the taxpayer. Again, I find that every pupil trained in these schools costs £35 per year. That seems to me to be an enormous expenditure, and if that is to be the result of a system of maintaining two or three denominational colleges, all I can say is that it is an abominable abuse, even from a financial point of view. I again ask, do these denominational bodies contribute towards the expenses of the colleges.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: The hon. Member for Dundee seems to think that I, in my observations, depreciated the value of University training. Now, if my remarks seemed to do that I wish at once to say that it was not my desire to convey that impression. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, when he refers to the cost of the pupils in these Training Colleges, that the sum of £35 represents much more than the mere cost of education, and that the cost of living is included.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy may be stated very briefly. It is that the amount of the grant is 75 per cent of the approved expenditure.
  DR. CLARK: I am going to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, because I hold that the course now taken by the Education Department in certain matters makes it desirable that the present
  1382
  system should be altogether abolished. At the present time a teacher who is certified by these Training Colleges only earns a Government grant of 4s. per head for all pupils he passes in scientific subjects; whereas if the teacher is a University graduate the Government grant in such cases is 10s. per head, although the pupils pass exactly the same examination. It is hard that teachers who get practically the same qualification should thus be handicapped in the matter of Government grant for scientific subjects, and I think the difference ought to be done away with. My hon. Friend seems to think that the students in Training Colleges are boarded and lodged there. As a matter of fact, the student is treated in exactly the same way as a University student. He lives in lodgings. He goes to his class and back again, and nobody takes any more notice of him.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 146.—(Div. List, No. 307.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £12,888, 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 Grants to Scottish Universities."
  MR. HUNTER: I move to reduce this Vote by a sum of £1,316, the amount proposed to be paid to Professors of Theological Chairs in the Universities of Scotland during the current year. I wish to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary expense connected with the education of divinity students. The sum at the disposal of the University of Aberdeen for divinity students is £1,921 a year. Taking an average of three years, this amount has been spent in the education of about 30 students, so that each student costs no less than £62 a year. The medical endowments are smaller than those for divinity; but the number of students in medicine is more than 10 times the number of divinity students, while the cost is only £4 16s. per student. In St. Andrew's University the endowments for divinity amount to £1,800 a year, the number of students, taking an average of three years, being 33, so that the cost is £56 5s. per head.

  1383
  This seems to be very exorbitant, but the difference is still more striking in the case of Edinburgh University. The University of Edinburgh has an income of £1,944 for divinity and the mumber of students was 107; while the endowments for medicine amounted to £1,766, the mumber of medical students being 1,879. So that the cost per medical student is 19s., and for each divinity student £18 3s. Taking the whole of Scotland, the endowments for medicine amount to £5,800, and there are 3,000 students, the cost being less than £2 per head. The endowments for divinity amounted to £7,664, and the students numbered 278 only. Therefore, on grounds of financial economy alone, we ought to stop the grants for these Theological Chairs. But when we add the fact that the students who are taught in these Universities are only the theological students belonging to the Established Church, we find that more than one-third of the total endowment of the Universities of Scotland—over £7,000 a year—is devoted to the education of divinity students belonging to one only of the numerous denominations to be found in Scotland. This is a scandalous evil, and I have thought it desirable that the Committee should know the facts I have stated. I hold that it is entirely contrary to sound policy and to justice that taxes which are collected from all religious denominations should be applied for the purpose of educating only those who are connected with the Established Church.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£11,588, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,: The hon. Member has based his Motion on a number of calculations which he has made, and which for the moment I am not in a position to controvert, but if they are all of the same inaccurate character as the figures relating to St. Andrew's University I cannot receive them with absolute faith. The number of divinity students given for St. Andrew's for instance, tails very far
  1384
  short of the actual number in attendance.
  MR. HUNTER: I gave the average for three years.
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: The hon. Member may be right in his average, but what I say is that the actual number in attendance last session was 48. The hon. Member also referred to the point raised during the discussion on the Universities Bill by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy—namely, that many men who do not intend to follow the theological profession enter the theological classes. I have made inquiries oh the point, and I am informed that that is an entire mistake: that there may be isolated cases of the kind, but that they form so small a proportion of the whole as not to be worth taking into account at all. Inasmuch as the general question raised by the hon. Gentleman has been so recently discussed, I think I shall best consult the convenience of the Committee if I refer the hon. Gentleman to the arguments which were used in the Debates upon the Universities Bill, and do not pursue the subject further on the present occasion.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am not willing to accept a general statement in contradiction of the general statement I made. If the Solicitor General has statistics I shall be very happy to stand corrected; unless he has, I do not think the question is fully set at rest. One word with regard to the present number of students in St. Andrew's being 48. I do not know how that has been brought about, but I know that a very few years ago there were only 18 students. I regret that my hon. Friend proposes to refuse the whole of the Vote for Theological Chairs in Scotland. I am not anxious to raise the question, because I think it will come up along with the question of the Disestablishment of the Church. I should have been satisfied to reduce the Vote by the cost of the utterly unnecessary Theological Chairs at St. Andrew's and Aberdeen Universities.
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to be more precise I will say that upon inquiry I was informed that there is only one student who answers the description given by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HUNTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the number of

  1385
  these students at St. Andrew's. Let me read out the figures for the last 10 years. In 1878–79 there were 22, the next year 20, the next year 20, the next year 24, the next year 22, the next year 24, the next year 28, the next year 34, the next year 38, and last year 42. The Solicitor General makes the number last year 48, but the difference is not significant; it would only reduce the cost from £54 or £56 to £40. I contend that £10 would be an extravagant sum considering the resources of the Scotch Universities, but when you add the fact that these are denominational Colleges the argument becomes stronger. I beg leave to dispute the doctrine that this is part of the question of disestablishment. A Disestablishment Bill would have nothing whatever to do with the Universities.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 123.—(Div. List, No. 308.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £1,900, National Gallery, &c, Scotland.
  DR. CLARK: At this late period of the Session I do not intend to oppose this Vote; but I beg to give notice that next year I shall move to reduce the Vote, in order to raise the question of the advisability of transferring the control of the National Gallery from the Board of Trustees of Manufactures to the Secretary for Scotland.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £337,957, 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 and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
  MR. WOODALL: I am glad to find a restoration of the "grant in aid of examples to local museums." The withdrawal of that grant has been very disadvantageous, and I personally would have liked to see the item standing at the figure it did formerly. I also regret the decrease in the item for the reproduction of works of art. Although I have no doubt the Vice President of the Council will be able to offer to the Committee a satisfactory explanation of the figures, I think the decreases are regrettable if they show a falling off in
  1386
  the demands of the country in this respect, or a diminution in the capacity of the Science and Art Department to satisfy those requirements. I am sure the Committee will feel these are amongst the most satisfactory forms of expenditure we can have. Notwithstanding that, from time to time, trenchant criticism is indulged in, there is in the country—especially in the industrial, manufacturing, and commercial districts—a strong feeling that very valuable service is rendered by the Science and Art Department. With regard to the items which show a diminution, it is very possible the right hon. Gentleman may allude to the sparcity of the space at the disposal of the authorities at South Kensington, which necessarily cripples their power with regard particularly to the reproduction of works of art. Anyone who has been to South Kensington recently and seen the conditions under which much of the work has to be carried on must feel there is great need for further enlargement. The cramped condition under which the revision of the work sent up for competition is to be carried on is really little short of a scandal. I have no hesitation in pressing this particular point, because I know how zealous the right hon. Gentleman is for the efficiency of his own Department. I only hope the First Lord of the Treasury or some other authority will be equally sympathetic when the facts are pressed upon their attention by the Department, and cause the deficiencies to be made good.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HAET DYKE,: I am glad my hon. Friend commends the step we are taking in respect to the two very important matters connected with the working of the Science and Art Department he has referred to. I entirely agree with the hon. Member as to the necessity for increasing the space at South Kensington allotted for the reproduction of works of art. The state of things in connection with reproduction of objects of art is eminently unsatisfactory, and I shall not relax my efforts until they have been improved. With regard to the reductions of the amount of grants of which the hon. Gentleman has complained, I shall keep a careful watch over the matter, and if I find that

  1387
  the efficiency is being lost in consequence of those reductions, I shall make an appeal to the Treasury on the subject.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000. We vote for the College of Science in Jermyn Street and its museum, nearly £20,000. The result is, that the Scotchmen who study applied science are very heavily handicapped; while the English students are taught at the expense of the State and are granted bursaries, so that they may be boarded during the time they are studying, the Government have again and again refused to give a single farthing for the teaching of applied science in Scotland. We have the Heriot Watt School near the Edinburgh University, but it is supported entirely by the fees of the students, and by such endowments as can be got. Ireland receives a grant of £7,000 for the Science School. The proper thing thing to do is to reduce the London School to the level of the Dublin School, and then, perhaps, Scotland can be fairly treated in this matter.
  MR. CONWAY: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not move his Amendment at this stage, in order that one or two points connected with examinations can be dealt with.
  DR. CLARK: Than I will not move the Amendment now.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President one or two questions in regard to the examinations in Science and Art. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that of late attempts have been made in Wales to extend the teaching of agriculture. From the report of the inspector I find that much progress has been made, and we may anticipate further progress next year. But there is a difficulty owing to the refusal of the South Kensington officials to allow a certain number of the candidates to be examined in Welsh. I am sure that from his knowledge of the condition of education in Wales the right hon. Gentleman knows that here is a real and practical difficulty. Hitherto the system of teaching English has been such that the children in the rural districts on leaving school lose all the knowledge of the English language they may have acquired. This is owing to the unintelligible way in which the
  1388
  Instruction is given, and the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged this in the Code for the year. Under the old bad and expensive system, with large expenditure, little result has been attained in imparting sufficient knowledge of English to allow of these examinations being passed in English, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to promise that a certain number of the candidates, they will not, I think, be a very large number, shall be allowed the alternative of examination conducted in the Welsh language. I admit that there may be a present difficulty, from the fact that the examiners do not understand Welsh, but really no effort has been made to find anyone who can examine in Welsh or translate Welsh examination papers for the English examiners. When an application in this direction was made from Bangor University, it was met by a naked refusal, no attempt being made to comply with the request, but I now hope that we may have some definite and specific promise that an effort shall be made otherwise. I must formally move the reduction of the Vote by £50.
  MR. CONWAY: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that complaints have been made against the system of delivering lectures on the production of lace in Ireland. The visits of the lecturer are too few, and they are delivered at places too distant from each other; for instance, they are delivered in Waterford one day and in Cork the next. I see there is an item in the Vote—£50 for lectures in Ireland, and I presume that is for the expenses of Mr. Alan Cole. I take no exception to this gentleman as a lecturer, and I do not think that £50 is sufficient remuneration for his services, and I should be glad if the Department could see their way clear to extend it in the interest of the lace-making industry, and allow of more frequent lectures. I acknowledge that Mr. Cole has done much service in Ireland, though I regret that in a recent lecture before the Society of Arts he rather discouraged the work in Ireland—he was himself his own critic. I desire that he should have more abundant means and facilities for giving as many lectures as he can in Ireland, and I would press on the Government the necessity of increasing the Vote for the purpose. The second point I wish to

  1389
  raise has reference to agricultural education in Ireland. By a recent rule of the Education Department the children in the best classes—the second stage of Class 5 and the first stage of Class 6—in Ireland are excluded from examination in agriculture, and accordingly from the South Kensington grant. We know the difficulty in this country of keeping children at school until they are able to reach the sixth standard, and in Ireland where so many demands are made upon our children at certain seasons, the difficulty is greater. This rule will affect the children who have reached the second stage of Class 5, who will be excluded from the Kensington grant, and must be satisfied with the grant from the National Commissioners in Ireland. In Ireland agriculture is a very interesting and popular branch of study. By school farms and school gardens we give practical illustration of the teachings of textbooks, and with the result that of 863 candidates presented for examination, 630 have passed, earning amounts from 10s. to 40s. The grants from South Kensington do not exceed the latter amount, so that it is not so much a monetary consideration but the Kensington certificate that is valued, for it is a severe test of efficiency. But by the new rule the best children are prevented from undergoing these examinations and from participation in the grants. The reason for the Vote is, I believe, the overlapping of the grants from Kensington and from the National Commissioners as set forth in the Appropriation Accounts. But what I would urge on the South Kensington Authorities is this, that they should institute an interchange of lists. Lists might be furnished by the teachers in the respective schools of the pupils presented in the subject of Agriculture, and the Commissioners might determine which boys have passed or not, and these lists might be interchanged with those from South Kensington. It would only mean a little additional clerical work, but this the Department are very averse to. I think by the means I suggest the little friction that has arisen might be overcome. As I have said, the desire for the Kensington examination arises from the fact of the test having more value than that of the National Commissioners; it is not a monetary question. I shall
  1390
  be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give me some satisfactory assurances with regard to the two points I have raised.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I do not object to this South Kensington expenditure for science and art teaching, and believe that in the main it is wisely administered, but it strikes me that much of the expenditure is too much concentrated in London, and that it would be much more effective if diffused among various centres throughout the country. This applies to expenditure under many heads, but confining myself to mining especially it strikes me that London is about the worst centre for a Mining School that you can have, for no mining is carried on within a hundred miles of London. Some 30 years ago I had the pleasure of assisting in the establishment of a Mining School in Bristol. Of course it is in a small way as compared with the. Metropolitan establishments, but in its way I think it has done more practical good than the more pretentious and more ambitious work carried on in London. If schools of this class were encouraged in the different mining centres much more would be done to encourage the teaching of mining science and much towards the development of our mining resources, upon which the future of the country so much depends. I will not criticise the Estimates in detail, but I would just observe that a good deal too much is expended on salaries.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I know the hon. Member for Merionethshire will not attempt to convict me of any want of sympathy with him on the point he has raised. As the hon. Member knows, I have gone to extreme limits in the new Code, in order to meet the point raised with reference to scholars being examined through the medium of the Welsh language. I only wish the new task he sets me were as easy of accomplishment as that with which I have endeavoured to deal in the new Code. I should like to explain the difficulties of the position if only to show the hon. Member that the matter has been carefully considered. These science examinations take place simultaneously, and are distinct from the examinations in elementary subjects. They take the form of examination paper, and are not conducted by

  1391
  examiners on the spot. The examiners are not acquainted with the Welsh language; so that in order to carry out the proposals of the hon. Gentleman the examination papers would have first to be set in Welsh, the results sent up in Welsh, and then translated into English. This would entail very great labour and expense which the Department, I am afraid, would cot be prepared to face. I promise, however, to inquire into the matter, and see whether there is any possibility of meeting the hon. Member's views in any way. Then the hon. Member for Leitrim has referred to Mr. Alan Cole's lectures on lace making, and I may point out that in the Report this year it is shown that the efforts of the lecturer have not been unattended with success, and some of the Colleagues of the hon. Member for Leitrim have spoken very highly of the lecturer's labours. I regret to hear there are any adverse criticisms in regard to a recent lecture.
  MR. CONWAY: Criticisms as to the amount of money voted.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It is true that the amount of money provided is small, and I should like to see the amount increased, but this, of course, is a question for the consideration of the Treasury. There can be no doubt that agricultural teaching is a most important element in the school life of Ireland; but the difficulty complained of by the hon. Member arises out of a challenge by the Auditor General as to certain accounts which were found of duplicate payments to pupils. There has been some correspondence with the National Board of Education on the subject, and they appear to be of opinion that the agricultural teaching given in Ireland under their programme of instruction is suitable and sufficient for the pupils at the national schools. In these circumstances, the Department felt bound to accept the suggestion, and the result has been the rule to which the hon. Member has called attention. There was nothing in the regulations as they stood to prevent their duplicate payments of grants by the Board of Education in the event of their examinations being held posterior to those of South Kensington, and that is the crux of the difficulty I have indicated. After the letter from the Secretary to the Commissioners, to the effect that the instruction given by
  1392
  the Commissioners covered the whole ground, and was efficient and sufficient for the purpose, we were bound to accept the suggestion. Then the hon. Member for Bristol has made a remark on the advantages of decentralisation in the system of science teaching. I can imagine no more practical suggestion also than that of decentralisation in the matter of science teaching. There is nothing to prevent schools giving this form of instruction being established in any mining centre, provided they conform to the rules of the Science and Art Department, and are under an efficient Committee. Such schools will receive every recognition from the Department, and in due time will receive grants from. South Kensington. When, however, complaint is made of the large salaries paid, it ought to be borne in mind that the work is increasing very much, while the salaries are not increasing. In 1887–8 the number of schools examined in science was 1,952, and in 1888–9 2,265. The number of students under instruction in 1887–8 was upwards of 112,000, while in 1888–9 the number was over 131,000. In art subjects also the increase of students in the years mentioned has been from 77,364 to 88,969. This year also the work, both as to submitted specimens and general average, shows a remarkable improvement as compared with previous years.
  DR. KENNY: I acknowledge the very courteous spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim; but will he allow me to press the importance of the subject, in the hope that he will use his influence with the Treasury to undo the rule which has been made, which, I can assure him, will be absolutely destructive of agricultural instruction in Ireland. Under the old rule a boy in the fourth class was qualified for the instruction—a sufficiently high qualification, I think; but, under the new rule, unless a pupil has passed into the highest class of the National School system he is not eligible. Ireland is an exceedingly poor country with, practically, only one industry—namely, agriculture, and there are not 5 per cent of the pupils in the schools who ever attain to the necessary classification. Those who could do so are drawn away from the training by the

