Sitting of 20 August 1889

EAST INDIA, BOMBAY-BURMA TRADING CORPORATION.
Address for—
"Return of Contract between the Secretary of State for India and the Bombay-Burmah Trading Corporation referring to the Teak Forests of Upper Burma, and Correspondence relating thereto."—(Sir Roper Lethbridge.)

POOR RATES, &c, SCOTLAND.
Order [16th May] for a Return relative to Poor Rates in Scotland read, and discharged.—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)
QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. HUGH ELLIOT: I beg, Mr. Speaker, to ask you the following question on a point of order:—Whether, when a scheme under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, is laid upon the Table of the House of Commons, and an Address to the Crown is moved against such scheme, it would be in order, upon such Motion being put, to move that the said scheme be referred to a Select Committee to examine into the merits of the scheme and report to the House within the statutory period required by the Act for the consideration of these schemes by Parliament? I ask the question because a considerable number of schemes of great importance are coming before the House next Session, and we should like
  1742
  to know what the procedure of the House of Commons is with regard to these schemes before they are actually laid on the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I do not think it would be in order, when a scheme comes before the House in the circumstances stated by the hon. Member, to move an Amendment that that particular scheme be referred to a Select Committee. The course is prescribed by Statute that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to dissent from or amend a particular scheme, but a Motion such as that suggested by the hon. Member to refer a particular scheme to a Select Committee, would be outside the machinery provided by the Statute, and would have to be made if the hon. Gentleman wished to make it as an independent Motion.

  THE NATIONAL SCHOOL, COLSTER-WORTH.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that on Monday, 29th July, some 34 children of the National School, Colsterworth, Lincolnshire, were absent from afternoon school to attend a picnic of the Band of Hope Total Abstinence Society, under Nonconformist management; that the Rector of Colsterworth, the Rev. J. Mirehouse, a Trustee and Manager of the School, the following week ordered several of the school children to act as his amanuenses, and to write letters to the parents of the absentees, which he personally addressed and signed, the following being a copy of one of such letters:—

  1743
  "To Mrs. Wilson,—Your child, Kate Wilson, was absent from school on the afternoon of Monday, July 29. J. Wilson was told by the schoolmaster, as well as by me, that a half-holiday could not be granted. Instead of paying 2d. a week, as heretofore, you must pay from this day 3d. a week.
  "JOHN MIREHOUSE."
  Whether the master has refused to take the usual school fee from these children, the majority of them being kept at home in consequence; whether the Rector is entitled to raise the children's fees for the reason assigned; and if so, whether the Education Department has sanctioned his doing so; and whether the Vice President will urge the Rector to show some consideration for the wishes of Nonconformist parents whose children are obliged to attend the National School, especially as their absence is enforced when the school is closed on the occasion of the Church Sunday School festivals, and when closed earlier before and opened later after the Primrose League meetings that are held there?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I am informed that the Rector offered to hold the afternoon meeting of the school an hour earlier than usual in order to set the children free to attend the picnic in question, and only declined to give a half-holiday because the children were backward in their work, and the school had been recently closed for a week and would shortly break up for the summer holiday. The Rector states that the letters dictated to the children were intended to test their handwriting, but I cannot defend his action in this respect; and he has been told that the children must be received back at the ordinary fee, or the grant will be endangered.

  SCHOOL FEES.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the fees have been raised from 2d. to 4d. per week to scholars attending the St. Matthew's Denominational School, Pode Hole, Pinchbeck West, near Spalding, a school in receipt of a Government Grant, and that, in consequence, several of the children have ceased to attend school, some not having attended for a period of 12 months, owing to the
  1744
  inability of the parents to pay the increased fee, the next nearest school being fully three miles distant; and whether he will endeavour so to arrange matters that the children shall not be deprived of the advantages of elementary education?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The attendance at the school in question is in excess of the accommodation, and as the school was said to be sufficient for its own district, the fees were, I believe, raised in respect of children living outside the district in order to reduce the numbers. There is nothing in this action of the managers to call for adverse comment; but the Department is in correspondence with them on the subject with a view to arranging the difficulty that has arisen in the most satisfactory way possible.

  CIVIL ENGINEERS IN INDIA.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now state to the House what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to redeem the pledges made by him on behalf of the Government, in the Debate on the 31st May last, to inquire into, and, if possible, redress the grievances of the civil engineers of the Public Works Department?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: The recommendations of the Public Works Commission are still the subject of consideration by the Secretary of State and the Government of India. Until the changes consequent on these recommendations are decided upon no separate action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member can be taken.