  1393
  necessity for earning their bread. The whole difficulty is a purely mechanical one. I hope it will not be thought that I am defending the action of the National Board, which in this case has been infamous. They shelter themselves behind the Treasury, and adopt a system which reminds one very forcibly of Charles Lamb's description of the Chinese method of obtaining roast pig, which was to burn down the house with the animal in it. The Treasury are the masters of the National Education Board in Ireland, and if they choose to make a rule of a proper kind the National Board will have to accept it. If they make a rule that in all cases where agriculture or other scientific instruction is paid for by the Science and Art Department, the examinations can take place in Ireland by examiners from the Department, the arrangement would be satisfactory, or, if that is considered too drastic, there might be interchangeable papers. At present if the examination of the National Board precedes that of the Science and Art Department all is well, but if the contrary happens there is a danger of duplication. The new rule has shifted whatever blame there may be to the shoulders of the Science and Art Department, and I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his great influence in order to compel the National Board to come to a reasonable settlement and revert to the old rule. This is considered a very important question by the whole of the people engaged in education under the National Board in the North of Ireland. I and my Colleagues are deluged with letters on the subject, in which it is pointed out that the new rule will annihilate agricultural instruction in Ireland. The statement of the National Board that "they are satisfied with the instruction" goes for nothing. The point is to give real instruction in agricultural matters in Ireland—where it is all important—at the time the boy is in the National School, for he can then unite theoretical and scientific instruction with the practical training he gets at home. In many other departments of technical instruction we endeavour to follow this system. We endeavour to establish workshops in connection with the schools, and as the plan is found advantageous
  1394
  in these cases, surely it would be so in the matter of agriculture. Here we are practically losing an opportunity of doing the very thing which is most required in Ireland. I know the Vice President of the Council is animated by the best intentions in the matter, and that he will do what he can for us, although he finds himself confronted by the Treasury who are masters of the situation. I would again urge him to spare no pains to bring pressure to bear on the Treasury in the matter.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I am thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made, but I regret that he could not give us a more specific reply. Though, no doubt, it is difficult to carry out the arrangement the Welsh people desire, I would ask him to realise our position. He must recognise the plain fact that the people in the rural districts in North Wales are Welsh speaking, which is due to their nationality and their national life. But the fact that they are not a bi-lingual people is due, first, to the neglect of the Education Department; and, secondly, to the vicious principle they lay down of insisting that Welsh shall practically be proscribed from the schools. If the use of the Russian language were insisted on in the schools, say, in Dorsetshire, what would be the effect upon the peasantry in that county when they left school? So long as you have control over Welsh education—and you have absolute control over it —you must recognise the fact that the Welsh language prevails in the Principality, and that without a knowledge of English in the rural districts. I would point out that there is great enthusiasm for agricultural teaching in North Wales, and I can illustrate that by what happens in my own county of Merionethshire. We have courses of agricultural lectures there. One of the lecturers is at Bangor, and large numbers of peasants trudge there to attend the lectures, which are delivered in English, but made intelligible by being interpreted into Welsh. The examinations, however, are conducted in English, and, therefore, the Welsh-speaking people are debarred from testing the knowledge they have acquired, and from obtaining certificates and grants. If the right hon. Gentleman would remove this difficulty, he

  1395
  would find that extremely intelligent replies would be given in the language of the people, which will show that they thoroughly appreciate the efforts which are being made to extend the teaching of agriculture. That this teaching is extending, and that the people desire it, is to be seen not merely in the efforts of University College, Bangor, but the efforts of the farmers and peasantry all through North Wales. I desire strongly to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Bristol, and I desire to press it home in view of the working of the Intermediate Education Act for Wales. We hope that in the course of the next two or three years the vast industrial community of South Wales will have a large number of excellent, practical, scientific, and technical schools under the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council has piloted through the House. It seems to me that it would be impossible to have that Bill thoroughly and efficiently worked unless the Science and Art Department is fairly generous in providing specimens and sending down collections to the schools and museums.
  MAJOR RASCH: I merely desire, as an agricultural Member, to remind the House that a Bill was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), and myself, for facilitating instruction in horticulture and agriculture, assisted by the Science and Art Department. I hope that Bill will be reintroduced next Session, and that it will receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I quite agree with my hon. Friend in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the expression of sympathy he has so honourably given to the Welsh Members in this matter. Yet we should like him to meet us still further, because sympathy by itself will do very little good. I can scarcely think that right hon. and hon. Members in this House understand the difficulty we are in in these matters. Some of us—I myself, for instance—whilst speaking in English, are thinking in Welsh; consequently, we are under considerable difficulty. The peasantry in the country, who have little chance of learning the
  1396
  English language, are under even greater difficulty. But it is in this way. You have an Englishman, who is a good English scholar, and myself, who am an indifferent one, and we are both under examination. If the examiner asked the Englishman to describe "the rudiments of agriculture," the Englishman would clearly understand what was meant, whilst I should scratch my head until he nudged me and said, "Rho ddesgryfiad o elfenau cyntaf amathyddiaeth." Then I should know what he meant. This is the difficulty we are in, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will see it, and pardon us for pressing the question. We are thankful for every consideration; we have to be thankful for small mercies. I do not think you should treat as you do a country which has been so loyal to every Government of this country. You would not think of treating India or Afghanistan, or any other country, as you do Wales. Because we are the children of your little sister, as it were, you expect us to endure these difficulties. Pardon me for pressing the matter now, but I do say that even if it is impossible to meet us now something should be done to satisfy our demand in the future.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I should like to back up the argument of the hon Gentlemen from Wales. I know from my own experience how strong the feeling in Wales is in favour of the education there being given in the Welsh language. My own opinion is, it is very unwise to try to snap out that language as we have done in the past. I believe the reason the Established Church has lost its influence in Wales has been because it has carried on its services in English instead of Welsh, and I think that the people should be left to their natural instincts in the matter of language, for the sake, not only of their literature, but of their general advancement in science and learning.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am afraid I have not a strong measure of comfort to offer to hon. Gentlemen. With reference to the alleged difficulty of teaching agriculture in Ireland, I can only repeat my regret that I cannot give a more satisfactory reply. It is said that we can get over our difficulties by an interchange of lists between the

  1397
  two Departments, but I take it that the letter I read out from the National Board would preclude that. The hon. Gentleman says that agricultural teaching will be debarred from these schools, but I take it that agricultural subjects are compulsory between classes 4 and 6 in the National schools. If the hon. Member thinks that our teaching of the principles of agriculture is so superior to anything else on the face of the earth, that any teaching given by the National Board of Education in Ireland sinks into shame beside it, then I admit there is something in his attitude, but my contention must remain, that this teaching has been described by a responsible Educational Department as being sufficient and efficient for its purpose. Referring to the question of examination in Welsh for scientific subjects, I wish I could see my way out of the present difficulty. I sympathise with the objects of the hon. Member for Merionethshire, but there is a difference between a lecture and dealing with a vast mass of examination papers, and that is the prominent difficulty in the matter. With regard to the question of dealing with the subjects which may be taught in connection with the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill, of course I shall do my very utmost to bring the Science and Art Department into accord with any school or institution that may spring up.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100,000 for the Technical Science College, on the ground that there is no money given for Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Normal School of Science, &c), be reduced by £10,000."—(Dr. Clark).
  MR. CALDWELL: I desire to point out that in this matter of technical education Scotland is treated differently to England and Ireland. We have an equal grant with England and Ireland in respect of passes at examinations, but there is this difference—that in England you have the Science and Art Department; in Dublin you have the Royal College of Science, but you have no corresponding National School of Science in Scotland. I am sure it was never intended by the Government that Scotland should
  1398
  in a matter of, this kind be treated in any way differently to England and Ireland. Though we have no School of Science and Art in Scotland, upheld by the National Exchequer, we find, that the grants for science and art teaching received by Scotland amount to £17,000, whilst England only receives £52,000. Scotland receives a much larger amount than England in proportion to population, therefore the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will see that science is more taught in Scotland than in England, and that Scotland is a country where science can be developed very largely. All that we ask is that we may have the same facilities for developing science in Scotland that you have in England and Ireland. Diplomas can be obtained without difficulty by Englishmen in London, but Scotchmen, if they require diplomas, have to leave their own country to get them, and that I consider a great hardship. We have an admirable College of Science and Art in Glasgow, and if it were to get a proper grant from the Education Department that college would answer, so far as that part of Scotland is concerned. Something similar should be carried out in Edinburgh and Aberdeen; but, certainly, we are entitled in Scotland to the same facilities for the study of science and art that you have in England and Ireland. I know that in taking the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to task it is like attacking the wrong man. The right hon. Gentleman would not object if we had half a dozen schools of Science and Art in Scotland; but the difficulty is with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Departments of the Government. We can do nothing more than bring the matter under the notice of the Committee.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I would point out that the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness will be to enter on a process of levelling down instead of levelling up. But with regard to the Normal School of Science, I have to remark that its scholarships and exhibitions are open to Scotch as well as to English pupils. Scotland also obtains a full proportion of those scholarships and exhibitions, and a full proportion of Scotch teachers are trained in this establishment.
  DR. CLARK: I am compelled to move to reduce the Vote, because by the Rules of the House I am precluded from moving that a sum of £5,000 be given to a School of Science in Edinburgh. I do not in the least object to this money or even more being spent on Science and Art in England, but I object to Scotland not getting its fair share. I am aware that Scotch students come here and obtain bursaries, and I am also aware that those who pass best have the choice of going to the School of Mines here or to the Royal College of Science in Ireland, but what I object to is that they cannot go to a school of this kind in Scotland. You treat Scotland unfairly; you give Ireland all she wants—[Some Rule cries of "Oh!"]—I mean financially. Financially, Ireland is the spoilt child of this House. What I want is that the Government should redress our grievances and give fair play to Scotland.
  MR. SEXTON: I have heard with disappointment and with some surprise the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President in reply to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman fell into one error. I do not think my hon. Friend intended to compliment the Science and Art Department. We in Ireland regard that Department with particularly mixed feelings, and Irish teachers prefer that their pupils should be examined by the Science and Art Department, only because the result fees are higher. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), that we get all we want in Ireland financially, I think for a hard-headed Scotchman, he has travelled very much into the realms of fancy. We get more than we want of the batons of the police, but we do not get anything like what we want financially. The result of what the Government have done at the instance of the National Education Board is practically to take away the incentive of result fees in regard to the teaching of agriculture. If you fix upon the 4th class you catch the main body of the students, but if you raise the standard to the 6th class, you may as well abolish the result-fees for agriculture altogether. I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman, whose sincere interest in all that concerns education no Member of the
  1400
  House doubts, will feel it his duty to reconsider the subject.
  The House divided: —Ayes 58; Noes: 103.—(Div. List, No. 309.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question, proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £103,975, 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 and Expenses of the British Museum, including, the amount required for the Natural History Museum."
  MR. SEXTON: I fear it may be necessary in the state of the House to ask for a postponement of this Vote. I regret that the hon. Baronet, the Member for London University is not in his place, because he is well acquainted with the details of the working of the British Museum, and usually answers questions relating to the administration of that institution. However, I gave notice some months ago of my intention to raise certain questions-upon this Vote, and I hope some Member may be able to give me the answers I desire. I wish to ascertain what are the conditions of employment of the principal officers of the Museum, and I think I am entitled to affirm that they are bound to maintain an impartial position between political Parties. Two of the permanent officials of the Museum placed themselves at the service and employment of the manager of the Times in connection with the Commission which has been sitting, and I wish to know whether that was done with the assent of the Trustees. It appears that these officials received certain documents from the Times and applied themselves to an examination of them. I wish to know whether, under the conditions of their appointment, they are expected to devote their whole time to the service of the Museum. I am aware that the examination of these documents took a considerable time, and I hope that some one will be able to tell the Committee on what conditions these gentlemen entered into the service of the Times, and what was the amount of the remuneration they received. I have also to complain that the premises of the Museum were placed at the service of the Times for the purpose of taking

  1401
  photographs and enlargements of documents. After Mr. Macdonald had been examined the Attorney General desired to put Mr. Inglis, an expert, into the box to prove that the hon. Member for Cork had written certain documents. After he had been examined Mr. Birch, another official of the Museum, was ready to go into the box to swear that the hon. Member for Cork had written those letters. Fortunately for the Museum and its officials it happened that when Mr. Inglis went into the box Sir Charles Russell declared that he would not cross-examine him until the history and genesis of the letters had been laid before the Court, and thus the Museum was saved from the misfortune of having its officials called to prove the genuineness of letters which everybody but Lord Salisbury admit to be forgeries. Another question I have to put relates to the files of Irish newspapers. These, of course, are preserved in the Museum, but since the opening of the Special Commission readers at the Museum have been deprived of the means of reference to these files for historical or political purpose. They have been transferred from the Museum to the Law Courts, where I am not even aware that they were kept in the custody of an official of the Museum. Mr. Soames has been allowed a room in the Courts and the files were stored in that room. Although I am sensible of the inconvenience of permanently removing the files from the Museum, I would have made no objection if they had been equally accessible to both sides in the case. Several of my hon. Friends have been attacked because of their connection with Irish newspapers, and although they were on their trial, and although the files of the papers had been removed from the Museum to the Royal Courts of Justice, the Committee will be surprised to hear that those files were not open to their inspection. I protest in the strongest manner open to me that it is not just that a great public institution maintained out of the Imperial purse should allow its officials and documents to be used in a political issue in favour of one of the parties only. I find that the salaries of the two officials concerned are £750 a year each, and, therefore, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £102,475, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  SIR G. STOKES: As I happen to be one of the Trustees of the British Museum, I think it is right I should say a few words on this question, although I regret that not being aware that the discussion was coming on to-night, I have not provided myself with full details.
  MR. SEXTON: I should have informed the hon. Gentleman had I been aware of his intention to speak.
  SIR G. STOKES: As to the conduct of the two officials to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I am informed that what they did was done entirely out of office hours; at all events, they were not absent from the Museum during office hours, as I am informed. As to the removal of the files of newspapers, of course that can only be done by legal authority, and there must be a guarantee for the safe custody of papers so removed. What are the conditions under which papers are so removed, and in whose custody they remain are questions as to which I can give no opinion, nor have I any legal knowledge on the subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the Committee will agree with me that the distinguished professor has not thrown much light on this subject. This is a very different case from that of the Shapira manuscripts, which but for the intervention of a German professor would have been accepted as genuine by the British Museum. This is the forgery of letters by a modern politician, and there are tests which we were assured by the Attorney General had been applied to the consideration of these forgeries. It was always understood that lurking in the background loomed the distinguished gentlemen connected with the British Museum. It is much to be regretted that these gentlemen did not hold themselves absolutely aloof from an inquiry which concerned the fate and fortunes of one of the great parties in the State. We all know what light has been thrown on this question of the genuineness of handwriting by photography; and no small sensation was created when it was

  1403
  said that the officials of the British Museum, with the dry light of science and impartiality in politics, were on the side of the Times. Now, the only excuse we have offered is that these officials acted after office hours. But does this make men purblind; is it an excuse that they made asses of themselves after office hours? If that is the defence, they are not fit to receive their salaries. If these gentlemen are asses after office hours, surely they will be asses in office hours. But the antecedent question is, what right had these gentlemen to intervene in this business at all? But having intervened and having brought the light of their intellects to bear, what was the result? If these experts could not find out the hand of Richard Pigott, how on earth can they find out the stamp of Julius Cæsar? What are we to think of what are called the resources of civilisation in their hands? The absolute fraud and humbug of these letters might have been demonstrated at the cost of a few shillings and a microscope. Why, by throwing a magnified photographic representation of these forgeries on a screen one could see that they were as full of composition and decomposition as a pond of fetid water is full of animalculeæ. One could see the whole plan of the forgery as elaborately traced as M. de Lesseps' plan of the Panama Canal. I attack the action of the officials of the British Museum on the ground of their scientific incompetence as well as on political grounds. But I have a third proposition to make, and it is with reference to the action of these gentlemen in connection with the files of newspapers. The hon. Baronet says that what they did they did under legal conditions. What were the legal conditions? I apprehend it is quite impossible to serve a subpæna on the British Museum. I do not see how you could serve a subpoena on the British. Museum to produce the files of newspapers. I will not discuss the legal conditions, but I say that to serve a subpoena duces tecum on the clerk of the British Museum is not sufficient to cause him to produce the file of a newspaper. However, apparently the British Museum, whether they had a subpæna or not, did not require much tuition in the matter. They at once produce their files. Let us suppose that this was a Tichborne trial. Would
  1404
  it be tolerated as between two private parties that all the newspaper files of the country which are collected in the British Museum should be carted away to the Strand and locked up from the general body of the public, who have the first right and claim upon them? If that is the use to which the British Museum is to be put, I say, "Away with the British Museum!" I apprehend the British Museum is for the advantage of the public generally, and not for the advantage of Mr. Soames or any other solicitor. For the last 12 months anybody who went up to the British Museum to consult the files of the Irish newspapers or the English newspapers was told, "Oh, they are down at Mr. Soames' office!" What answer is that to the British taxpayer? I maintain that if only one humble being would be inconvenienced by the removal of these files, they ought not to be removed. It seems to me that if a subpoena is sufficient to break up the collection at the British Museum, there should be salutary legislative authority to prevent it. I suppose that if the subpoena had ordered the authorities to send down the whole library or the skeleton of a megatherium, it would have been obeyed. The Times might have called for every mineral, vegetable, or animal specimen in the building. There is no doubt these gentlemen acted with the greatest imprudence. I do not believe any legal subpœna was served at all; but even if it was possible to subpœna the authorities of the British Museum, I think they might have found a way of excusing themselves from the production of the files if they had cared to do so. I now go to my fourth proposition. I desire that everything done by the British Museum shall be regularly done. I want to know what right the British Museum Authorities had to transfer all these valuable records to the custody of Mr. Soames. I saw from the newspapers that the clerk of the British Museum attended the Commission Court for one or two days, and that then a gentleman called Sir Richard Webster got up and said—
  "The British Museum Authorities are attending day after day and bringing down these documents every day, but we desire that they should be left here."
  "Oh, certainly," said the President. I