  HARROW WEALD DRAINAGE SCHEME.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any special reason for the continued delay in arranging and carrying out the drainage scheme at Harrow Weald; and whether he will call the serious attention of the Hendon Rural Sanitary Authority to the subject, and urge upon them the importance of getting the plans settled and the drainage works proceeded with?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: The

  1745
  Local Government Board, on the 8th of June last, communicated with the Rural Sanitary Authority of the Hendon Union with regard to their proposal to borrow for the execution of sewerage works for Harrow Weald. In consequence of suggestions at the inquiry some revision of the original scheme was made, and the Board advised the adoption of these alterations. The Board informed the Sanitary Authority that they did not consider that they could authorise a loan for any works which would increase the amount of sewage delivered upon the existing sewage farm until they were satisfied that no nuisance would be created, and that the effluent would at all times be properly purified before its discharge into the Kenton Brook. The Board accordingly requested that steps might be taken for the acquisition of additional land, and stated that when this had been done they would be prepared to entertain an application for borrowing powers in respect of the revised scheme. The Board were not informed of the result of the consideration of this communication until the Sanitary Authority were again communicated with with reference to the question of the hon. Member. I am now informed that the delay which has taken place has arisen in consequence of the negotiations for the hiring or purchase of adjoining land for the purpose of the sewage farm. I will urge the authority to secure a settlement of these matters at as early a date as possible.

  IRELAND—HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION AT NEWCASTLE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for 1888, page 36, where it is stated that "the fishing at Newcastle (County Down) makes no improvement, owing to the want of harbour accommodation" there; and, whether, considering the representations which have been made to him, the circumstances in connection with the destruction of the harbour works, and the danger to which the poor fishermen of Newcastle are frequently exposed for want of harbour accommodation, he can now say if anything will be done in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The statement quoted by the hon. Member proceeds not, as his question might seem to imply, from the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, but from the Divisional Officer of Coastguard. To be effective, any scheme for the improvement of the Harbour at Newcastle would cost more than the Government would be justified in spending at that place, and an answer in that sense has been sent to the Memorialists.

  HEAD CONSTABLE M'DONALD.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the recent action for libel brought by Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, R.M., against the Freeman's Journal and the hon. Member for North Kildare, whether he is aware that Head Constable M'Donald, of Newbridge, swore at the trial at last County Antrim Assizes that he (M'Donald) had not been in the Constabulary Barrack at Naas on the 19th November, 1888; whether the diary kept in Naas Barrack shows that M'Donald was there on that day; whether he will have inquiry made into the matter; and whether he will give a copy of the entry made in the diary on that particular date with reference to Head Constable M'Donald's visit to Naas?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The Constabulary Authorities report that Head Constable M'Donald's evidence at the trial referred to was as stated in the first paragraph. The entry made in the Guard's Diary at Naas Barrack on 19th November, 1888, was that Head Constable M'Donald and Constable Whitton, Newbridge men, arrived there on duty. Both these policemen appear to have been in Naas on the date in question, and to have visited the County Inspector's house on duty. But the constable is equally certain that neither the Head Constable nor himself entered the barrack.

  THE COUNTY COUNCILS AND LICENSE DUTIES.
  BARON DIMSDALEI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a Report issued by the Local Taxation Committee with reference to

  1747
  the response made by the English County Councils to his remarks on the 29th November, 1888, and the 15th April, 1889, on the reinforcements of the local finances for the amount lost to the ratepayers by the withdrawal of certain licenses enumerated in the First Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1888; whether it appears from this Report that 35 out of the 41 County Councils which have expressed an opinion on the matter, have invited action by Her Majesty's Government with a view of supplying the deficiency in the county resources; and whether he is prepared to consider the propriety of granting relief in such form as he may deem expedient, in order to place the ratepayers in the position indicated on the introduction and passing of the Local Government Act, 1888?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: My attention has been called to the Report; but I do not know that the Resolutions of the Councils help much to the solution of the question. A large number of Councils have delared in favour of a "reinforcement of local finances," which, of course, all bodies of ratepayers' representatives must desire, but without suggesting any means of attaining that desirable end. It is only a minority which declares specifically for the wheel tax. None of the Resolutions come from borough County Councils, and as it was from the boroughs that the opposition which prevented the Excise Duties Bill being passed last year came, this seems to me a fact of great significance. I have given a good deal of consideration to the matter; but I do not at present see my way to meeting the views of the Councils. A further surrender of Imperial revenue is out of the question, and as for new sources of local revenue, I still know of none fairer than a wheel tax for the special object of maintaining roads. But I am afraid that experience has taught me that the opposition which any new tax, however reasonable, encounters is out of all proportion to the gratitude felt for any relief, however great, which such taxation affords.

  TYPHOID FEVER IN THE WEST-END OF LONDON.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I beg to ask the
  1748
  President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the recent severe outbreak of typhoid fever in the West End of London, especially in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter; whether he is aware that it is stated that the sanitary arrangements of the St. George's Vestry are very deficient, especially with regard to the proper and adequate flushing of the sewers and main drains of that parish; and whether it is in the power of the Local Government Board to institute any inquiry on this point?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called to the outbreak of typhoid fever in the West End of London, and especially in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square. I have communicated with the vestry of that parish, and I am assured that they have a constant staff of men flushing the sewers at a large cost, and that the London County Council also have a staff of flushers for the purpose of flushing their main sewer. I have also received a provisional report from Dr. Corfield, the Medical Officer of Health of the parish, from which it appears that the outbreak took place almost entirely in the Mayfair sub-district. There were 14 houses in the parish where there had been cases. The outbreak was limited to houses of the better class, including some of the largest houses in the parish, and from the uniformity in the date of the attacks, and the fact that the sanitary arrangements of most of the houses where the cases occurred have been carefully carried out, the Medical Officer of Health has come to the conclusion that the outbreak was not due to any defect of sanitary arrangements, but to some temporary cause which has apparently ceased to operate. I have determined to direct an inquiry by one of the Inspectors of the Board.
  MR. ISAACSON: I wish to ask whether it is the owner or the tenant who is liable for the sanitary condition of his house? I happen to live opposite a house where a case of typhoid occurred [Cries of "Order!"]—it is a very serious matter—and before I resided there there were five open cesspools, and I had to cart away 500 loads of soil—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement.
  MR. ISAACSON: Then may I be allowed to ask whether it is the owner or the tenant who is liable for the sanitary condition of the premises?
  MR. RITCHIE: The liability depends entirely upon the terms of the lease. Generally speaking, I should say the tenant is liable.
  MR. ISAACSON: If that is the case ought not the Sanitary Inspector to be compelled to make annual visits to infected houses to see whether the owners or tenants keep them in a proper sanitary condition?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid that it is rather a large order to say that the Sanitary Authority should be bound to visit these premises annually or send Inspectors to see that they are in a proper sanitary condition.

  IRELAND—DERRY GAOL.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether complaints have reached him that the sewerage system of Derry is a tide locked sewerage, and that the Corporation, although aware of the defects of this system, have deferred the question of the proper ventilation of the sewers indefinitely; also that the sewerage of the gaol runs into this defective sewerage of the City; and, whether, inasmuch as the gaol is situated at the very summit level of the city, and necessarily becomes the receptacle of the sewer gases, which must rise up to it and escape through the ordinary sewer traps into the gaol, he will take steps to remedy this danger to the health of prisoners in this gaol?
  MR. MADDEN: No complaints have reached the Government on the subject of the Londonderry sewerage system. It appears that the sewer system opens into the tidal river Foyle; but that the outlets of the sewers are protected by automatic tidal flaps, which are in good working order. The Sanitary Officer states that the prison sewer is connected with one of the city sewers within 250 yards from the outlet of the latter into the river, that at the junction of the two sewers there is a ventilator and syphon trap which completely separates any gases which might possibly be in the main sewer from the prison sewer, and allows of their escape, and
  1750
  that in the city sewer referred to there is a combined manhole and ventilator within 150ft. of the river into which it opens. He adds that there is no just cause for complaint in regard to the ventilation of the sewers.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the Report of Dr. O'Farrell upon the state of the Derry Gaol been received, and will it be circulated to-morrow? I also wish to know whether any independent gentleman will report upon the condition of this prison?
  MR. MADDEN: That hardly arises out of the question upon the Paper. A Report will, I believe, be laid on the Table.

  DOWNPATRICK GAOL.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement published in the Star of the 16th instant, from which it appears that on the night of the 15th instant, after the convict prisoners in Downpatrick Gaol had been locked in their cells, a shower of stones came from within the prison walls, and caused serious injury to the property of persons living near the prison; whether he can give any information on the matter; and, whether any inquiry will be held and the Report laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MADDEN: From the Report received from the General Prisons Board it appears that the statement referred to is inaccurate. A few stones were thrown, it is believed, from within the Prison premises. The Chairman of the Board has personally investigated the case on the spot, and has satisfied himself that no prisoner and no Prison Officer was guilty of the offence. The occurrence has been reported to the Military Authorities, who are, it is understood, making an investigation so far as the military sentry is concerned. I am informed that the only injury to property inside consists in the breaking of two panes of glass, valued at 8d.
  MR. SEXTON: What persons were there, inside the prison, who could throw stones except the prisoners or the officers of the gaol?
  MR. MADDEN: An investigation is now going on which, I presume, will settle the matter.