  1405
  recollect reading that nothing that has once been put into the Museum can be taken out of it again without the sanction of a special Act of Parliament, and that when it was desired on one occasion to remove an old skeleton to make room for a new one the authorities had to put the old skeleton inside the new one so as to avoid the necessity for a special enactment. At any rate, it was no part of the duty of the British Museum to relinquish the custody of these documents. There may be Acts of Parliament to enable the authorities to dispose of their lumber; but it is another thing for the authorities to hand these files over to Mr. Soames. The clerk who produced them should have said, "I am a public official. You require these papers, and I will give them to you to look through; but they must be equally accessible to the litigants on the other side." That was not done; Mr. Soames had them under lock and key, and so far as the general body of litigants were concerned the files were absolutely closed to them. Undoubtedly the Times nobbled the British Museum; and on a later date we shall show that the Times got officials of the Royal Dublin Society, who are paid out of the public money, to look out extracts for them. I think that the Motion which my hon. Friend has made is a reasonable and necessary one. It is very unsatisfactory to the Irish Members to have to bring these matters forward after the thing is over. But that is all we can do in Irish matters. It is no remedy, however. I do not suppose that there will be a Parnell Commission again for another century. The British Constitution has not sufficient resources to produce anything like it again on this side of the 20th century. There is absolutely no defence to be made for the authorities of the British Museum in this matter, and therefore I support the very proper Motion of my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASUEY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am afraid I am not able to give very much information to hon. Gentlemen opposite; and I regret very much the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) who usually answers for the British Museum. My Hon. Friend the Member for the Cam-
  1406
  bridge University has told the House that two officers of the British Museum were consulted in this case, but that they did not act in the matter within the hours which they are called upon to give to Museum work. I do not suppose that anybody believes that they entered into the examination which they were asked to undertake from any partisan view. The hon. Member for Longford, I am sure, will testify to the facilities afforded to him whenever he has applied to any officer connected with the Museum. I believe it is customary for officers at the British Museum who have special knowledge to be consulted from time to time by those who desire to have their opinion. Whether these officers would have undertaken this duty, had they known the whole circumstances of the case, is extremely doubtful; but I do not think it has been shown that they have in any way taken a Party side. They have examined the documents purely from the point of view of their knowledge and experience of such documents. I believe there is ample power to compel the production of any documents in the Museum; and I do not understand that it is contended by the Lord Mayor of Dublin or by the hon. Member for Longford that there has been any refusal to anybody to see the files of the newspaper in question. These files were sent to the Court; and I take it that they were in the custody of the Court.
  MR. SEXTON: If anybody wanted to see the newspapers, he had to ask Mr. Soames.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not understand that either of the hon. Gentlemen have gone so far as to say that anybody who has applied to see the files has been refused, but rather that the newspapers were sent to the Court and placed in a particular room which, in their opinion, looks as though they were sent there in the interests of one side or one litigant. I imagine that when the newspapers were brought into Court under an order of Court, they were open to inspection by any party in the case. I am sorry that I am not personally acquainted with all the details of the matter; but if there are any questions of detail upon which answers are desired, distinct inquiries shall be made before the Report stage.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I know something about this matter. I have had a good many actions brought against me, and I remember that in regard to one action—I am not quite certain whether the Solicitor General was for me or against me; he has been both—I wanted to obtain the files of one or two newspapers from the British Museum, and I was able to do so by subpoenaing some official. But the newspapers were not given into my custody. They were brought into Court by an official, who took them away again. What we now complain of is that certain documents were brought from the Museum and handed over to the custody of Mr. Soames.
  MR. JACKSON: Under the protection of the Court.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The Solicitor General will tell the hon. Gentleman that the Court has no power to allow such documents to be handed over either to a plaintiff or to a defendant. Undoubtedly in this matter there is a certain bias on the part of every official of the Government, which induces them, I do not say to act against the other side, but not to do anything for the other side. The hon. Gentleman who has defended the Museum authorities stated that the two officials devoted their time to this matter out of office hours. But I put it to the First Lord of the Treasury whether public opinion will not be biased by two gentlemen from the British Museum coming forward as expert witnesses for the Times? Unless we get an admission from the Government that a wrong has been done, and a promise that it shall not take place again in any future trial of this sort, I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  MR. CHANCE: Obviously, all documents in the British Museum, within the possession, power, and procurement of the trustees, are entitled to be produced in Court, although they are held under strict regulations by the trustees. The words of the Act of George II. are most specific on the point. All property is by that Act to remain under the control of the trustees for public use to all posterity. But not only so, even if the trustees desire to move part of their collection to another building, they have to come to
  1408
  Parliament for an Act for the purpose. Thus, in 1878, the British Museum Act gave the trustees special power to remove a certain portion of their collection to the buildings at South Kensington. Did they get any special Act for the removal of these documents from the Museum to Mr. Soames's office? These are points which I think the Solicitor General might help us to clear up.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The Secretary to the Treasury has stated that these two gentlemen, had they known the circumstances from the beginning, probably would not have gone into this transaction at all. But surely it was known long before the production of these forged letters in Court that they were not documents that ought to have been used in a criminal charge. Another point has been raised which is a little confused. I suppose there is no doubt about the right of any party in a suit by a subpœna duces tecum to call for the production in Court of any particular documents; but such documents, so produced as these files of papers were, should never leave the custody of the individual producing them. They should be held in his care for reference by either party to the suit, or the solicitors. This practice is inherent to the proceedings. I have seen officials of the British Museum in Court over and over again produce under subpœna files of papers, but I never heard of a case in which such documents were placed in the custody of one party to the suit. If that has been done in this case—I have no knowledge myself about it, but I have heard what has been stated as to these files being in the custody of Mr. Soames—then I say it is a proceeding that this House ought to condemn in the very strongest fashion. There is not a shadow of doubt about the practice that such documents should be open to the access of either party.
  DR. KENNY: The Secretary to the Treasury has applied himself to the task, which he can perform better than most on that Front Bench, of throwing oil on the troubled waters. He has expressed his willingness to answer any questions of detail that he can, and there are one or two questions I should like to put to him. We should like to have the name of the second official which, as yet, we have sought in vain. We have the name of Dr. Birch, but we

  1409
  should like to know who was the other expert employed. It might be that we may have occasion for his services in a case of our own in the future. Another question of detail, which may be within the hon. Gentleman's cognisance, is—Did the experts day by day have these files of papers in their custody? Also—were they paid by the Times, or who were they paid by? These are questions upon which I hope we may get an answer. Then as to the conspiracy in which these gentlemen seemed to have joined, a grave question arises. I think we must all feel that it is necessary we should be tender about the reputation of our ancestors. Now, suppose one of these gentlemen should have before him a letter, say from the Duchess of Portsmouth or Mistress Eleanor Gwynne, upon the authenticity of which may depend the reputation of an English Monarch. Very grave errors might arise to the Monarch's reputation through the incompetency of these gentlemen, and the same questions might arise in reference to the Monarch of a later era. The hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge University has told us that the work of these officials in regard to these letters was done after office hours. But does he really mean to say that a series of very elaborate experiments were not conducted at the British Museum, and with the apparatus of that Institution? It does not require less faith than that of St. Thomas, if we hesitate to believe that the Museum was not so used. These are questions upon which I hope some explanation may be forthcoming.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I desire to bear brief testimony to the fact that the papers removed from the British Museum, and which have been understood heretofore to be the property of the nation, and in the custody of the trustees, were brought down from the Museum, I think without formal order of the Court, and certainly were transferred to the custody of Mr. Soames, and access to them was denied absolutely to the other parties in the suit. This is our grievance. I have no complaint myself to make of being personally damnified, for I have small faith in British Institutions, including the British Museum, and so I provided myself with a file of papers from my own office, and therefore was not at that loss which others of my Colleagues suffered through Mr.
  1410
  Soames being in possession of the Museum files. Day by day I had before me the fact that not only were the Museum files in Mr. Soames's custody, but he had Irish policemen placed at his service to go over the papers for him and make extracts therefrom. This is a fact that cannot be denied. I believe the First Lord of the Treasury must be in a position to have had some knowledge of these proceedings from their inception. [Mr. W. H. SMITH expressed dissent.] We must accept the right hon. Gentleman's disavowal. But the fact remains that we, the weaker party in this contest, had all the odds against us. You used the public money; you used your control of public Institutions; all social advantages were on your side; you used even the money that we are now asked to vote, that you might ply Mr. Soames with every advantage to be used against us. And all this time you denied any access by us to this public property for reference. I think my hon. Friend has made a good point in his reference to a special Act being required to take documents from the British Museum; but I do not rest my argument upon that. What I say is that no one party in litigation should be able to compel the production of such documents in Court, and withhold them from the other party. It was especially hard upon us, who had nothing to rely on but our truth, our pluck, and public virtue. Against us you used all the advantage of wealth and social influence, and you cannot complain if we indulge in the luxury of grumbling and protestation. I am quite certain that what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) says is a fact—that these documents were in the custody of Mr. Soames at the Law Courts; and, further, that he had the assistance in the examination of these documents of the official staff of the Museum and also of the Irish police.
  MR. FLYNN: I regret that none of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who were engaged before the Commission are now present, because I feel confident that if either of those who sit on this side in Committee were here this evening he would be able to show to the satisfaction of the Committee that these newspaper files for a considerable period were not, properly speaking, in the custody of an official

  1411
  from the Museum, but solely and exclusively in the custody and occupation of Mr. Soames. In proof of this statement on several occasions last November and December, and while the House was in Session, and Members of this House were lying under these charges, we went to the Court to obtain extracts from Irish newspapers, from certain speeches alleged against us in evidence, and the learned counsel to whom we referred told us we should go to Ireland or send to Ireland for the newspapers. So it is evident he could not procure these extracts in Court. This much will be conceded, that these files if they were in Court should have been as accessible to the one side as the other. They were not in Court, and they were, I allege, absolutely in the custody of Mr. Soames and his coadjutors. I do not think the Committee will be satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet that these British Museum experts did this delicate work after office hours. It is an extraordinary thing that in a great State trial, as a Member of the Government has appropriately termed it—it is positively indecent, I will say, that servants of a public institution, officials of a great national institution like the British Museum paid out of public funds should be employed in a transaction of this kind. Beyond all doubt it raises serious questions as to the competency of these gentlemen to occupy their present position. As an ordinary layman, I should be inclined to call in question the ability of these gentlemen to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics, if they have failed to see the forgery of these pen scratchings attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. Any ordinary judge of caligraphy would have discovered the forgery after a few hours' examination. The hon. Baronet says these gentlemen did their work out of office hours; but did they perform their experiments within the walls of the Museum in midnight secrecy, and did they avail themselves of the apparatus and machinery of the Museum? I do not know, but I suppose cameras and photographic appliances are to be found at the Museum. If this was the case, what a lame excuse it is to say the work was done after official hours! But passing from that, why should these gentlemen be required to undertake the work at
  1412
  all? Are there not in London plenty of skilful photographers who would have equally well discharged this comparatively simple work of taking and enlarging photographs? Why were these officials employed at all? I think the time of the Committee is well employed in the endeavour to get at the truth of this business, and I hope some right hon. Gentleman will be able to supplement the little information we have had as to these very suspicious transactions.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I join in acknowledging the reasonableness and courtesy of the Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope he will make an effort to satisfy us on this subject. He asked us to put questions to him upon detail; but if my hon. Friends will accept a little advice from me, I should recommend them not to ask for any details, but to demand a full and complete statement of all that has taken place. For my own part, I shall decline to intimate any particular point upon which I should like information. What is wanted is a full account of the whole transaction; when it began; where it began; how the work was done; who paid for it; in fact, the whole story in connection with it. The Secretary to the Treasury is generally very clear and straightforward, and I hope he will be so in this case. I do not propose to enter at length into the subject. I will only add that it does seem a little strange that with the knowledge that this discussion was coming on to-night—for it has been a matter of controversy both in the House and in the country for months—it is strange, I say, that we have nobody here to speak with authority for the British Museum. The Solicitor General has sat through this discussion and displayed his interest in it by some Times nodding and some Times shaking his head. Will he get up and tell the Committee what is the law on the subject? If he cannot tell us what it is the British Museum have done, will he tell us what they should have done and should not have done with reference to the custody of these papers?
  MR. MOLLOY: The British Museum Authorities were bound to produce these papers under subpœna duces tecum, but that subpœna must have been seen by the trustees. It could not have been served upon anybody in the Museum without it

  1413
  being brought to their knowledge, because no document can be moved without their authority. Perhaps the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Stokes) will let us know what action was taken by the trustees, and if it is within his knowledge that the subpoena was served.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the hon. Baronet has given the Committee all the information in his power, but I think that he will agree that the information he has given is not sufficient to satisfy even the most modest curiosity. I admit that the testimony of the hon. Baronet is valuable on many subjects; but in regard to this matter, it is evident that the testimony would be more valuable after inquiry than before, and I hope he will be so good as to make inquiry. His arguments simply amount to this—that what the officials did was after office hours. But that appears to be founded upon speculation in his own mind, for the only reason he could give was that they were not absent during the hours of duty. Now, there is no doubt one of the reasons why the British Museum was selected for these experiments was because of the character of its plant and apparatus and its facilities for the enlargement of photographs. But the hon. Baronet does not appear to have informed himself upon this point, whether the work was done in the Museum at all. The Secretary to the Treasury has made but a lame apology. Of course, he is very effective in apologising for the sins of others, perhaps because he has so few of his own to answer for; but I am quite sure that he will agree that an arrangement should have been made by which the custody of these papers should have been in an officer of the Court or of the Museum, and that they should be open to the inspection of litigants on either side.
  MR. JACKSON: I entirely admit that, and I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that that had not been done. I quite understood that the files were in Mr. Soames' room; but I did not understand there was any difficulty, or any refusal of access to them, to others who were concerned, and I understand, moreover, that they were actually in the custody of the Court for the whole time.
  MR. SEXTON: The Commission sat for four days in the week, and during that time they were open to Mr. Soames
  1414
  and not to us. During the other three days we were also debarred from inspection, while Mr. Soames had full control.
  MR. JACKSON: I understood that it was under the advice of his own counsel that the hon. Member sent to Ireland for his own copies.
  MR. SEXTON: My hon. Friend's counsel would not have advised him to go to Ireland to look through the files when he could get them in London. Mr. Soames's agent had access to the files at any time; but whenever the representatives of the Irish Members desired to look at them, they had to ask the permission of Mr. Soames to state what papers they wanted and to examine them under the supervision of Mr. Soames's clerks, so that Mr. Soames knew exactly what evidence it was intended to give and was able to prepare his cross-examination. The whole thing was a conspiracy engineered by Mr. Soames. I am surprised that a man of legal eminence, such as the Solicitor General, should sit through the whole discussion and not take any part in it except by gesture. No doubt it is a discreet silence, and the matter is more the Attorney General's business than the Solicitor General's. The Attorney General received a splendid fee in the case, and the Solicitor General did not. I admit that there is a strong contrast to be drawn between the conduct of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen—the Solicitor General, though he received no fee, being in his place, and the Attorney General, who had so large a pecuniary interest in the Times' case, being absent. Without going any further into that matter, I desire to point out that we have not had a reply to several questions we have addressed to the Government. The Committee wish to know who the officials were; whether they were served with subpœna duces tecum, and, if so, when; how long they continued in the service of the Times; what operations they performed; what remuneration they received from the Times; and what documents were specified in the subpœnas? Lastly, are these the officials upon whom the country depends for deciding the validity of valuable documents. I shall ask the Committee to divide on this Vote to-night. I intend to raise these questions again on the Report stage, and I trust that then a reply will be forthcoming either from the

  1415
  Attorney General or the Trustees of the British Museum.
  MR. CHANNING:: I do not think this Debate should be allowed to close without the law being laid down by the Law Officers of the Crown as to the custody of the documents in the British Museum. I think, seeing that the Solicitor General is present, we should have his opinion of the law upon a question of such importance as this.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,: If the Committee desires to hear my opinion I have no objection to give it. Two questions have been raised in the course of the discussion; one is strictly relevant to the Motion before the Committee for the reduction of the Vote, and that is the question of the conduct of the two gentlemen who seem to have been consulted with regard to these documents. The other is the question of what was done with regard to the production of printed matter from the British Museum in the course of the case, and of its being left in the custody of Mr. Soames. With regard to the authority for having printed matter from the British Museum produced in Court, the legal knowledge and experience of the two Members for Northampton has already shown that it is within the competence of a Court to cause printed matter to be brought from the British Museum when dealing with any sort of case, public or private. One of the public purposes of & complete collection of literary work in the British Museum is that the Courts of Justice may be able to refer to it. Both the hon. Members for Northampton in their diverse experience in courts of law, have had to do with the production of printed matter. It is said that in this case printed matter was brought to the Court by an official of the British Museum in the morning and taken back in the evening. [Cries of "No, no."] I beg pardon; I know this from one of the hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken in this Debate. It was taken back each night until on the second or third day the Attorney General suggested that this moving to and fro was extremely inconvenient and unnecessary, and I understand from the statements made in this Debate that it was ordered that the files should remain in the custody of Mr. Soames.
  MR. SEXTON: Ordered by whom?
  SIR E. CLARKE: By the Court. No such proceeding could have taken place except under the order of the Court; and if objection had been made by either of the litigants against the application that the documents should be left with Mr. Soames, no doubt the order would have been refused. It is stated that there was great difficulty in obtaining access to the documents. I have no knowledge of that, but it has not been stated that any application for such access was made to the Court. If representations had been made about the inconvenience of the documents lying in Mr. Soames's office, no doubt that inconvenience would have been removed. As to the question of consulting officials on the question of handwriting, two gentlemen of the British Museum have been referred to. The name of only one of them has been mentioned, and that is Mr. Birch. I do not discuss whether it is right or wrong for the officials of the British Museum to be consulted, but I do know that it is by no means an exceptional thing for Mr. Birch, one of the officials in question, to be consulted on questions of handwriting. In the last case but one in which I appeared—which involved a question of forgery—where the forgery of a will was exposed, Mr. Birch was called upon to give an opinion on handwriting. I succeeded in defeating the will which was then in question, and I knew of Mr. Birch having been employed because I held his report in my hand. I only instance this case to show that it has, undoubtedly, been the practice to consult the officials of the British Museum, and there is not the smallest reason for supposing that their intervention in the particular case under discussion had any reference to the character of the case.
  MR. O'HANLON: One thing is certain—that Pigott and his party will follow the Government to its grave. We have heard nothing whatever from the Government, who should give us every information in the matter, except that we ought to have gone into Mr. Soames's office for the information we wanted. If we had done such a thing what would have been thought of us? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think it would have been possible for any Member of this