  THE SUB-LAND COMMISSION AT MOHILL.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the Sub-Land Commission, whilst sitting at Mohill on the 22nd July, received instructions to adjourn, after hearing only half the cases listed for hearing; whether he is aware that many of the cases left unheard have been entered since 1887, and that the rents in some of these cases are 100 per cent over the Poor Law Valuation; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will take steps to have the Sub-Commission return to Mohill, and, by disposing of the remainder of the cases, prevent much hardship?
  MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners Report that the Assistant Commissioners did not receive the instructions alleged in the first paragraph. They had general instructions to hear a sufficient number of cases to keep them fully occupied on inspection duty up to the 22nd August, on which date their vacation commences. The Commissioners will, in accordance with their usual practice, arrange the next Circuit Lists having regard to the claims of the several applicants.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sanction of the Treasury has yet been given to the Scheme put forward by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, and approved by the National Board, for the benefit of the widows and orphans of the Irish teachers?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The sanction has not yet been given. The Treasury have lately been concerned in the investigation of more than one important fund, in which, owing to defects in actuarial calculations, or unsound initial organisation, or changes made in the direction of laxity, sometimes called generosity, the fund is now not in a position to meet its liabilities. Great care has therefore been necessary in the examination of the present scheme, though Government money is not involved, as the scheme is to be self-supporting. I have been in communication with the Chief Secretary on the subject, and hope to come to a final agreement with the Irish Government very shortly.

  BAND IN THE PHŒNIX PARK.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will sanction, the erection by the Board of Works of a suitable band stand in the Phœnix Park, Dublin?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware that any application of the kind has been made to the Board of Works; at any rate, no knowledge of it has come to me. The usual course would be for the application to be made to the Board of Works, who will consider it when the next Estimates are framed.
  MR. MURPHY: Will the Treasury accede to it?
  MR. JACKSON: I would rather see the application before making any pledge.
  MR. SEXTON: As the Vote for the Board of Works is about to be taken, would it be convenient for the hon. Gentleman to say whether the Board of Works have determined finally to give or refuse leave for a band to play on Sunday evenings in St. Stephen's Green?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware that there has been any change in the opinion of the Board, which I indicated when I answered a question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago. I believe they bold the opinion very strongly that in view of the comparative quietude of the place—[An IRISH MEMBER, "No, no!"] I used the word quietude. ["No, no!"] Perhaps the hon. Member prefers to answer the question himself. At any rate I believe that great objections are entertained to giving the permission asked for, but I have already promised the right hon. Gentleman that the matter shall be inquired into.

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why a Court Martial was not held to inquire into the cause of the loss of H.M.S. Sultan, in accordance with Sections 91 and 92 of the Naval Discipline Act; why a Court of Inquiry was appointed to investigate the question of the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief for the loss of the vessel after she had stranded, whereas a Court Martial was Held to try the captain of

  1753
  the vessel for stranding her; whether it is the fact that Naval Courts of Inquiry have no power either to examine witnesses upon oath, or to determine judicially the questions submitted to them, but solely the power of making a Report of the Admiralty; and, whether, in the case of the Sultan, the Report of the Court of Inquiry concludes the matter?
  MR. COBB: May I ask whether the actual loss of the Sultan took place when the Duke of Edinburgh was in command, and whether the effect of what has been done by the Court of Inquiry has not been to screen the Duke from being tried by Court Martial?
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Will the noble Lord lay on the Table of the House official Papers relating to the loss of the Sultan?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: It is not intended to lay any Papers before Parliament. As I have stated before, all the Papers in connection both with the Court Martial and the Court of Inquiry were sent to the public Press, and they have for a long time been in possession of the public. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is wrong both in his facts and assumptions. It is not true that any attempt was made to screen the Commander-in-Chief, who could not have been tried for the loss of the Sultan. In reply to the question on the Paper, a Court Martial having been held on the captain of the Sultan for the stranding of his ship, it was determined that it was unnecessary to hold another Court Martial on him for the loss of the ship, such loss being consequent on the stranding. The Court of Inquiry was not appointed to investigate the question of the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, but to ascertain if every possible endeavour was made to save the ship after she was stranded. The powers of Naval Courts of Inquiry are as stated in the question. In the present instance the Commander-in-Chief could not have been tried, for if a further Court Martial had been considered necessary it must have been held on the captain of the ship. The answer to the last question is in the affirmative.
  MR. BALLANTINE: Is it not the fact that the Commander-in-Chief was
  1754
  in command after the stranding of the vessel?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, Sir, certainly not. Captain Rice was in command. When a ship is lost, the only persons who, under Sections 91 and 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, can be made responsible are the captain and those on board the ship.
  MR. BALLANTINE: The President, in giving judgment upon the case, remarked—
  "The Court considers, according to the charge of stranding, it is our duty to investigate what occurred up to the time you were relieved by your senior officer, who took charge."
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate what that means. The Commander-in-Chief superintended the operations which were made to get the ship off the rocks on which she was stranded. But it would be absurd and altogether contrary to precedent to make one man responsible for the acts of another man. It has been the invariable practice of the Navy, whenever a vessel has been lost, that the persons in the first instance to be charged are the captain, officers, and crew of the vessel. That was the case when the Captain was swamped. The persons tried by Court Martial for that ship were the gunner, and the survivors of the crew.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. COBB,
  LORD G. HAMILTONsaid: If the hon. Gentleman made himself acquainted with the customs of the Navy he would know that it is impossible for the Admiral to take command of a ship and to supersede the captain.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury with reference to the answer given, by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) whether he is aware that no discussion took place on the loss of the Sultan at the time that the Admiralty Vote was taken, because an inquiry was understood to be pending; whether he is aware that the reports in the daily papers referred to by the noble Lord have been of the most meagre description, amounting at most to a column, and frequently to half a column; and whether, not as a matter of right but as a matter of courtesy and accommodation to Members of the House, he will not

  1755
  consider the advisability and propriety of laying before the House, not now but next Session, a full Report of the proceedings in this very important inquiry?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Though the question has been addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend is naturally not conversant with the facts. I can only repeat what I have already said, that in my anxiety give full information of all that occurred not only at the Court Martial but at the Court of Inquiry, a full and detailed Report of all that occurred was sent to the public Press. But it has never been the practice to lay the evidence and Report of an inquiry on the Table of the House, and I am not disposed to create a new precedent which, I think, might be very disadvantageous to the Public Service. With that single exception, the public has been put in full possession of all the facts of the case for some weeks past.
  MR. ROBERTSON: My question was asked as a matter of convenience to Members of the House, and not for the information of the public. I knew the attitude of the noble Lord, and therefore I asked the First Lord of the Treasury to take into his serious consideration the propriety of giving Members of the House full information as to the proceedings and transactions of this important inquiry.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The hon. and learned Gentleman will hardly expect me to give an answer at variance with that given by my Colleague the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty. I am not prepared to pass beyond established precedent in matters of this kind, and no one will recognise more readily than the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of adhering to precedent in these questions. No doubt the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman will receive consideration.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Was it not a departure from established precedent to communicate a Report to the Press, which was not taken by newspaper reporters in the ordinary way?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Press attended the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, and when the doors were closed for the deliberation of Members, I undertook that the Report should be
  1756
  sent to the Press, so that it should be as available for the public as the evidence had been.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is not that a departure from precedent?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No; I believe that whenever a Court of Inquiry has been held with open doors, and the evidence is in the possession of the public, it has been the practice to send the result of that Court of Inquiry to the Press.

  PUBLICATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will be kind enough to make such arrangements with the Queen's Printers, that henceforth all Acts of Parliament relating to Scotland shall be published within four weeks of their receiving the Royal assent?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; I will endeavour to make the arrangement suggested.

  IRELAND—LAW AND JUSTICE—CASE OF MICHAEL WALSH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland is it true that Mr. Michael Walsh, who, on uncorroborated testimony which was contradicted by three witnesses, was, on the 12th instant, sentenced at Fermoy by Colonel Long-bourne, R.M., to three months' imprisonment, in default of bail to be of good behaviour, on a charge of saying "Run on you—" to a policeman, was, on arriving in Cork Gaol, stripped of his clothes and had his hair and moustache cut off contrary to the Law applicable to bail prisoners; can he state why this was done, and who is responsible for it; and will any compensation be made to Mr. Walsh?
  MR. MADDEN: As stated in reply to a Question yesterday, the sentence in this case was to find bail for good behaviour, or three months' imprisonment in default of bail. The General Prisons Board report that it is the case that with his own consent the prisoner's moustache was trimmed and his hair also trimmed. He consented to wear the clothes referred to till he had obtained a further supply of linen from his home, as he was told that he should

  1757
  change his linen every week. This is in accordance with a statement made by the man himself on the subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have the Prison Authorities any power whatever to do what they did in this case—namely, to compel a bail prisoner to put on the prison dress and to cut off his hair and moustache? Was the man informed that he was not bound to wear the prison clothes, and that there was no power to cut off his hair and moustache? Is it left to the Governor to say what the rules are?
  MR. MADDEN: I will make a full inquiry into the facts of the case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I will put a further question.