  1417
  party to go into Mr. Soames's office? I think the proposal to reduce the Vote a very proper one.
  MR. T.M. HEALY: I shall, on Report, press for an answer to one or two questions of which no notice has been taken. I desire to know to whom the subpœna was addressed, what it contained; what the officials subpœnaed were asked to produce; what these gentlemen were paid, and whether the payment was brought in ease of the charge on the taxpayers. The answer given by the Solicitor General is no answer at all, and I assert as a matter of law that there is no authority to compel the British Museum or any officer of that Institution to produce anything on subpœna duces tecum. It is a monstrous thing if Soames's office and the British Museum are to be interchangeable terms. The course taken by the British Museum Authorities in this instance has been most regrettable, and no answer of any sort or description has been given to our questions. Supposing Soames had stuck to those documents, or had mutilated them by cutting them into ribands, what answer would be forthcoming to the inquiries of the taxpayers? There would be a suit for damages, of course, by the British Museum against Soames, but what answer would that be to the general public; and this shows the inconvenience of the course which has been followed. Where are those documents now? I submit that they are still in the office of Soames. Are they back again in the British Museum? No one can say; and yet the Vote is brought forward for discussion in this way. As to Messrs. Birch and Inglis, all I will say is that it was on the testimony of experts such as these that the Crossmaglen prisoners were sentenced to penal servitude, and I submit that they should be prevented from giving bogus evidence in fraudulent perjury cases. While they may be competent enough to deal with evidence pertaining to the days of Julius Cæsar, they are not competent to do so in the days of Richard Pigott. Let Mr. Birch remain in the classic shades of the British Museum and draw his salary peaceably. If he is an expert the best place for him to exercise his calling is in the place where he is paid for it by the country. It is a monstrous thing that any of these public servants when they get into official
  1418
  positions should be trotted out as experts. They really know nothing more about these things than anybody else, but they put on great airs, take great oaths, and get great money. This scandal has gone far enough, and I hope that to-morrow we shall have some better answer than that given from the Treasury Bench.
  MR. CHANCE: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to see that Mr. Birch and other gentlemen are not permitted to go round the country, with all the material in the Museum at their disposal, swearing people into gaol?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I have always understood that it was one of the duties of the Government to call attention to the extra receipts of these officials. We certainly have a right to know what are the indirect salaries which these gentlemen receive, and to what extent the British Museum grant is supplemented by receipts from private individuals when those receipts are earned in consequence of the official position of those who obtain them. This Debate will be useful if it has no other effect than to direct particular attention to the fact that these men are in receipt of enormous sums for private work done with public instruments, and obtained because they are public servants. It is preposterous to say it is not in the power of the Committee to investigate the matter. I think we ought to be informed not only what remuneration these gentlemen received when attending on their subpœna, but what remuneration they received during the time they were making the investigation, and were not on subpœna. It is also our duty to inquire whether or not they used the instruments of the British Museum or devoted any of their official time to this outside work. I give the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Stokes) perfect credit for believing that they were at their offices during the proper hours, though he did not say they were doing official work all the time. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will inquire whether any of the work was done during official hours.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: After the very inadequate reply of the Government I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. D. Sullivan.)
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I see the hon. and learned Attorney General now in his place. He will remember that certain documents were obtained under a subpœna duces tecum from the British Museum. These documents were placed in Mr. Soames's private room at the Law Courts. It has been complained by hon. Members, who may be described as the persons sued in the case, that they had not equal opportunity with Mr. Soames to look into the documents. Our complaint is that documents were taken out of the custody Of the British Museum and left in the custody of Mr. Soames. Of course, the Attorney General will see that that was a most improper thing if it was so. The Solicitor General admitted that it was improper, but said he did not know it to be so at the time; and so said the Secretary to the Treasury; at least, he did not attempt to defend it.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I did not say so. What I said was that it was understood that these documents were being carted backwards and forwards at great inconvenience; that the Attorney General said this was a most inconvenient course, and that no objection was taken to the Order of the Court as to their custody at the Law Courts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not care about the Law Courts. I am a taxpayer, and these things are to a certain extent my property, and I object to my property being left in the hands of Mr. Soames, whether by the permission of the Judges of the land or of the Attorney General. We want to understand whether these documents were left by an official in the hands of Mr. Soames; whether they really were in the hands of Mr. Soames?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I am glad to think that my presence here at this stage may be useful in affording hon. Members below the Gangway, on the opposite side answers to the questions that have been put to the Government. The documents were never
  1420
  out of the custody of the proper officer of the British Museum. No access was ever had to them by the advisers of the Times, so far as I know, except under the custody of that officer, and the same access was given to all parties concerned. During the first three or four days the papers, all of which were produced on subpœna, were carted backwards and forwards, to the great inconvenience of everybody. Then the suggestion was made, if my memory serves me right, by Sir Charles Russell, that they should be left in the Law Courts; I will not be quite certain as to this, but the suggestion came, so far as I recollect, from the other side. My recollection is that this was suggested to Sir James Hannen, who was informed that the officials of the British Museum were not entitled to leave the papers anywhere else than in the Museum, unless the Commission made an order to that effect. Whereupon Sir James Hannen said it was a reasonable proposal, and directed that they should be left in a room in the Law Courts. I am able to say from personal knowledge—though, having been counsel for the Times, I am unwilling to obtrude my personal knowledge—that the papers were accessible to any of the parties to the inquiry. So far as I know, the documents were never produced except under the custody of the official of the British Museum. They were never in the custody of the solicitor for the Times, in whom the hon. Member for Northampton expresses such distrust.
  MR. M. HEALY: The hon. and learned Gentleman says these papers were never in the custody of Mr. Soames. I may state that, as a party to the suit, I once had occasion to apply for access to the documents, and I had to go to Mr. Soames and get Mr. Soames's permission to see them. I was conducted by Mr. Soames to his room, and I had to inspect the documents in the presence of half-a-dozen of Mr. Soames's clerks.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 133.—(Div. List, No. 310.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,487, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

  1421
  in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have something to say in regard to this Vote, and as time does not now admit of my doing so, I will move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  MR. W. McARTHUR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to promise that on Saturday he will only take non-contentious business. I, therefore, assume that on that day he will not take the Diplomatic and Colonial Votes.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid it will be impossible to satisfy both those hon. Members who want to take Votes and those who do' not, but I will endeavour to-morrow to state some arrangement with regard to the Saturday Sitting, which, I hope, will be generally satisfactory to the House. If hon. Gentlemen are really desirous of making progress, they will be content to make some sacrifice of their own personal convenience.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: I would point out that the House has now for several months been discussing the affairs of some 37,000,000 of people in these Islands, but there are 270,000,000 more under British rule whose affairs have not yet been touched. All I ask is that we shall not be called on to take the Votes I have named on Saturday.
  MR.LABOUCHERE: The Diplomatic Vote is always regarded, not so much as a contentious Vote, but as one that requires to be discussed. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as a matter of fairness not to call upon us to take that Vote on Saturday.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Colonial Votes on Saturday.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to take Supply on Saturday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Some business must be taken on Saturday, and Gentlemen who complain that Votes are postponed are now asking for their further postponement. I desire the House to take notice of this fact.
  MR. CHANNING: I have a notice on Class V. of the Estimates, and I am perfectly willing that it should be taken on Saturday.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Resolution [9th August] reported.

  Class III.
  "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."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. SEXTON: The latter half of the Debate on this important Vote was left, unanswered by the Government, and there are some questions of importance and of pressing urgency which it is desirable to consider and determine before the Report of the Vote is agreed to by the House. I have first to refer to the case of the Divisional Commissioners. They are not new officials; they are familiar figures under a new name. They have been hitherto paid and employed under the style of Resident Magistrates, and in that capacity have received salaries of £1,000 a year, which is far in excess of the salary legally payable to a Resident Magistrate in Ireland. These payments have been continued for a series of years. The Auditor General has protested, and the Government have endeavoured to get rid of the illegality of the position by including these illegal payments in the Appropriation Bill, and this year they have plunged into a fresh illegality. It is true the Government introduced a

  1423
  Bill dealing with the matter, thereby admitting the illegality of their course; but they did not press that Bill forward, and made no effort to get it passed. How, then, do they now endeavour to get out of their illegal position? Why, by a manœuvre that is almost unexampled. They have arranged that these officials shall cease to be Resident Magistrates, and shall become Justices of the Peace. The Lord Lieutenant has discharged them, at some date unknown, from their offices as Resident Magistrates, and has admitted them, also at some date unknown, as Justices of the Peace. But the men are the same, the duties are the same, and the salary, which it was illegal to pay to them as Resident Magistrates, is also the same, and is now made legal because of their change of office. We have asked for information concerning this manœuvre: we have asked at what date these men ceased to be Resident Magistrates and became Justices of the Peace; we have asked whether they paid the ordinary fees on being admitted as Justices of the Peace, and we have also asked to what counties they have been nominated; and, although we have put all these questions, to which we are entitled to have replies, the Chief Secretary has this evening attempted to move for a flimsy Return which evades the whole question, which gives us no information, and leaves us in precisely the same position as we were in before. But we shall press for this information, and I trust that, as long as the salaries of these Resident Magistrates are sought to be illegally paid, the Irish Members will resist their payment by every constitutional means, until the position of these functionaries, whatever they may be called, is regularised in due form and course of law. I imagine that the reluctance of the Government to give this information is due to an unwillingness to face a full and fair discussion such as is incidental to the progress of a Bill. What are the functions of these remarkable officials? Why, they are a kind of flexible buffer between the Executive and the public, and their function is to push the policy of violence against the public right to the extremest point, and to minimise the responsibility of the Government. Under this system what is called the responsibility of the
  1424
  Government to this House has gone to the vanishing point, and has practically ceased to exist. Under it there is no security for liberty, justice, or fair play to any political opponent of the Government in Ireland. These Divisional Commissioners get up cases, especially against public men, choose the Magistrates who are to try them and who also act as juries, and then present the evidence to the police whose promotion is in their hands. To put it shortly, these men make the charge, constitute the Judge and jury, produce the evidence, and reward the witnesses. There is nothing to compare with this in any part of Great Britain or of the civilised world; and the chance of justice and fair play on the part of any public man engaged in any political movement in Ireland in opposition to the Government has absolutely disappeared. I will refer to one or two of these functionaries. In the North we have Mr. Cameron. He is the man who broke into the empty homes of evicted, tenants, and arrested them for forcible possession, and he is the functionary whose impartiality may be judged by the fact that he it was who gave misleading information to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and led him to publish a false libel on the hon. Member for North Monaghan.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What I said in Court was that having heard the statement, first of all from Mr. Olphert, I went to the village and consulted with the Divisional Commissioner and another gentleman, and it was because Mr. Cameron and the other gentleman were not able to give me the name, although they had heard of the incident, that I refrained from mentioning the name.
  MR. SEXTON: At any rate, it was after a conversation with this man that the hon. Gentleman took upon himself to make a statement with regard to the Member for North Monaghan, which he was afterwards obliged to admit on oath to be false. In the West we have Mr. John Byrne, the hero of the Loughrea evictions; further South we have Captain Slacke, and in the County of Cork there is Captain Plunkett, who sounded the keynote of outrage in his famous telegram, "Do not hesitate to shoot." He and Captain Slacke en-

  1425
  courage and promote those policemen who distinguish themselves by outrage, and repress and degrade those who are conspicuous for humanity and endeavour to perform their duties in a temperate spirit. During the greater part of the last year Captains Plunkett and Slacke devoted themselves to the service to the Times, and judging by the good account the Chief Secretary gave of the state of Ireland m their absence, I think it would be sound economy to save their salaries by transferring them to the Times altogether. To give the House an idea of the relations of these functionaries and the people, I need only refer to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Kerry, who has been described by Colonel Turner as a person who has been a persistent breaker of the law and a scurrilous traducer. If my hon. Friend were again to be tried for what in any other country would be called the ordinary exercise of his duty as a journalist he would be tried before Mr. Cecil Roche, who has said of him that he systematically insults the preservers of law and order, and the man to choose his Judge would be Colonel Turner; the Judge would be Mr. Cecil Roche. I ask the Chief Secretary for an explanation of Colonel Turner's conduct with reference to the Vandeleur Estate. Colonel Turner incited the landlords to promote eviction and to bring tenants from distant parts of Ireland to take the vacant farms in the place of the tenants whose title was ancestral. Colonel Vandeleur, who was a high-minded man, was about to settle a dispute with regard to one of his farms, when Colonel Turner interfered and prevented the settlement being carried out. What explanation can the Chief Secretary give of the letter written by Colonel Turner to another official, "Things will never be right in Clare until old Dynan and his villanous priests are removed"? How did Colonel Turner mean them to be removed? The only meaning which I can attach to the letter is that Colonel Turner desires that the police should know that he will be well pleased if the priests had their skulls cracked by batons, or if some of them can be hit by ricochet bullets, such as have been heard of at Mitchelstown. I challenge Colonel Turner to say that he did not
  1426
  mean his subordinates to understand that he would not be sorry if violence were done to the worthy Vicar General of the Diocese and his priests. I now come to the case of the Resident Magistrates, and first I will deal with that of Captain Segrave. That hero has been too much forgotten. His case acquires particular interest from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork charged Captain Segrave in this House with having embezzled the funds of his regimental canteen as well as money confided to him by a private soldier to send to his mother. Immediately after that the hon. Member, who was never before interfered with on account of his speeches, was charged in respect of a speech which differed in no way from those of which no notice had been taken, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I believe, and the Irish people believe, that it was not really for the speech that the hon. Member was prosecuted, but for having exposed the misconduct of an official of the Crown. Captain Segrave has been allowed to resign his appontment, from which he ought to have been dismissed with ignominy. I wish to know what was the date of the resignation, and whether Captain Segrave has been allowed to resign in order to enable him at a future time to re-enter the public service. What amount of salary has he been paid since the date of his exposure in this House? Another Resident Magistrate is a gentleman whose name is constantly appearing on the black list. There is Colonel Caddell, a gentleman of whose legal knowledge nobody is satisfied. Only recently he insulted a young girl who was at the time in the custody of the police. The discrepancy between his sentences is remarkable, emergency men being treated with exceptional leniency. Out of the 75 Resident Magistrates whose names appear upon the Return of last March there are only 33 of whose legal knowledge even the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied, while the legal knowledge of the remaining 42 gives no satisfaction to any one in the world. Twelve Magistrates have been selected by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for their legal capacity. Only three of them are barristers, eight are retired officers

  1427
  and one had no occupation at all previous to being appointed. One of the 12 is Mr. Cecil Roche. It is true that that Gentleman was appointed by Lord Spencer, but when his term of office expired it was not renewed. The career of Mr. Cecil Roche under Lord Spencer was a downward career. Under the right hon. Gentleman it has been an upward career. The case, then, stands thus. Out of 75 Magistrates, there were 21 of whose legal knowledge Lord Spencer was satisfied; 12 of whose legal knowledge the right hon. Gentleman has been satisfied; and 42 without legal knowledge at all. Seven Magistrates have been chosen by the Lord Chancellor to hold private inquiries, five of whom are simply ex-constabulary officers, whose names have been most closely connected with the conspiracy of the Times against the Irish Members. I contend that this selection of the Lord Chancellor is a deliberate misuse of the authority confided in him by the House. If these Magistrates were, as the Chief Secretary contends, judicial officers, and not mere agents of the Executive, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn over in his mind a few short and simple questions. Is it not the fact that, after his speech at Manchester in which he complained of the inconvenience of long sentences resulting in appeals, these Magistrates all over Ireland at once and simultaneously adopted a new system? Did they not defeat the constitutional right of appeal by inflicting short sentences? They did that because they took the right hon. Gentleman's speech as a direction, and because they felt their promotion would be imperilled if they did not do so. Then there is another curious fact, that the Resident Magistrates never disagree. They have been sitting in couples for two years or more under the Coercion Act, and they have tried thousands of cases. Why is it that two of these Resident Magistrates have never disagreed? There may have been one occasion on which they disagreed, but that one occasion serves to prove the rule. This agreement can only be explained on the theory that these Resident Magistrates do not pretend to regard themselves as judicial persons, but rather as the instruments and agents of the Government
  1428
  to carry out the policy of the Chief Secretary. They feel no more at liberty to disagree than two policemen on a beat. They agree because they have their orders. They know the cases in which it is desired by Dublin Castle that they should convict, and those in which a conviction is not considered essential. If there were no other fact before the House, the fact that these Magistrates always display such remarkable unanimity in agreeing upon convictions is not to be accounted for, except by the knowledge that they are not Judicial persons but are instruments, agents, servants, "Uncommercial Travellers," as perhaps Dickens might have called them, sent by the Executive to various parts of Ireland to carry out a certain line of policy and attack against the national movement. There is one other question I have to ask. Why is it that no Resident Magistrate since the Coercion Act was passed has exercised the legal power of directing that a prisoner should be treated as a first-class misdemeanant? A Crimes Act prisoner was so treated in one case by the order of a Magistrate in Dublin. He was a Magistrate who was independent of the Executive, because there was no power to remove him. But he never got another case to try. The reason is obvious. The Government would not commit another trial to the care of a Magistrate who had dared to exercise his legal power in the direction of leniency and moderation. The Resident Magistrates act on the understanding that the policy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a policy of cruelty. I must say a few words on the case of Mr. Conybeare. Mr. Conybeare and Mr. Harrison, of Oxford, were tried together on the same charge, and the same evidence was offered against both Mr. Harrison was not convicted. Everybody in Dublin knew in advance that he would not be—for it is a curious comment on the policy of these tribunals in Ireland, that in many cases the public have knowledge of the judgment before it is delivered. The hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) told me in this House that a relative of his own in Dublin had heard the Irish Attorney General say at a social gathering in Dublin that Mr. Harrison, whose trial had not yet come