  MR. HANRATLY, J.P., CROSSMAGLEN.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he is aware that one of the local Justices of Crossmaglen, Mr. Hanratly, has lately evicted some of his tenants and taken off all the crops; and, whether he is aware that Mr. Hanratly's bailiff is also summons server for the district; and, if so, whether it is in accordance with the regulations that a summons server should act as bailiff to a landlord in the district? I also wish to know whether he is aware that Thomas Morris, a merchant, of Crossmaglen, was summoned for fishing in a lake last July; that the case was dismissed by the Magistrate acting at the time; and that Mr. Morris is again summoned for the same offence, to be tried next September; whether Mr. Hanratly will act as a Justice on the occasion, in view of the fact that he had a dispute with Morris lately; and, whether Mr. Morris can be twice tried for the alleged offence?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone these questions. I have not yet received the information that would enable me to answer them.

  THE VACCINATION ACTS.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that J. H. Matthews appeared on Monday before the Enfield Magistrates to answer a complaint of not having vaccinated his child when the child was produced in Court, and Dr. Warren, the medical
  1758
  attendant of the child, was called by Matthews, and swore that the child was in an unfit state to be vaccinated, and would, in his opinion, be unfit to be so vaccinated for at least a year, and that the Magistrates thereupon adjourned the summons for two months, ordering the defendant to find surety to then appear, and committed the defendant to gaol in default of sureties; whether the said J. H. Matthews had been previously, and how often, prosecuted for offences under the Vaccination Acts; and, whether the Government will take any action in the matter?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no information respecting the case referred to, except a newspaper report of the proceedings before the Justices. I understand from that Report that the defendant, without his being bound over to appear on the date to which the proceedings were adjourned, was permitted to leave the Court, but was warned that if he did not appear upon the day named he would have to bear the consequences. The Board have no information as to the number of occasions on which J. Matthews has been prosecuted for offences under the Vaccination Acts, and time has not admitted of inquiry being made on the subject.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made in reference to this extraordinary new departure in the shape of vaccination prosecutions?
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman's question ought to be put to the Home Secretary and not to me. I have no power to interfere.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that J. H. Matthews was, on 19th August, summoned before the Enfield Magistrates for not having had his child vaccinated; whether the defendant pleaded that the child was then unfit to be vaccinated, and producing the child in Court called the child's medical attendant, who swore that the child was then in an unfit state to be vaccinated; whether the Magistrates, determining that the child was then unfit to be vaccinated, adjourned the summons for two mouths, and requiring the defendant to give sureties to appear at the adjourned date, committed him to gaol on his refusing to give sureties; and, whether, the Magistrates having so

  1759
  determined as aforesaid, such committal is warranted in law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I have no knowledge of the case, and it is somewhat difficult to gather the facts from the question of the hon. Member, but I apprehend that Matthews was summoned under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, and upon the Magistrates adjourning the case declined to give security for re-appearance, whereupon the Magistrates committed him to prison. I am of opinion that such committal was justified by Section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, which applies to proceedings under the Vaccination Acts.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I venture to ask the Home Secretary if he will make inquiry, and if the facts turn out to be as stated, will he take action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.): I would rather not commit myself until I have inquired into the facts.

  IRELAND—THE STATE OF DERRY GAOL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he is aware that a woman named Rose Trainer, residing near Draperstown, was sentenced lately to a month's imprisonment in Derry Gaol for attempting to take possession of a piece of land from which she had been evicted some time ago; that she was released from prison on the 1st instant, and came home ill; that the medical officer of the district was called in to see her immediately on her arrival, and has since pronounced her to be suffering from typhoid fever contracted in Derry Gaol; that she was removed on Saturday last to the fever hospital of the union workhouse, Magherafelt, where she now is; and, whether he will consider the propriety of closing this prison, having regard to the danger to the lives of those incarcerated within its walls in its present pestilential condition?
  MR. M'CARTANput a question to the same effect and asked whether, under the circumstances, the Government would lay upon the Table of the House the Confidential Report of the doctor to the Prisons Board?
  MR. MADDEN: Rose Trainer was committed to Londonderry Prison on July 6 on a charge of assault and trespass. The medical officer of the prison reports during the period of her imprisonment she never complained of any illness and was in good health when discharged on August 3. The Governor reports that she refused to proceed to her place of conviction (Draperstown) by rail on the date of her discharge, stating that she had some friends she wished to remain with in Londonderry City, but how long she actually remained there he is not aware. From a telegram received, it appears that yesterday she was still ill at her home with typhoid fever and that she was visited for the first time on the 16th instant by the local doctor, who recommended her removal to the union hospital.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman seen a certificate from a local doctor which states that at the time of the woman's release from prison she was suffering from typhoid fever?
  MR. MADDEN: No; I believe she was visited for the first time by a local doctor on the 16th.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have Dr. Haggerty's certificate to that effect in my pocket, and I will put a further question on Thursday.
  MR. SEXTON: Had the germs of typhoid fever manifested themselves at the time of the woman's release from prison?
  MR. MADDEN: All the doctor to the gaol says is that there were no symptoms of any disease at the date of her release.