  1429
  off, would not be convicted because official steps had been taken to that end. Mr. Harrison had influential Tory relatives, and the Resident Magistrates were instructed not to convict. Mr. Harrison was acquitted; Mr. Conybeare, on the same evidence, was convicted. The case was taken into the Court of Exchequer. One member of that Court, the Lord Chief Baron, expressed the opinion that the conviction was bad, while another member of the Court had grave doubts on the point, and Mr. Baron Dowse confessed to being "bewildered." Is a Member of Parliament, under such circumstances, to be kept for the full term of his sentence in a gaol from which three persons have recently come forth to die? When I refer to the policy of cruelty I cannot help saying it is shameful that, although Mr. Conybeare is suffering from injured eyesight and failing health, the Prisons Board will not put up a few planks so that he may have the opportunity of exercise in the open air in wet weather. Now, Sir, I ask whether this sentence is to be carried out to its full extent? I think the country will form the opinion that it is not creditable that a Government, which was able only to obtain a majority of four upon a critical question involving the interests of Mr. Conybeare's constituents amongst others, should keep him confined in prison. I suppose it is useless to address an appeal to the Government at a moment when its majority has fallen so low and when five Members of the Opposition are safely stowed away in Her Majesty's prisons. The last case I have to deal with is that of Dr. Tanner. It is now quite clear, from the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction to try him at all on the occasion in question. It is also clear that the Magistrates exasperated Dr. Tanner by their demeanour, and by ordering his counsel (Mr. T. Healy) out of Court. When my hon. and learned Friend was expelled from Court, two of Dr. Tanner's witnesses, the ex-Mayor of Cork, and Mr. Welsh, the Harbour Commissioner, believing the case to be at an end, also went out of Court. The ex-Mayor of Cork went into the box to give evidence but was turned out of the box. Father Humphreys, a third witness, was pre-
  1430
  sent, and ready to swear that Dr. Tanner had not committed the offence with which he was charged. He made the most harmless observation in Court. He was affronted by the Magistrates, and felt there was no course open to him but to leave the Court. Dr. Tanner, I say, was worked up into a state of exasperation, and addressing the Court, which had no jurisdiction, he used language which was disagreeable to it. The Magistrates never cautioned him or named him, but listened to him in silence. Why did they remain silent? Because a trap had been laid and Dr. Tanner was falling into it. They retired from Court and came back in 15 minutes with an elaborate document which the ex-Indian official and ex-artillery officer could not have drawn in 15 months, much less in 15 minutes. I say, Sir, that the whole proceedings of that day offer conclusive evidence of a plot between the Executive and the Magistrates to entrap my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). I do not think even the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will argue that these obscure persons in Tipperary could have hit on the idea of that warrant, founded on a jurisdiction which had never before been exercised in any solitary case, and could have drawn it up in 15 minutes. The warrant for contempt was drawn up in collusion with the Executive in Dublin Castle, in the expectation that my hon. Friend, being a man of quick temper, and of no considerable restraint of language, would use language which would be considered as constituting a contempt of Court. It was impossible for my hon. Friend to give sureties, because by doing so he would have pronounced judgment on himself. I am, however, saved from arguing that question, because the Lord Chief Baron said from the Bench that nothing would induce him to give security to keep the peace. While the Chief Baron declared that the jurisdiction of the Magistrates technically existed, he expressed his regret that the Court of Exchequer was not entitled to inquire whether there had been contempt at all, or whether, if there had been jurisdiction, it was fairly or properly exercised. He spoke of the jurisdiction in terms of disapproval and disgust. He declared

  1431
  that it was a glaring anomaly, and appealed to the Legislature to remove a most odious and intolerable tyranny. My hon. Friend has been sent to prison as an untried prisoner, and I have a letter from him in which he says that his treatment is worst than the treatment of a first-class misdemeanant. Well, Sir, if these things are to go on, we need not say anything more about the Coercion Act; that is merely a trifle in comparison. I hear this very day of a man, who was guilty of the offence of nodding and winking at a fair where some pigs were being sold, having been sentenced to two terms of three months' imprisonment, and, in addition, to two terms more in default of bail. Under the Coercion Act there must at least be a charge made and some evidence heard; but under this new-found, but very old jurisdiction, any two agents of the right hon. Gentleman, without any charge being made, or without hearing any evidence or any defence, may take up the position that language has been used which is not sufficiently respectful, and call upon a man, perhaps for a fierce word inadvertently spoken, to find bail beyond the value of his whole worldly goods, or to go to prison for the term of his whole natural life. If the lawyers of the Crown in Dublin Castle are to be allowed to dig up these dustheaps of oppression, I do not see why they should not resort to pulling out teeth, or to the maiden's embrace, or to the boot, or the thumbscrew. Nay, I think that those forms of procedure would be more justifiable, because they have at least been exercised and were legal at the time; but in this case, assuming that the jurisdiction does exist, it is one which has never been used before. If the right hon. Gentleman allows the continuance of this new jurisdiction he will drive Ireland into a state of things in which despotism will no longer appear under the form of law. I shall feel it my duty to divide the House upon the Vote.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am one of those who entertain considerable admiration for the oratory of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; but if the right hon. Gentleman will accept counsel from me it will be not to spoil his great gifts of speech by
  1432
  the exaggeration which so often mars them. I will take three examples of this. In the first place, there was the case of Dr. Tanner. The right hon. Gentleman said that Dr. Tanner was subjected to worse treatment than if he had been imprisoned for contempt. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has been entirely misinformed. I believe that the kind of imprisonment to which Dr. Tanner is now subjected is precisely that to which he would have been subjected for contempt of Court. Whether that be so or not, I am certain of this—that the treatment which an untried prisoner receives is more favourable than that of a first - class misdemeanant. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had unearthed a musty statute with which to attack its political opponents. It is true that the statute of Edward III. has never been used with regard to misbehaviour in Court; but it is wholly incorrect to say that the statute has been allowed to grow rusty from disuse. It has constantly been used not only in this country, but in Ireland also.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely missing the point; my point is that it has never been used to send a person to prison for words spoken in Court.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that if the statute has been used continuously in this country and in Ireland for dealing with various forms of misbehavour, it is at all events no extravagant exercise of authority to use it with regard to a particular form of misbehavour, which certainly cannot be described as otherwise than serious? Then there is another instance of the strange lengths to which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to go in what he has stated with regard to County Court Judges. We are familiar with attacks on Resident Magistrates in this House on the ground that they are the servants of the Executive, and, therefore, cannot give independent judgments. But when the Government point out that the judgments of the Resident Magistrates are supported and confirmed by the County Court Judges, then calumny spreads, and the attacks formerly made upon the Resident Magistrates are extended so as to include the County

  1433
  Court Judges. It is absurd as well as grossly calumnious to suggest that the Irish County Court Judges are influenced in the decisions they give by some vague hope—in support of which I know of no instances that has occurred—that they might in the remote future be removed by the Executive to some more convenient county or to some more highly paid place. The right hon. Gentleman must see that in making such a suggestion with regard to the administration of justice in Ireland he is overloading his case unnecessarily. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his attack upon the Government by referring to changes in the position of the Divisional Commissioners; but those changes were made on the recommendation of the Auditor General and of the Public Accounts Committee with the object of placing the office of those gentlemen upon a regular footing, instead of the irregular though perfectly legal footing upon which it had previously rested.
  MR. BARRAN: The Public Accounts Committee have for years denied that these were on a legal footing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt that may have been the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee, but I prefer to rely on the opinion of the Law Advisers of the Crown. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to a charge which has been made against Colonel Turner, that he threatened a woman on the Vandeleur estates to prevent her giving up possession of her holding in order that a former tenant might be reinstated. The right hon. Gentleman has evidently been wholly misinformed with regard to the matter, because what Colonel Turner did was to inform the woman that if she did not wish to give up possession of her holding she would be protected in her legal rights—which is a very proper remark for a Magistrate to make. As to the letter attributed to Colonel Turner casting reflections upon the Irish priests, all I can say is that I have no knowledge of that letter, although I know that there are priests in Clare who do little honour to their cloth.
  MR. COX: I challenge you to name one. [Cries of "Order!"] Name one, or repeat what you have said
  1434
  outside the House. [Cries of "Order!" "Withdraw !" and other interruptions.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no knowledge of the particular letter referred to. The right hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the case of Captain Segrave. I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, although he was irregular in discussing that case on the present Vote, because Captain Segrave's salary is not on the Votes of the year. All I can say with regard to that matter is that I should be unworthy of the position which I hold if I had dismissed an official upon telegraphic information received from the Cape.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Forgive me for a moment. There are facts which the public ought to know. Parliament met on February 21, and two days after that date I produced a certified copy of the Cape Mail announcing the dismissal of Captain Segrave from the Cape. I told the Chief Secretary that he would find the facts at the Colonial Office, but it was not until March 21 that any steps were taken, and during the whole interval this cashiered officer was drawing the public funds.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of fact I do not believe that he was drawing the public funds.
  MR. MAC NEILL: With all respect he was. I have given special attention to the facts. The subject is as dear to me as the battering ram.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not doubt the motives of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has grasped the details. I had indeed placed before me the statement of Captain Segrave's dismissal from the Cape, but I could not take any action until I had heard the circumstances under which that dismissal occurred. I did not receive the full details until March 21, and then Captain Segrave was permitted to resign. And while, having reviewed the case with some care, I thought that Lord Aberdeen would never have thought of appointing Captain Segrave had he known all that we now know. I also thought that Captain Segrave had been treated rather harshly by the Cape Government, and very harshly in the House of Commons.
  MR. MAC NEILL: He was not apapointed by Lord Aberdeen, but by the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I expressed the opinion that Lord Aberdeen would never have thought of appointing Captain Segrave; and I repeat that that appointment, though carried into effect by the President of the Board of Trade, was practically settled before my right hon. Friend came into office. To pass to the case of Mr. Cecil Roche, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast, with a considerable recklessness of statement, gave the House to believe that Mr. Cecil Roche had been dismissed by Lord Spencer from the office of Land Commissioner.
  MR. SEXTON: I said no such thing. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the recklessness of statement is entirely on his side. I said that when his term of office had expired he was not re-taken into employment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of fact Mr. Roche was re-appointed certainly once if not twice under Lord Spencer, so that the particular inference which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to draw appears to be wholly unfounded. If any one studies Mr. Cecil Roche's magisterial record as indicated by the results of the appeals from his decisions, there will be found no reason to doubt the impartiality of those decisions. According to the Official Return, from October 1, 1888, to July 31, 1889, Mr. Cecil Roche tried 35 persons under the Crimes Act. Of these 26 were convicted, and appeal was taken only in nine cases. None of the nine decisions were reversed; in two cases the sentences were reduced, two cases are still pending, and in five cases the sentences were fully confirmed. That is not a record of which Mr. Cecil Roche or his friends need be ashamed. Then the right hon. Gentleman attacked the appointment made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland of Magistrates to hold secret inquiries. I assert that the secret inquiries held under the Crimes Act have done more to bring offenders to justice than any action of a similar
  1436
  kind taken in Ireland within historic Times. If any hon. Member will look at the Parliamentary Return he will see that crimes of the gravest description, such as murder, firing and wounding, and moonlighting offences, have been detected and the perpetrators brought to justice through the instrumentality of the secret inquiries conducted by these Magistrates, in a manner which could not have been done under any other system. Instead of attacking the Government the right hon. Gentleman should congratulate us on the success of our efforts in punishing some of the most serious forms of crime. Then the right hon. Gentleman dealt with two other cases—those of the hon. Members for Camborne and Mid Cork. With regard to the former case, the right hon. Gentleman made the amazing statement that another gentleman, Mr. Harrison by name, who had been associated with the hon. Member for Camborne in his expedition to Donegal, was not convicted because, forsooth! he had Tory relatives. If the right hon. Gentleman can believe that he can believe anything. The right hon. Gentleman's credulity is limitless, and I must despair of ever converting him to habits of critical inquiry into the facts with which he has to deal. It is perfectly true that some cock-and-bull story was made public with regard to some statement made by an Irish official about the action that was going to be taken by the Resident Magistrates with respect to the trial of the hon. Member for Camborne and Mr. Harrison. But I believe that the hon. Member for Camborne was challenged to name the Irish official referred to, and the hon. Member was not able to do it. The right hon. Gentleman is repeating second-hand the story which the hon. Member for Camborne could not verify first-hand. With regard to the merits of the sentence passed on the hon. Member for Camborne, I would only say that there was an appeal from the sentence of the Resident Magistrate to the County Court Judge on the merits, and the County Court Judge upheld the sentence. There was a further appeal to the High Court on a point of law, and the right hon. Gentleman has read a large num-

  1437
  ber of extracts from the judgment of the High Court with regard to the sentence. But the right hon. Gentleman did not state that the whole of the opinions of the High Court on this matter were on a purely technical aspect of the case. On the merits there never was a question, and nothing fell from any Judge of the Superior Court which could call in question the opinion formed by the Judges of the two inferior Courts. As to the case of Dr. Tanner I cannot conceive any person who really has taken the trouble to read the proceedings before the two Resident Magistrates doubting that on the broad and substantial merits of the case the action of the Magistrates was fully justified. I am unable to believe that anyone who surveyed the evidence impartially could come to any other conclusion. I am aware that the Court of Exchequer reversed the sentence; but on what kind of plea? On the merits of the case? No; but upon the most technical of technicalities—on a point which could not influence a rational man for a moment as to whether or not Dr. Tanner Was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. We are, therefore, driven back to consider the evidence at the trial, and it is wholly in one direction. Every opportunity was given to the prisoner to produce witnesses. He produced one witness, who did not prove his case, while the witnesses for the Crown proved their case. ["They were all police," and "Order."] This is an illustration of the kind of attacks made on the Resident Magistrates. It is true that in certain other cases the decisions of the Magistrates have been reversed; but can it be maintained by anyone who has surveyed their action in regard to hon. Members of this House that in any one case they have done substantial injustice? Can it be maintained by any hon. Member of this House who has been convicted by a Magistrate that he did not commit the offence for which the Resident. Magistrates found him guilty? The speeches of hon. Members are on record in Nationalist journals. I am aware that this is not legal evidence in a Court of Law, but the uncontradicted reports in their own journals are surely evidence on which this House can come to some kind of conclusion, apart from evidence
  1438
  in a Court of Law. Whether hon. Gentlemen are justified in attacking the Crimes Act or not, this broad fact remains, that the alleged offences have been committed; and if hon. Members have broken the law, whether they approve the law or not, they must remember at all events that the law they have broken is the law of the land.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I waited with curiosity and anxiety to hear what the Chief Secretary for Ireland would say on the question in reference to the case of Mr. Conybeare and Dr. Tanner. I believe I can speak of these hon. Members by name while the Chief Secretary keeps them in prison; and I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman spoke of these cases in the harsh grating provocative tone he always adopts, adding the harshness of his language to the severity of the punishment. He does not deny that the sentences are severe; he does not deny that the judgments of the Magistrates in both cases were unfavourably commented upon by the Superior Courts.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman attributes to me words I did not use. It was not my business to express an opinion whether the sentences were severe or not, but as the right hon. Gentleman challenges my opinion, I have no reason to think they were.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the sentences were ten Times greater, if it were possible to inflict sentences of ten years' penal servitude, the right hon. Gentleman would not think such a sentence to severe or vindictive to be passed upon a Member of Parliament of the Nationalist Party. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that these sentences have been severely commented upon by the Superior Courts, but he meets these comments by saying, "Oh, these are technicalities." But is not every point of law a technicality? What the Judges commented upon was that the Magistrates did not take an accurate or just view of the law, and I

  1439
  cannot conceive a severer condemnation in respect to persons charged with the liberties of men than that they acted recklessly or in ignorance of the principles of law which ought to guide them. But the question here is not the Resident Magistrates or the Superior Courts, but the Executive Government in deal-with this question. I say that no English Secretary of State would have allowed men to remain under a sentence of this character when the judgment upon them had been criticised in a manner in which this judgment has. In the administration of criminal justice in this country, and the conduct of the Government towards it, no man sentenced to imprisonment in England by Justices whose conduct has been commented upon, as in this case, would be allowed by the Secretary of State to remain under sentence of this character. The infliction and execution of sentences which do not carry public opinion with them produces more evil than good. These sentences against Mr. Conybeare and Dr. Tanner, so far from carrying with them any sentiment of respect for the law, shock every man of ordinary judgment or feeling. Many persons consider them extremely harsh; and, considering that the Judges of the Superior Court have commented upon the manner in which they were passed, I affirm that in England these sentences would have been relaxed and even remitted. It is deeply to be regretted that the principles of the administration of the law and the mitigation of it by the Executive Government are not the same In Ireland as in England. There is every disposition on the part of Magistrates to strain the law and to pass exorbitant sentences, and there is every disposition on the part of the Executive to enforce these sentences and to carry them out in the harshest possible manner. In England the Magistrates and the Executive lean to mercy rather than severity. There is a well-founded belief that Derry Gaol is unhealthy, and that there is typhoid fever in it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I refrained from dwelling on that point, but the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his facts.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Let the Souse be told the facts and not go on
  1440
  asking questions from day to day. Mr. Conybeare may catch fever while we are talking about it. If there is a suspicion on that point the Irish Executive ought to have taken the first opportunity of removing Mr. Conybeare.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: There is no suspicion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This is the first time the right hon. Gentleman has made that statement, although he has been asked day after day on the subject. When a comrade in this House is exposed in a pestilential gaol and the responsible Minister is asked about that hon. Member's health, he says, "Oh, I don't know, but I will inquire." That is not the sort of answer——
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not give that answer.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That sort of unnecessarily irritating and provocative answer is part of what the right hon. Gentleman calls resolute Government. Look at the way in which Dr. Tanner has been treated. We all know he is a very excitable man, and Mr. Speaker, therefore, has treated him with exceptional forbearance, but the Chief Secretary's Magistrates, instead of treating him in that manner, made use of his infirmity in order to inflict a sentence of most extravagant severity, and the Chief Secretary exulted in it to-night. As long as we speak of and treat and regard Irish people in the way the Chief Secretary does in this House, we shall never have a contented people.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I did expect the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to have attempted in this House to justify the grounds on which Mr. Conybeare was sentenced. But in his speech, which occupied three-quarters of an hour, he did not give one clue to the reasons which had condemned the hon. Member for Camborne to be immured in this typhus den. I challenge any English Member who no doubt will to his constituents justify the imprisonment of Mr. Conybeare, to get up and state of what