  DR. TANNER.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland has the Governor, Clonmel Gaol, kept back books intended for Dr. Tanner, in order that they might be approved by the chaplain; what chaplain's approval does he intend to obtain; is Dr. Tanner's religion registered as "Independent;" and what is the name of the chaplain of that denomination attached to Clonmel Gaol?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone this question. I have not yet received information.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It would only require a sixpenny telegram to Clonmel.
  MR. MADDEN: A telegram has been sent, but a reply has not yet been received.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. HENEY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the following subjects can be, and are, taught in public elementary schools under the Code of the Education Department:—Botany; mechanics, with apparatus and experiments; chemistry, in laboratories; French, and French correspondence, and précis writing; commercial geography; shorthand; and German; and what subjects are taught in any public elementary schools under the Science and Art Department?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: All the subjects, except shorthand, enumerated in the first part of the question are taught under the Code. If the hon. Member will refer to page 11 of the calendar of the Science and Art Department he will see the subjects, any of which may be taught to scholars who have passed the Sixth Standard in elementary schools; no Return has ever been made as to the subjects actually so taught, and it would be almost impossible to have one prepared owing to the difficulty of separating these scholars from the other students, for whose instruction the elementary schoolroom is also used.

  TELEGRAMS FROM RAILWAY STATIONS.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Her Majesty's Government will, during the Recess, consider the desirability of enforcing some equitable arrangement by which all railway stations in the United Kingdom will be available to the public for despatching telegrams during the usual hours—namely, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; and during the night, by paying an additional fee of reasonable amount, more especially with a view to facilitate sending police messages during the night from country stations to the neighbouring cities?
  THE POSTMASTER GENEEAL (Mr. RAIKES,: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I shall always be glad to communicate with Railway Companies with
  1762
  regard to any reasonable application for the transaction of telegraph business at additional railway stations, but I am not in a position to enforce the performance of such duties at all stations. At many stations the companies do not, I believe, possess the necessary facilities. I stated, in answer to previous questions, that nearly 1,600 railway stations are already open for the transaction of telegraph business on behalf of the Post Office, and that this number is constantly increasing. Arrangements already exist whereby, on payment of an additional fee, telegrams can be despatched from Telegraph Offices after the usual hours when the attention of the Transmitting Office can be gained, and I hope there is no rsason to think that the Railway Companies do not afford every facility in this respect in cases of emergency.

  IRELAND—THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission have recently made a new rule requiring certain appellants to state, within 14 days of the date of a notice served by the Commission on the appellant, the ground of appeal intended to be relied on, and intimating to the appellant that if the form sent by the Commission is not received within the period stated, or if the information supplied is not such as to satisfy the Commission, the appeal will be liable to be struck out of the list and will not be listed again without a special order of the Court; whether this rule is intended to apply to all cases of appeal now entered for hearing; and, whether, considering that an appeal from the Sub-Commission or County Court is considered to be a re-hearing of the case, the Land Commission is acting within its powers in enforcing such a rule?
  MR. MADDEN: I have examined the notice referred to by the hon. and learned Member, which is substantially as stated in the question, and refers apparently to all pending appeals. The Land Commission inform me that after careful consideration they came to the conclusion that it was necessary in the interests of the parties concerned in appeals and of the Public Service that they should adopt the course specified in the notice in question. In my

  1763
  opinion, the Land Commission are acting within their powers in settling the lists of appeals in accordance with such a notice.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was this a notice or a rule?
  MR. MADDEN: It was not a rule, but a notice calling upon tenants to give certain information for the purpose of facilitating the settling of the lists of appeals, and informing the parties interested that if they did not do so their cases might be postponed.
  MR. M'CARTAN: What right had the Land Commission to circulate this order?
  MR. MADDEN: The Commission had a right to circulate a notice made for the purpose of getting information, in order that the lists of cases might be settled in the best manner; their action did not go beyond that.