  1441
  offence Mr. Conybeare has been convicted, or, knowing what that offence is, to get up and justify it in that House The hon. Member for the Camborne Division has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for administering two or three loaves to people about to be evicted, and this though, as the newspapers daily show us, one month's imprisonment is often regarded as adequate for the punishment of wife beating. The right hon. Gentleman has up to the present imprisoned 28 Irish Members—he has in the sporting language of the season had "a good bag"—and many of these have been sentenced by Mr. Cecil Roche, whom the Chief Secretary had eulogised. But it was Mr. Cecil Roche who about two years ago sentenced Mr. T. Harrington to six weeks' imprisonment for the alleged publishing in the Kerry Sentinel of reports of suppressed branches of the National League, notwithstanding that it was proved that about 10 years before Mr. T. Harrington assigned all his interest in the paper to his brother, Mr. E. Harrington, who at the time was undergoing six weeks' imprisonment for the same offence as that subsequently alleged against his brother. By a mistake of the clerk the assignment was not duly registered. Against that conviction a case was stated on behalf of Mr. T. Harrington, and it was sent to the Crown counsel; but from that day to this no attempt has been made to enforce this most iniquitous sentence of this much eulogised removable. Either Mr. Harrington was guilty or not. If he was guilty why was not the case submitted to the Superior Courts; if he were innocent what a corrupt ruffian this man must be who sentenced him. Perhaps the secretary of the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a correspondent, will give some little explanation of this strange case, and why that strange Magistrate has been upheld and promoted by the Executive. When the Government said that they have refrained from executing warrants against Irish Members until the Irish Estimates have been discussed, the hon. Member for West Ham told them that they had no right to do so. I would like to call attention to a case before Colonel Longbourne, re-
  1442
  ported in this day's paper. This gentleman has been appointed to the Ballinrobe district, but he tried a case at Fermoy. Probably hon. Members opposite do not know where either of these places are. I can tell them that it would take the great army of Ulster three days' forced march to get from Ballinrobe to Fermoy. The case was under the statute of Edward III., for using abusive language against a constable. There was not sufficient evidence for the prisoner to be bound to good behaviour; but what did Colonel Longbourne say? He said:—
  "I consider it a very suspicious case; but there is not sufficient evidence to convict. People should be very careful how they wink in these days."
  I would suggest to the hon. Member for Dover as a sort of coercion copy headline, "Woe to you who wink in these days." This is the class of men of whom the Irish Members are supposed to approve. Where is the appeal under this statute of Edward III.? There is no appeal from these sentences, and we ask the Government to-night whether they propose to leave the Irish people and their Representatives at the mercy of these Magistrates without any appeal whatever? I have a great respect for the Lord Chief Baron; but when I was ordered to give bail I refused, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. I confess that I would not do so again. I would give bail, and do the same thing again, only perhaps more cautiously. I regard the Government simply as a gang of conspirators, and the Executive and police and Magistrates simply as so many brigands and cut-throats. For my part, I see no-advantage whatever in my friends, Dr. Tanner and others, playing the Government game and going to prison. There is a disadvantage, for when, as it did the other night, the Government majority falls to four, there is an appreciable value attaching to the votes of the five hon. Members in prison. The Government are supported by a solid phalanx of friends who are under sentence of death at the next Election; but the Irish Members will give them all the trouble they can; in the language of the statute of Edward III. they will "defame" them. We will proclaim them to be persons of evil fame, and

  1443
  when the General Election comes we will ask the voters to put them under the rule of "good behaviour," and prevent you for a time from exercising these functions. I can understand your taking a dozen of us, putting us against a wall, bringing up a platoon of soldiers and giving the order "fire!" That would be an intelligible policy, for "when a man's dead, there's no more to be said." But the system you pretend to carry out is that of making the Irish people love you by heaping indignities on their Representatives—on men like Dr. Tanner, who, after all, represents thousands of people. As long as Dr. Tanner was a Conservative, a friend of Lord Bandon, a member of the Cork County Club, but spending money in the interests of the Tory Party, as his brothers now do, he was all right and had a most amiable temper. He would, doubtless, have made a most admirable Resident Magistrate, Why, he has a brother who is a major, and who remains to you as a very strong Conservative; and I would suggest that be should be put before the Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor as a person of whose legal knowledge and experience those individuals might be satisfied; because gentlemen of this class are exactly the sort of men you make Resident Magistrates of. They are just the men who would have the supreme characteristic of being able to bind over to good behaviour the men who recommend the Belfast kidney paving-stone throwers to go and do their duty. Your's, however, is a game that two can play at. You may find it extremely convenient at the present time to have "removables" operating from one end of the country to the other, but no doubt it would be possible to get Magistrates as base as Roche and as irrational as Fitzgerald or Longbourne, even under a Home Rule administration. You can do almost anything with money; and there are a number of broken down gentry and landlords who would be very glad to take our pay—gentlemen whose estates have not been sold under the Ashbourne Act, but who have made had bargains, and who may be had in sufficient numbers to deal with the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite and their colleagues. In the meantime, the game is yours; we admit it. Carry it on; do your best—do your worst.
  1444
  What I protest against is this sickening veil of hypocrisy. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is highly indignant with the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin for the extravagance of his language, and has stated that Dr. Tanner is not a first-class misdemeanant, but is, in point of fact, treated as an untried prisoner, and so, I suppose, is entitled to one or two ounces more of "skilly" than the other prisoners. It is the rule of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give the go-by to the main facts of the case and to fasten upon some little pin-point which nobody cares anything about, and which has only been' touched on by the way. He then magnifies the matter to enormous dimensions and draws his Excalibur in order to annihilate it. The Government pretend that their anxiety is all for the good of the Irish people—that it is all in the interest of Ireland, and the downtrodden population; only, they will not give the downtrodden population a chance of managing their own: affairs. They are proceeding with an extravagant amount of energy, and we are having the country developed by them. They appoint all these Magistrates to carry out their policy, and they cannot afford to tell the truth about what they do. They must play the hypocrite; and so long as they do that so long will we come forward and expose them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has lately been boasting how completely he has pacified Ireland—at least if he has not said so by word of mouth he has said it by his permanent conduit pipe; because we have had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham recently giving a garden party and have heard, under the influence of tea and muffins, what extraordinary strides have been made by the Irish people in the direction of prosperity and peace. I. do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will back up the statements of the Sage of Birmingham, but these are matters which are taken note of in the "Black Country." I may here say that I observe curious signs making their appearanceinlreland—remarkable signs; and if these operations on the part of the Government continue—operations against which there is no

  1445
  appeal—if the pledges and promises of the Government continue to be falsified, and if Magistrates composed of ex-Sepoys, broken down barristers, Navy and Army men, and promoted policemen, are to be the persons to whom the Government are to entrust the liberties of a great portion of the Irish representatives, they will bring the people to see that the point of attack is the magisterial system, and, as always occurs when people are outlawed—for that is what is being attempted—the condition of affairs will become much more serious. The Government are showing them that there is no such thing as justice; they have produced a very unfortunate condition of the public mind, and while temporary prosperity may inspire some hope in the people's breasts, and may enable them to tide over a period which they view with great apprehension, there is at the same time being held over them the possibility of twenty years of "firm and resolute Government." While Ireland in the past was overridden by your sabreurs and dragoons, they, at any rate, were soldiers. They carried their lives in their hands against the Irish clansmen; but if these men, these wretched hirelings whom you can pick up in the purlieus of any quarter-master sergeant's rooms, if these men, whom nobody respects, are to be permitted to carry on the Government of the country, the Irish people—the Celtic race—will not permit them to carry on their operations unchecked. You are creating for yourselves an inevitable revulsion of feeling, and when the right hon. Gentleman has passed from his office and handed it down to his successor, it will be said, as is said now, that that successor is the most successful of all Irish Chief Secretaries, and while his friends are blowing his trumpet, they will say, "Balfour was an impostor; we have now got the right man." But when all this has happened, what will you have done for the consolidation of the Empire, for the establishment of peace, and for the prosperity of the people, both the English and Irish at home and abroad? Absolutely nothing. Your policy is a barren policy, foredoomed to failure, and if Englishmen opposite were wise, instead of sitting silent behind a Minister whom at heart
  1446
  they cannot support, they would get up boldly and give expression to their true opinions. We have heard a great many Debates on these subjects in this House, but we never hear what the Tory Party have to say. We see them go into the Division Lobbies, but they never give us the opportunity of judging of their intellectual calibre. If hon. Gentlemen can fairly support the policy of the present Government let them give expression to the faith that is in them, and do not let them be content to servilely follow a Minister who has led them into as fatal a course as ever despot pursued against the interests of the people.
  MR. GILL: I cannot allow this Debate to close without referring to one or two remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Every sentence delivered by him is singular enough; but I do not think we have yet witnessed anything so singular or so utterly beyond what might have been expected as the extent to which he has gone this evening. I would remind him that the charge against Captain Segrave was brought forward several times in this House and was proved against him.
  MR. SPEAKER: Captain Segrave was referred to, but as his salary is not mentioned in this Vote the reference to him is out of order.
  MR. GILL: I will not, then, refer to the right hon. Gentleman's justification of the conduct for which Captain Segrave was first cashiered from the Army, and is now suspended from service as a Magistrate in Ireland; but I will allude to what the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to the charge against Colonel Turner. Colonel Turner was charged with writing what I pronounce to be one of the most infamous documents that ever passed between one Irish official and another. That was a letter in which Colonel Turner described one of the most venerable priests in all Ireland and the body of clergy by whom he is supported in language which could only come from the lips of a blackguard. He referred to the Very Rev,

  1447
  Dr. Dinan, than whom in the whole Irish nation no more respected clergyman exists, in these terms:—
  "The peace of this district will not be restored until old Dinan and some of his villainous priests are removed."
  This, I say, is the language of a ruffian and a blackguard. But when this letter is charged against Colonel Turner what is the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? Does he reprobate that language or does he deny it? The right hon. Gentleman practically endorses the statement and justifies the ruffianly language by levelling other reckless charges against the priest of Clare. He has levelled a most provocative and reckless insult against a body of clergymen, than w horn there are no more respected men on the face of the earth, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name a single one of these priests who comes justly under the description given by Colonel Turner. He has not the courage to do so, and I brand that conduct as blackguardly. Indeed, it is difficult for me to find words adequately to describe it. Now, Sir, another charge which has been made against Colonel Turner has not been answered, and that is the charge of going to a tenant on the Vandeleur estate, and urging that tenant—or rather the mother of the tenant—against the wishes of the landlord, and against the desires of the other tenants, as well as against the interests of peace and order in the district, to hold possession of a farm and to resist the complete settlement likely to be arrived at by arbitration. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that Colonel Turner went to the tenant. He says that Colonel Turner merely told her that she would be protected by the law in holding possession of her farm. But what business had Colonel Turner to do anything of the kind? Why should he seek in this way to prevent a settlement being arrived at? I say that, in that case, he deliberately took the only step in his power to prevent a successful issue to the efforts to bring about harmony between landlord and tenant, and that he took up an utterly unworthy position. Reference has been made to the cases which have been tried under the Act of Edward III., and I should like to point out that during the last three weeks, there has been a regular
  1448
  recrudescence of prosecutions under that Act. I believe that there have been no fewer than thirteen cases. What is the meaning of it? Is it that the Coercion Act having failed in its purpose, the Government have felt bound to fall back on this old Act? They have not succeeded in crushing the Irish people with Coercion, and, therefore, they have had to take this step.
  MR. AIRDrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I join heartily in the protest which has been made from these Benches against the appointment of men to administer the law in Ireland who command no confidence in the people, and I must say I am surprised that a Member for a Metropolitan constituency who never distinguishes himself in Debate in the House should get up and move the Closure on this question. Throughout the length and breadth of this land people are now beginning to understand1 what it is that makes the Irish people so discontented. They realise that the law is administered by men who are incapable of administering it fairly and impartially, that it is administered by a pack of bravos. I think if anything is required to give an impetus to the Debate to-night, it will be found in the conduct of the Chief Secretary, and in his references to the priests of County Clare. One of his Resident Magistrates has spoken of these priests as a "pack of villains," and when complaint is made to the right hon. Gentleman of the use of language of this character with regard to a most respected body of men, what does the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for the Government of Ireland, say in reply? Does he deprecate the use of language of that kind? No, we do not hear a single word of condemnation come from his lips. Instead of that, he adds to the insult by declaring that the priests of Clare have disgraced their cloth.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that I said there were some priests in the County of Clare who were not a credit to their cloth.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then I venture to assert it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to specify those priests to whom he alluded, and not to level an insult against the whole body of the clergy in that county. I must say I do not think that Colonel Turner, whose cause the right hon. Gentleman is championing here to-night, will have cause to be very much obliged to him for the language he has used. Of course one is bound, as far as possible, to keep within the limits of Parliamentary decorum, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would not dare, in any public place in that land of which he is the chief ruler, or before any audience of Irishmen in County Clare, to repeat the utterances which he is privileged to make on the floor of the House of Commons—he would not dare to use language of that kind, for if he did, he would probably require an extra force of police to protect him from the rotten eggs which the people would assuredly use against him. Who are these Resident Magistrates? If I were prudent I should not say a word against them which would increase the prejudice they already have against me. They have already given me three months' imprisonment for nothing at all, except saying three words on the impulse of the moment. One of the Magistrates who did that was a civil engineer and the other an ex-constable, and these are the men of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is supposed to be satisfied. With such lawgivers can you expect the Irish people to have anything but an utter contempt for your Government and your administration. These Magistrates do not even know how to conduct a trial in an ordinary manner, but they surround themselves with police, and the general public are refused admission to their Court. Mr. Cecil Roche, to my knowledge, threatened some people
  1450
  who, whether rightly or wrongly, were defending their homes, that if they did not come out he would make it hot for them when they appeared before him next day. How can the Irish people expect fair and level-handed justice from such men as these, who baton the people one day and try them the next day? If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ever shows his nose in Clare after insulting in a most unwarrantable manner the priests of the county, I would recommend the people of Clare to give him a warm reception.
  DR. KENNY: I may say that I have looked through the Prison Rules and I certainly cannot find that what my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin said as to the prison treatment of the hon. Member for Camborne was in any way exaggerated.
  The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 81.—(Div. List, No. 311.)

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) REGULATION BILL (No. 330.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: In moving to withdraw this Bill I should like to press upon the Government the great importance of dealing with this question as soon as possible. I hope the Lord Advocate will take it into his consideration during the Recess, and bring in a Bill next Session.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  POLICE FORCES (SUPERANNUATION FUNDS).
  Ordered—
  "Address for Return for England and Wales, including the Metropolis and the City of London, of the strength of the various Police Forces; the number of Pensioners; the number who have left the Force during the past five years; the number of Men now serving over 50 years of age; the number who have served respectively over 25 years and over 30 years; the annual amount of Pensions, Particulars as regards those Pensioned, during the past five years, and of the number of Pensioners who have died during the past five years; Particulars of the Income and Expenditure of the Police Superannuation Funds for the Police year ended in or within the financial year 1888–9, and the amount of the Capital of the Funds as invested on the last day of the Police year."

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Maurice Healy, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Drainage and Improvement of Land in Ireland, ordered to be brough in by Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Chance.
  Bill presonted, and read first time. [Bill 379.]

  (FORM OF RETURN.)

  STRENGTH OF POLICE FORCES AND NUMBERS PENSIONED, &c.

  Mean Strength of Force.

  Number in receipt of Pension.

  Number who have left Force during past five pears.

  Number of Men now serving who are aged—

  Number who have served—

  Particulars as regards Men Pensioned.

  Of less than 15 years' service.

  Of more than 15 years' service.

  Name of Force.

  Superintendents.

  Inspectors.

  Sergeants.

  Constables.

  Superintendents.

  Inspectors.

  Sergeants.

  Constables.

  With Pension.

  Without Pension or Gratuity.

  With Gratuity.

  Dismissed.

  With Pension.

  Without Pension or Gratuity.

  With Gratuity.

  Dismissed.

  45 years and less than 50 years.

  50 years and less than 55 years.

  55 years and upwards.

  15 years and less than 20 years.

  20 years and less than 25 years.

  25 years and less than 30 years.

  30 years and upwards.

  Annual amount of Pensions payable.

  Total number pensioned during last five years.

  Their average age.

  Their average length of service in the Force.

  Their average Pensions.

  Number of Pensioners who have died during past five years.

  Average period for which their Pensions were paid.

  BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES AND OFFICES UNDER THE CROWN) PREVENTION BILL (Changed from "BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL."
  Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 380.]

  RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS OF THE SUPERANNUATION FUNDS IN THE YEAR ENDED THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1883.

  Receipts.

  Payments.

  Name of Force.

  Balance in hand 30th sept. 1882

  Interest received on Capital invested.

  Contribution from pay of Force.

  Deductions for sickness.

  Fines on Constables.

  Fines for assaults, drunkenness, &c.

  Fees for service of summonses, warrants, &c.

  Proceeds of sale of old clothing

  Proceeds of Capital sold out and instalments repaid.

  Other receipts.

  Deficiency met out of Rates.

  Balance due to Treasurer, 29th Sept. 1882.

  Balance due to Treasurer, 30th Sept. 1883.

  Superannuations.

  Gratuities.

  Amount invested during the year.

  Other payments.

  Balance in hand 29th Sept. 1883.

  Total available Funds, Capital, and Income, on 30th Sept. 1883.

  Remarks.

  Capital.

  Income.

  Capital.

  Income.

  And similar Return for Scotland.—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Two o'clock.

FEES OF THE HOUSE.
Table of the Fees of this House now charged in respect of Appeals, Claims of Peerage, and Claims to Vote for Representative Peers; Ordered to be laid before the House (The Chairman of Committees).
LUNACY BILL.
A Bill to consolidate the enactments respecting lunatics—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 226.)
COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 227.)
GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Ker, M. Lothian). (No. 228.)
REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (No. 2.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 229.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL. (No. 174.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL. (No. 160.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
FACTORS BILL (No. 122.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons agreed to.
COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 104.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered to-morrow.
ARBITRATION BILL (No. 97.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD DENMAN,in moving "That Standing Order No. XXXIII. be suspended until an adjournment for more than two days, or until a prorogation," said, that he did not anticipate much opposition to the Motion, because in consequence of the House not being full enough to sustain a Division it had been necessary to throw over business for a day, in the case of one Bill which had to be re committed, which was inconvenient.
VISCOUNT CROSSdid not think there had been any cause shown for this Motion, as no difficulty of the kind referred to had arisen.
On Question, resolved in the negative.

PRIVATE BILLS (ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION.)
Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order).
LORD HERSCHELL: I have to present to your Lordships the Report of the Joint Committee appointed by your Lordships' House and the other House to consider the subject of Bills which involved alterations in the Memoranda of Association of Joint Stock Companies. Your Lordships will remember that the appointment of the Committee arose out of the circumstance that a Bill which had been read a second time and passed in the other House, with the sanction of the Chairman of Committees, in this House did not pass the Second Reading, inasmuch as it was thought that the matter should be considered and dealt with how far Joint Stock Companies registered under the Act of 1862 ought to be permitted to invoke the aid of Parliament to alter their Memoranda of Association. Accordingly, a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed in order that some uniform system might be laid down applicable to both Houses. I have now to present their Report. They recommend, in the first place, general legislation to enable companies without the necessity of resorting to Parliament, under strictly defined conditions and limitations, which are specified in the Report, to make alterations in their Memoranda of Association with the sanction of the Court, giving full opportunity to all those whose interests might be affected to be heard, and to show cause against any such alteration, and leaving the matter (subject to any opposition) to the determination of the Court. But the Committee, feeling that until any such general legislation is passed it would not be right that there should be an absolute barrier to companies obtaining an alteration of their memoranda, suggest that Parliament should, in the meantime, deal with the matter upon the same lines as those which they propose the Court should deal with it hereafter in the case of general legislation—that is to say, that the alteration, if it involves the creation of new objects, should be only permitted where those objects are cognate with, or ancillary to, the existing objects, and where the necessity has arisen or the application is based upon circum-
1292
stances which have developed themselves since the time the company was originally formed. I think that with the limitations which have been laid down by the Committee, and which will now have the sanction of a Committee of both Houses, the matter may be safely left in the way they have suggested. I, therefore, move that your Lordships do agree with the Report.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I should like to say one or two words on this subject, as the action which I took with regard to the Belgrano Gas Company Bill (which is again down for Second Reading to-night) led to the appointment of this Committee. When that Bill first came before your Lordships' House I felt, as my noble Friend has stated, that there were no precedents which would allow me to pass that Bill without the knowledge of Parliament, and, therefore, I was extremely glad, after the Second Reading of the Bill had been suspended, that a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject generally, and to lay down rules for the guidance of Committees of this and of the other House of Parliament in cases where companies desired to alter their Memorandum of Association. I had the honour of serving on that Joint Committee, and I entirely endorse what fell from my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell. I think that under the conditions laid down in that Report the House may safely allow these alterations in the Memorandum of Association of companies under special circumstances as described in those conditions. But, my Lords, I venture to express the hope that the general legislation which is suggested in that Report will not be delayed longer than is necessary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a very wide subject, and I am very doubtful whether in the present condition of affairs it would be altogether right to assume that these recommendations of the Committee are in accord with the general opinion of Members of your Lordships' House. It must be remembered that the subject with which one is dealing is one very important, indeed, to almost every Member of the State. People embark in a particular company, and they have their views for so doing, and they very often take shares as an investment, and they

1293
are responsible for any calls that are made. Of course, I am referring, when I talk of companies, to what is now almost universal, the turning of various businesses into limited liability companies. People might or might not have adopted the sort of view that they could at all events, without risk to themselves and their future fortunes, invest in a particular speculation. It is now suggested that under certain conditions (what they are I do not at this moment know) the objects with which the company was started may be changed. I do not know whether the Committee recommend that the shareholders should be consulted. In the particular case which has given rise to this Committee it was a very strong case. Practically, every shareholder had given his assent to the change. There was also the question of rival companies, and the rival companies that might have been supposed to be interested in this matter had also not only given their consent, but I think urged that the alteration of the Memorandum of Association should be permitted. Therefore, I am not speaking at all in reference to the Motion which the Chairman of Committees is about to make for the Second Reading of the Belgrano Gas Bill; but I wish to guard myself against being supposed to adopt the general view put forward by both the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships. I think it may well be that merely to afford opportunity to some shareholder or creditor or rival company to come forward and oppose, would or might not be sufficient guarantee, because everybody who is connected with companies—at least who has had to deal with them in judicial matters—knows perfectly well that what is everybody's business in such matters is certainly nobody's business, and many persons will allow things to be done because they will not take the trouble to interfere, and they might be grievously wronged by being compelled to enter into business of which they had no notion at the time they became shareholders. I do not, of course, wish at all to speak in an adverse view of this Report, which is entitled to the respect which is due to a Report considered by those noble Lords and hon. Members of the other House who formed this Committee. All I wish to do at present,
1294
having had no opportunity of considering this Report, is to guard myself against being supposed to adopt all its recommendations, and reserve to myself the right of discussing the matter in another Session.
Report agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Morley).
THE EARL OF CEAWFORD: I do not rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, nor shall I oppose the other Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bills which are on the Paper; but I wish to say that, although very great care has been exercised in the drawing up of these Bills, still I have no doubt whatsoever that in a certain time we shall have to come to you again for amendments in certain portions of the Bills. The parts that I refer to are those dealing with the meter clauses and the testing clauses which, in my opinion and that of those who have had anything to do with electric lighting, are absolutely unworkable. The whole of them were drawn up in the year 1883, within a year of the commencement of legislation on this subject. They have been copied verbatim almost into the present Orders. We—I speak now for those who are undertakers under the Bill—have at no time attempted to modify them in any way, simply because no person knows how to modify them. They are quite unworkable, and although great care has been disposed upon them, I think it right at this stage to say that they must not be regarded as final.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I presume my noble Friend will not expect me to make any remarks on what he has said. He will remember that these were opposed Bills; that they were considered in the Private Bill Committee of your Lordships' House, of which I had the honour to be Chairman. I believe I may say that this question of meter was not raised before the Committee, and I think, as my noble Friend says, it is a question for the future.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a (according to order) and passed and sent to the Commons.

POOR LAW BILL (No. 195.)
Amendments reported (according to order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL (No. 71.)
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to, with Amendments; and Bill returned to the Commons.
OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL (No. 112.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further Amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL (No. 208.)
Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
REVENUE BILL (No. 209.)
Bead 3a (according to order), and passed.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
Second Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order).
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I think it right that I should make a few remarks upon the Report of the Committee on the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, because it contains matter that is of rather more importance than these Reports usually contain. The House will probably remember that early last Session a Sub-Committee of the Black Rod Committee was appointed with a view to inquire into the emoluments and salaries of the officers of the House. That Committee did not report last year, but the Sub-Committee's Report is embodied in the Report which now lays on your Lordships' Table. I do not think it will be necessary for me to go through the Report in detail. It has been in your Lordships' hands for some days, and perhaps it will be sufficient for me if I mention what are the leading changes recommended. To sum the matter up, the changes will probably in time effect an economy of nearly £7,000 a year in the establishments of the
1296
House, but I should say that these changes are not intended to affect, and will not affect, any present occupier of any post. It is only intended that they should come into effect as vacancies occur in those posts, the object being to reduce the salaries of certain officers. The economies chiefly effected, I should say, are in the Department of the Usher of the Black Rod, and to some extent in the Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The whole of these economies will be seen briefly in the Table appended to the Report. I think that what I have said is sufficient to show your Lordships that the Report has been prepared with considerable care, as the Committee has sat many times; and I trust that it may satisfy critics in another place, who have of late years criticised the Estimates for the House of Lords Offices. If there are any questions which any noble Lord wishes to put to me, I will be happy, to the best of my ability, to answer them; but I think I have explained the object of this Report sufficiently, and I now beg to move that it be agreed to.
LORD DENMAN: It is a great satisfaction to me to see that existing holders are not to be disturbed in the positions which they hold; and I hope that a future Parliament may not be so illiberally disposed as this Report shows the present to be. My respected predecessor relinquished £4,000 a year of his salary and patronage. The Earl of Ellen-borough used to say that his father received £14,000 a year, and that he gloried in doing nothing. I can only tell you that for six years my father granted me a large income—more than the fees amounted to—and be was obliged to maintain me in "that comely Portland Place," as Lord Beaconsfield calls it in his last novel, for six years, and if ever there was an ill-used man on the face of the earth, that man was the Lord Chief Justice. It was said to me by one of the ushers of the Court (who went Circuit with the Lord Chief justice), "The respect shown to Lord Campbell in comparison with your father is as the 'antipodes' of light to darkness," I believe it was the truth that never a more independent Judge sat upon the Bench; and his salary was taken away from him within seven years after it was declared by Parliament; so that he and his family were actually robbed. In

1297
this case there is notice given, but it must be extremely unpleasant to the holders of the present places to see that what they have is grudged them by anticipated reforms on the part of those persons who, if they came into this House, might accept the title of Lord Clotures.
Report considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FITZGERALD,in rising to ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration during the coming Parliamentary Recess the question of constituting an effective Court of Appeal in criminal cases tried in the Superior Courts of criminal jurisdiction or at Quarter Sessions; and, if deemed expedient, present a measure to Parliament during the next Session to effect that object, said: I have to apologise for bringing this matter before your Lordships in relation to the constitution of a Court of Appeal in criminal cases—I mean a Court of Appeal upon the merits, but if your Lordships will refer to the Notice which I have put down you will perceive that it is not calculated nor intended to provoke unnecessary discussion upon the subject, and I do not at all intend to revert to the very prominent case which recently occurred in Liverpool, and which has forced upon the public mind the necessity of considering this question of a Court of Criminal Appeal. Your Lordships may have seen a letter of very considerable ability in the Times of Monday last. It is from Mr. Fletcher Moulton, an eminent Queen's Counsel, and he shows in it a great deal of scientific knowledge, and argues his case most logically. He says:—
  "So long as the constitution of our Courts prevents all appeal in criminal eases, even of the gravest kind, it seems both just and natural that the results of such a trial as that of Mrs. May brick for the murder of her husband should be made the subject of close public criticism."
  I do not intend now to criticise or observe on that case at all, save to deprecate the renewal or continuation of what I may call tumultuous discussion and proceedings out of Court, calculated to bring the administration of justice
  1298
  into contempt, to withdraw from it the veneration and affectionate respect with which it has been ever regarded in England, and I will add also, if it will have any effect whatever upon the case of the unfortunate woman now in gaol, it may be an effect to her prejudice, and can do her no good. My Lords, the broad proposition cannot be controverted that there is no appeal whatsoever provided by the English law in criminal cases upon the merits. I use the expression "upon the merits," for I mean the merits both of law and fact; but perhaps it would be better to say that there is no appeal whatever upon questions of fact. The Judge at the trial may have gone wrong; he may have misconstrued the evidence; he may have misdirected the Jury; the Jury themselves may have taken the most unsound view of the facts of the case, and that unsound view may have led them to a conviction; but for all that there is no appeal; you can have no new trial; there is no mode of bringing the misdirection under control, or under appeal, and in fact (and it is a fact beyond doubt or controversy) with reference to criminal cases we have allowed life and liberty to depend entirely and unprotected upon the decision of the primary Court. I may remind your Lordships that though there is no appeal whatever on questions of fact, there is an appeal on questions of law; a twofold appeal, although in each instance of a very unsatisfactory character; but if that were the only subject of complaint, it would not justify me in coming forward on the present occasion, because, although the appeal in law is defective, yet the appeals on questions of law are very few, and are disposed of in the course of a year by two sittings, I think, for two days only, of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved. They are defective in this respect, that when the appeal is not by Writ of Error, it rests entirely in the discretion of the Judge whether he will reserve any question of the Court for the consideration of Crown Cases Reserved. However, confining my present observations to the absence of an appeal on the merits, I have heard it said that, notwithstanding that singular defect in our criminal jurisprudence, the whole thing has worked satisfactorily, and there is no necessity for the constitution of such

  1299
  a Court. If we look to the cases that have taken place, I think it will be found that that observation is not well founded, and that the contrary is really the fact. I may refer to one or two cases to show your Lordships the proceedings that take place, and how unconstitutional they are. In the ease of Lord Dundonald, in 1814, he was convicted of a conspiracy to commit fraud with three or four others, and he was sentenced to fine, imprisonment, and the pillory. I always thought that case a disgrace to criminal jurisprudence in England. In his autobiography he says—
  "This vindictive sentence of the pillory the Government did not dare to carry out. My high-minded colleague, Sir Francis Burdett, told the Government that if the sentence was carried into effect, he would stand beside me on the pillory, and they must look to the consequences."
  The result of that intimation was that the Government, though anxious to carry out the sentence to the fullest extent, abandoned the pillory, and after a not very long interval, Lord Dundonald's innocence was fully established, not by the Home Secretary, but by independent inquiry. He was restored to all the honours of which he had been deprived, and I myself have often had the pleasure and the honour of seeing him in attendance upon the Queen as one of the officers of the Court. Another remarkable case was that of Mr. Barber, a solicitor, who was convicted of forging a will, or being a party to the forging of a will, and was sentenced to transportation. Four years afterwards he was permitted to return to England with a full acknowledgment of his innocence. In 1850 the House of Commons voted him, by way of compensation, the sum of £5,000. Now all that injury, and all that expense, would have been avoided if there had been a competent Court of Appeal upon the facts of the case. A case always referred to in reference to this desirability of a Court of Criminal Appeal is the case of Dr. Smethurst, who was convicted of the murder of Isabella, his bigamous wife. A Petition was presented to the Home Secretary of the time, and he instituted an inquiry; I believe he even took the step of an independent examination into the case by experts; but the result was to show that
  1300
  the whole proceeding against Dr. Smethurst had been a mistake; that his bigamous wife was not poisoned by arsenic as represented, but that she died of natural causes. His innocence was completely established to the satisfaction of Sir Cornewall Lewis, the then Home Secretary. I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was one of the counsel in the case, and he will remember that one of the ludicrous mistakes made by the Judge at the trial was to point out, as the motive in reference to which Dr. Smethurst was attacked, that he succeeded to all the property of the lady who was said to be poisoned. She did make a will in his favour, but it was after the illness had commenced which was supposed to be the result of poisoning; so that the view of the Judge that this was a very important feature in the case was that he first poisoned the woman, and then afterwards got her to make a will in his favour. All that would have been avoided had there been a proper Court to enter into and determine the case. Then, again, I may remind the noble Lord opposite of a case that occurred when he was Home Secretary, and which was known as the Penge murder. Five persons were convicted of murder, and left for execution. As to one of them, there was not a particle of evidence beyond that she had led an immoral life. There was nothing else in the case. Upon my noble Friend's examination she was at once—not reprieved, but absolutely discharged; and upon consideration of the remainder of the cases the four persons who where left by the learned Judge for execution, and without any hope whatever, had their sentences commuted, and they were sent to penal servitude.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My noble Friend, I think, has not quite correctly stated the facts with regard to the last case that he mentioned. The woman who was reprieved was allowed to go on this ground. The question was whether it was murder or manslaughter—it was a case of killing by neglect, and I thought that it was a case of manslaughter. This woman was charged as an accessory before the fact, and she could hardly be guilty of being an accessory before the fact of manslaughter. It was on that ground that she was acquitted.
  LORD FITZGERALD: However, I am quite right in stating that the sentences on the other persons were commuted, on the ground that it was manslaughter if anything, and not murder. But Alice Rhodes had no connection with the bad treatment which the woman received: she had no duty to perform towards her: she happened to be the paramour of one of the parties, and her previous life was the only circumstance upon which she was convicted as in conspiracy with the other parties. Possibly I may have fallen into error, and I am glad to have been corrected by the noble Lord, for I am only speaking from recollection as to what took place on the occasion. These, my Lords, are but three out of a hundred cases that I could have cited for your Lordships' information. It cannot be said that a system which allows of such cases is at all satisfactory; in fact, it has been for years condemned, and condemned by successive Governments. A Commission sat in 1878, composed of very able men. Lord Blackburn, I think, presided over that Commission; Mr. Justice Montagu Smith was another of its members; the present Mr. Justice Stephen was one also, and Lord Justice Barry, of the Court of Appeal in Ireland, represented Ireland upon the occasion. Their conclusion was unanimous, that this blot upon the criminal jurisdiction in England, which did not exist in any other civilised country, ought to be removed; and they actually went so far as to state in detail in the Report which was presented to Parliament the measure that ought to be taken for the purpose of remedying this crying evil. In addition, Sir John Holker, the then Attorney General, and Mr. Justice Stephen, between them prepared a Bill, which was presented to Parliament in 1878; and I believe again, in 1880, the Government of which Lord Herschell was Solicitor General took up the subject, but the Bill was not carried through. Recent circumstances have forced this question upon our attention, and it is in remarkable contrast that whilst life and property are thus left disregarded, and entirely at the mercy of the primary tribunal, we cautiously protect and regard the civil rights of property. I may instance to your Lordships that within the last year a case came before this House in which the whole sum
  1302
  in controversy between the parties was £11. No doubt it involved consequences beyond that, but not beyond that to the parties who litigated it. It commenced in the County Court; the County Court Judge gave the plaintiff a decree; the defendant appealed to the Divisional Court, and the County Court Judge was reversed. The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal decided in his favour. Again it was brought before this House; it was argued here for three days, and finally the noble Lords who had charge of the case were upon one point divided in opinion, but upon the merits they disposed of the case affirming the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. Again I may refer your Lordships to Indian cases. One of Her Majesty's subjects in India commences a suit in which the sum in controversy is 500 rupees; he is entitled to carry it through all the various Courts of Appeal that exist there, and finally to come to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and sometimes he succeeds in reversing all that has gone before, and turning various defeats into victory. My Lords, the subject—I do not conceal from myself—is one of very great difficulty; but the difficulties are not insuperable; and all I am seeking now to get from the noble Lord opposite is an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will consider this question during the Recess, and, if they consider it practicable and advisable, that they will be prepared in the next Session to introduce a measure upon the subject. Let me for a moment consider what takes place under the present system when there is an appeal to Her Majesty from any criminal conviction. In some cases it is not an appeal for mercy, because an appeal for mercy, for leniency, for the reduction of a sentence, is one based on the supposition that the conviction is right; and there you go to the Queen in the exercise of her prerogative of mercy, advised by the Home Secretary, to either reduce the sentence or in some way to reduce the punishment, which you consider excessive, within more lenient limits. But there are other cases like the case of Dr. Smethurst and the case of Lord Cochrane, where the appeal was not for mercy, but was for the re-consideration of the whole case in

  1303
  order that justice might be done according to truth and right. And now let us see the anomalous proceeding that takes place. The Home Secretary then has cast upon him the oftentimes terrible responsibility of advising the Queen in those cases. He is not a Judge; he has not the powers of a Judge; he has no power to administer an oath in reference to the case: he carries on the inquiry—or, as I may call it, the re-hearing of the case—as best he can with the aid of the Report of the Judge before whom the trial took place; and when he does come to a decision, he advises Her Majesty upon the subject, and gives no reasons whatever. That proceeding appears to me to be anomalous, illogical, and, in some respects, unconstitutional; and I would substitute for it, if possible, the establishment of a Court of Appeal upon the facts and upon the merits, where, if a mistake had been committed, a new trial might be awarded, or where, at any rate, right might be done according to law and justice. The time seems proper for this. Public attention has been directed to the matter. You do not require any Commission or any inquiry. The materials have been collected, and lie broadcast. You will find them all in the Report of that Commission of 1878 and 1879. I believe that whilst there are difficulties to be contended with and encountered there is not in the public mind a shadow of dissent that the law of England should be, to some extent, altered so as to admit of this appeal. I referred to the Bill which was presented to Parliament in 1878. Probably the fault of that Bill was that it was too extensive and too ambitious. It endeavoured to deal with the whole subject at once, whereas what is required, probably, is a measure confined in the first place to capital cases or to cases of extreme gravity, and hedged round with every possible security. I see no impractibility and no very great difficulty in preparing or carrying a measure of the kind. It ought to be a Government Bill. It would be useless for a private Member of this House to attempt a measure so affecting the criminal jurisprudence—so weighty and so important. It can only be carried by the Government, and I must say that I think we have at present to guide our considera-
  1304
  tions upon questions of law, and Criminal Law especially, in the person of the noble Lord upon the Woolsack, a Member of the Government who is most competent to guide their Councils upon such a subject as this. His great experience and his willingness to deal with law reform have been amply proved; and I venture to predict that if the noble and learned Lord takes this matter in hand he will be able to propose a measure which will be generally acceptable to your Lordships. It has been said that compensation can be made in cases of mistake, and adequate provision can be made for those who have been wrongfully convicted; but there is a class of cases in which there can be no compensation. When life has been taken, when the individual who has been wrongly sentenced lies in a felon's grave, it is absurd to speak of compensation, and it is in that class of cases that it is my great anxiety to have some Court of Criminal Appeal established. I beg to ask the noble Lord the question which I have put upon the Paper.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot but express my regret, notwithstanding what my noble and learned Friend has been good enough to say about myself, that this very important and interesting question should be at the present time the subject of discussion. I know very well from the calm and judicial temper of my noble and learned Friend that I could anticipate no intended allusion on his part to the circumstances of the case now occupying the public mind. At the same time I cannot forbear to point out to him that all people are not invested with the same judicial temper, and that, when he proceeds to point out the defects of the present mode of administering justice, his comments will have a wider operation than he intended. There is no doubt that such questions as these are not appropriately discussed at times of public excitement about them. At a time when we have seen jurors, witnesses, and even a Judge subject to unreasoning and even brutal violence; at a time when persons have assumed themselves to be competent to interfere or justified in interfering with the discharge of the most solemn and serious duty with which a human being can be invested—namely, the determination

  1305
  whether a fellow-creature shall live or die—when persons have felt it consistent with the due administration of justice that it should be so far interfered with, not only with the violence I have spoken of, but that even some of the witnesses should be followed from place to place, not because any imputation was made against their honour, or honesty, or desire to speak the truth, but because they were supposed to be witnesses unfavourable to the accused—I confess I feel considerable regret that it is at this moment my noble and learned Friend should think it right to raise such a question. There are other ways, too, in which resort is had to intimidation and insult, intended, I suppose, to aid the solemn and serious determination at which the Secretary of State has to arrive. In every newspaper the question of what the Home Secretary bas to do, has done, or is likely to do, is the subject of adverse and violent comments. I do say this is not the time to raise such a question here; I do deprecate the House being asked at such a time to consider and discuss such a wide alteration of the law as that referred to. When I turn from the particular case which appears to have given rise to the introduction of this subject, I am afraid I cannot agree with the facts on which my noble and learned Friend relies, or that the suggested remedy would have met the cases he cited, and that the decisions, if erroneous, would necessarily have been corrected by a Court of Appeal. The account of the trial of Lord Cochrane—both what was proved and, what was more important to Lord Cochrane, what he did not prove, but what if innocent he could have proved—raises in my mind a very serious question whether any Court of Appeal would have thought it right to reverse the verdict of the jury. No doubt it was a time of great political excitement; and I am not desirous of going into the matter so far as to raise questions the discussion of which might give pain to some who are still alive. I may, however, say this much about that case—the noble and learned Lord must not assume that all enlightened, educated, legal opinion concurs with him when he says there is no doubt whatever that Lord Cochrane's innocence was conclusively established. The noble and learned
  1306
  Lord referred to the case of Mr. Barber. I do not know whether my noble and learned Friend has taken the trouble to read that case, in which I doubt whether a new trial within six months or a year of the first would have ended in a different result. With respect to the case of Dr. Smethurst, Sir George Cornewall Lewis certainly did not treat it as one in which innocence had been established. I have no hesitation in saying I always thought, and I still think, that Dr. Smethurst was an innocent man; but as I was counsel in the case, my judgment is possibly biassed. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, in granting a free pardon, certainly did not treat the case as my noble and learned Friend suggested—as one in which the question of guilt or innocence was perfectly clear; on the contrary, in stating his final determination, he expressed the extreme difficulty and doubt which was raised by Sir Benjamin Brodie's opinion, which left it so doubtful whether the offence charged had been committed, that it was thought fit to advise the granting of a free pardon, and a free pardon was accordingly granted. With respect to Sir G. Lewis's own opinion on the general question, if my noble and learned Friend will refer to the speech he made in the House of Commons, he will find the subject most exhaustively treated, and his judgment was positively and absolutely against such a Court of Appeal, and adverse to any such change in the law, which, as he pointed out, would render it much more difficult, if there were two verdicts in the same direction, for the mercy of the Crown to be extended upon such doubts as he himself had had in Dr. Smethurst's case. I do not wish, for the reasons already given, to commit either the Government or myself to any abstract proposition on the subject. I only say it is a subject I would rather not discuss now with reference to any future alteration in the law. I trust that my noble and learned Friend will consider that as satisfactory an answer as he was likely to get from Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend that it would be not only inexpedient, but wrong, to make any speech at the present time which would nave any bearing, direct or indirect, upon the particular case which is now agitating the public

  1307
  mind. But, at the same time, one must remember that in this country it too often happens that it is impossible to obtain attention to the necessity of any particular reform except when the public mind is excited on the subject and by reason of that excitement. If there is no such excitement, a reform of this character, which is not one likely to arouse any great popular feeling, is only too likely to be allowed to sleep, even if it be a desirable one. It seems to me that there are reasons other than those given by my noble and learned Friend—namely, the time of the year and the state of the House—which render it impossible to discuss the question exhaustively at the present moment. I would, however, like to say that it seems to me that this question of the expediency of establishing a Court of Criminal Appeal is one which might well be considered independently of and without reference to the case now occupying public attention, and for this reason, that those who differ diametrically in their views of this particular case may yet be agreed that it would be better if some tribunal existed which would render possible a review of criminal cases. Such a tribunal might go far to arrest, or at any rate diminish, those manifestations of opinion to which the noble and learned Lord has alluded. I do not mean to say that it would be likely to get rid of such manifestations altogether, because there are many persons who would be quite as ready to criticise the decision of a Court of Appeal, however ably constituted, as they now appear to be to criticise, often with very little knowledge or consideration, the decision of a Judge and jury. I certainly entertain the view most strongly that any decision of a Court of Justice, whether it be the decision of a Judge and jury, or of any other tribunal, may be rightly made the subject of public criticism. It is the right of the public to criticise. But those who undertake the task of criticism have a serious duty incumbent on them to be very careful to inform themselves as to all the facts, and exhibit that modesty and self-control which every one should exhibit who differs from those who have seriously considered and solemnly decided any question. While I admit this right of public criticism, I must say that a good deal
  1308
  of language has been recently used which I must unite with my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack in deprecating. There appears to have been in the minds of some persons a difficulty in distinguishing between criticism and abuse. These persons, possibly more wisely, possibly more foolishly, have arrived at a different conclusion to that arrived at by those who decided this case, and they have on that account indulged in condemnation, execration, and abuse of them, thus exhibiting a state of mind very far removed from that which can produce any wholesome, and useful, and sound criticism. I do not propose to say more than a word or two on the subject that has been brought forward. I have long thought that some change in the direction suggested was necessary and desirable. I admit the difficulties of the question; but it has always appeared to me to be indefensible that while in civil cases, however small, there should be a right of appeal, in criminal cases there should be none. I do not, however, share the view apparently entertained by my noble and learned Friend that the existence of such a Court would prevent the occurrence of erroneous convictions. There are cases in which wrong convictions are obtained, but I believe that this occurs but seldom. I have had a good deal of experience in Criminal Courts, and have watched the administration of justice there with some care, and I believe that it is but seldom that there are wrong convictions, though some undoubtedly there are. But I do not believe that if you had a Court of Criminal Appeal you would always set right these wrong convictions. In many of these cases, upon the materials before the Judge and jury, the conviction was right and would have been affirmed by any Court of Criminal Appeal that might have been established, and it is only by reason of circumstances that afterwards come to light that we learn that there has been a miscarriage of justice. It would, therefore, be altogether misleading to hold out the hope that any Court of Criminal Appeal could secure that in no case should an innocent person be punished. But there are cases where such a review probably might, I believe would, lead to the setting aside of a wrong verdict. In some of the cases to which my noble Friend has re-

  1309
  ferred I am by no means certain that, if the conviction had been reviewed at the time, the conviction would have been altered. I do not think that it would be right to expect as much from the creation of a Court of Appeal as appears to be expected by my noble Friend. At the same time, for the reasons I have given, I hope that the matter will be seriously considered by the Government during the Recess, because undoubtedly there is a widespread feeling that it is not just that in the administration of our Criminal Law alone should be the one decision which is incapable of review, and I believe that any solution of this case with due and satisfactory safeguards would give a general feeling of satisfaction and security to the community.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, during the time that I had the honour of holding the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department my attention was naturally enough called very much to this question, and I shall be prepared to state my views to your Lordships when the matter comes up for discussion; but I agree with my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack that this is not the best opportunity that might have been chosen. I merely rise for the purpose of making two observations. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that whatever Court of Appeal may be established you must not expect too much from it. I am not at all certain whether prisoners do not get better treated in the way of getting their sentences remitted or reduced under the present system at the hands of the Home Secretary than they would receive from any Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State is always guided by the view that considerations of mercy, so far as they can be resorted to consistently with justice, should not be lost sight of, and prisoners get the advantage of this view, which they would not get from a strictly legal Court of Appeal. The only other observation I wish to make is this—that whether a Court of Appeal is established or not, it will be absolutely necessary that the prerogative of mercy in the Crown should still be maintained, and not simply as to the diminution of punishment as suggested by the noble and learned Lord who brought forward this discussion, but also as to the question of innocence or guilt; because there is no
  1310
  doubt that it does sometimes happen that, perhaps years after the supposed offence has been committed and the man has been convicted, something is brought to light which shows that that conviction is an error which no Court of Appeal could by any possibility have taken consideration of, and for which there is no remedy except in the prerogative of mercy which must rest in the Crown administered on the advice of the responsible Minister at the Home Office. I know that there is a feeling that that administration of justice by a single Minister is not satisfactory, but in the nature of things it must remain, and the principal reason of my rising to address your Lordships was that I might correct a feeling which is wide-spread upon that point. I think it ought to be clearly understood that, Court of Appeal or no, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Crown must be maintained for the benefit of the liberty of the subject.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the misfortune of the present day is, that the evidence for the prosecutor is published; and perhaps for two or three days the whole public are judging the case beforehand, which is certainly prejudicial to the prisoner. My brother has always sat later than almost any other Judge in order, as far as possible, to avoid this. Speaking to me about a Court of Criminal Appeal he said that the noble Viscount who has just sat down was the best Home Secretary that he had ever had to deal with. I have witnessed the struggles of the present Home Secretary in the case of an unfortunate Jew, who afterwards confessed that he was guilty. The pressure that was put upon the Home Secretary was something extraordinary; and I am quite certain that until we can see clearly a much better system than the present, we had much better not cast a slur upon the existing authority. I am quite sure that if the present Home Secretary will consult with the noble Lord and with Lord Cranbrook, who formerly held the same office, you would have a better Court of Criminal Appeal than any formal Cour de Cassation could possibly be.
  LORD FITZGERALD: I know I am not in order in again speaking, but I am sure your Lordships will give me indulgence to say a word or two in what

  1311
  I may call self-defence. I commence by saying that I agree with every word that has been spoken by Viscount Cross. Now, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has thought it necessary to read me rather a severe lecture for the indiscretion I have shown upon this particular occasion. He seems to have forgotten that I commenced by deprecating any discussion of, and that I told the House that I should not make a single observation or comment upon, the case that now occupies public attention save to deprecate the tumultuous proceedings which have taken place, which were injurious to the very unfortunate person whom they were intended to serve. And all through the course of the few observations that I made your Lordships will recollect that I adhered to what I said at the commencement, and not a word dropped from me in reference to the case now pending. My noble Friend has said that discussion of any kind upon the present occasion is indiscreet. Now, my notice was put upon the Paper on Monday last; and the noble and learned Lord knows me well enough to know that if he had conveyed to me the slightest hint that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, or in his individual opinion, the discussion was injudicious, I should have been the last one to press it forward. I should have left everything that I have said unsaid, and withdrawn the notice I had given. But I received no such intimation. I cannot conceive, notwithstanding all that I have heard from my noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack, that I have been guilty of any indiscretion. My question points, not to the present but to the future—to something that is to be done by the Government during the Recess in order to remedy what is a grave and patent error. I wish only to add that the answer of my noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack on the part of the Government has been so highly unsatisfactory—holding out no hope even of consideration—that, driven into a corner, if it become necessary, and should I be (to use an Irish expression) "to the fore here," I will even undertake the introduction of a Bill myself on the subject, though possibly I will receive little support from Her Majesty's Government.

  ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (METROPOLIS) INQUIRY.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD,in rising to move—
  "That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the local inquiry on the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (Metropolis), held by Major Marinden, R.E., by direction of the Board of Trade, be laid before the House,"
  said: I gave notice of this Motion two or three days ago for this reason—that upon this evidence has practically been based the action of the Board of Trade in bringing forward and promoting the Electric Lighting Bills which your Lordships have read this evening a third time. There has naturally been a very great desire by all those interested in this new branch of industry to obtain the facilities of seeing the evidence and of knowing thoroughly what went on during the 18 days that Major Marinden sat hearing the evidence. I am sorry to say that I have received a courteous letter from the Board of Trade saying that although they have no objection from a Departmental point of view, nevertheless the evidence, such as it is, is very voluminous; and therefore they think it desirable that it should not be printed on the score of expense. They also say that that evidence and the appendices were printed from day to day, and that any persons might have had a copy upon payment. It is perfectly true that any person might have had the evidence if he had chosen to pay for it; but he would have had from the commencement, to enter into an undertaking to take the whole of the evidence from beginning to end, and each copy of that book cost the unfortunate holder of it £37 16s. Very few copies, as your Lordships may imagine, were printed; I think not more than about 45, of which my business absorbed 10. The consequence is that there is a very large demand for this evidence which it is impossible to supply, and my impression was that it would have been an economy of the Board of Trade to allow this evidence to be printed, because I feel pretty confident myself that the possession of the evidence would save the Department very largely in the future by giving absolute guidance to those who will promote Provisional Orders in the future. However, as the Department do not feel disposed to

  1313
  grant my request, I will not press the Motion.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My noble Friend has stated the reason of the Department for deprecating this Motion. There is no Departmental objection to it: the objection is solely on the ground of expense. The evidence lasted 18 days, and there were 1,300 pages of printed matter, and it was considered that unless a very strong case was made out of this large mass of matter being printed and circulated to your Lordships it would be incurring a very heavy expense indeed without sufficient cause.
  Motion (by leave of House) withdrawn.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 230.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.