  ALLEGED POLICE CONSPIRACY—CASE OF TIMOTHY SHINE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the information of Timothy Shine, published in the Daily News of the 17th instant, and sworn at Newmarket Petty Sessions on the 16th instant, which alleges that a conspiracy to get up outrage and to murder Shine had been entered into between Sergeant Connolly (who is in charge of a police but on the farm from which Shine was evicted) and a man name Jeremiah D. Murphy, who supplies the police with provisions; whether a summons was granted at Newmarket Petty Sessions against Connolly and Murphy on the charge of conspiracy; whether Colonel Aldworth, J.P., had previously refused to grant a summons in this case; whether it is intended to have the alleged conspirators tried at ordinary Petty Sessions or under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and whether, pending the trial, Sergeant Connolly will be suspended from discharging the duties of a police officer?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that Shine was brought before Colonel Aldworth, a local Justice of the Peace, charged with an attempted assault on Sergeant Connolly. The accused was let out on bail until Petty Sessions, to be held on 16th
  1764
  instant. When before Colonel Aldworth the man applied for a summons against the sergeant; but the Magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, directed Shine to make his complaint in Petty Sessions. The Magistrates in Petty Sessions granted summonses against the sergeant and Murphy, and the whole matter, including the charge against Shine, was adjourned to Petty Sessions on 13th September. The proceedings are not under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act. The charge formulated by Shine against the sergeant is not one of conspiracy to murder, but to injure him. The Inspector General sees no reason to suspend the sergeant.

  CLASSIFICATION OF RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed by the proceedings of the Irish Railway and Canal Rates Association, that strong objection is taken by the Irish traders principally concerned to the proposal of the Board to have the classification, general conditions, and schedule of maximum rates made uniform throughout the United Kingdom, upon the ground of the great difference between the commercial circumstance of Ireland and Great Britain; whether strong objection is also taken to the arrangement by which the Irish objectors are called upon to appear at Whitehall in October to discuss the objections to the proposed classifications; and whether the Board will re-consider the principle of uniformity between Great Britain and Ireland, and will appoint a representative or representatives of the Board to hold sittings in, Dublin, so as to obviate the inconvenience of obliging Irish objectors and witnesses to attend in London, and remain in London for an indefinite time?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: Yes, Sir; I have been in communication with the Irish Railway and Canal Rates Association on the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. While I am of opinion that it is desirable that the classifications, general conditions, and schedules of maximum rates of the Railway Companies should be, as far as possible, uniform throughout the United Kingdom, I am not prepared to say that

  1765
  there are no considerations applicable to Ireland which may make variety in the general conditions and schedules of rates desirable in the public interest. With this view I propose to arrange in due course for the holding of public sittings in Dublin.

  REVISED EDITION OF THE STATUTES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue future volumes of the Revised Edition of the Statutes, now in course of publication, with all the needless and useless expressions and repetitions which are expunged in the two first volumes, and with the obsolete, spent, and virtually repealed Acts or parts of Acts proposed to be repealed by the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 371), or whether steps will be taken to continue the repeal of this useless matter as to future volumes, in order that they may correspond with the volumes already published?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot give an engagement that Acts which have not actually been repealed shall not appear in the Revised Edition of the Statutes until they have been repealed; I have no authority to do so. The Statute Law Revision Bill will be re-introduced next Session in order that it may be considered by the House.
  In reply to a Question by Mr. BRAD-LAUGH as to whether certain obsolete Statutes to which attention has been drawn would be included,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: The assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown will certainly be asked in a matter of this kind.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it not be advisable to appoint a small and strong Select Committee to consider the subject?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will consider the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member. The Government will communicate all the information possible to the House.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any, and what, School Boards have been consulted as to the provisions of the Technical Instruction
  1766
  Bill; and, if not, whether he will postpone further consideration of the Bill till their opinion on it has been obtained?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My answer to the hon. Member is that no School Boards or voluntary schools have been actually consulted with reference to the Technical Instruction Bill, but their representatives in this House and in the Press have carefully considered the subject. One of the oldest representatives of the School Board system, the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham, has pronounced in favour of the Bill with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Gorton. I am, therefore, not prepared to accede to the request now made to me by the hon. Member.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go on with the Bill to-night?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No.

  WEST INDIA MAIL CONTRACT.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the Papers relating to the new West India Mail Contract will be laid upon the Table; and whether, considering the importance of the question to the different West Indian Colonies, and also to the mercantile and proprietary interests in the United Kingdom connected with the West Indies, the Governments of the Colonies, as well as these representative associations or committees, have been consulted as to the terms of the contracts for which tenders have been invited?
  MR. RAIKES: I am unable to inform the hon. Member when the Papers to which he refers will be laid before the House. My Report on the subject is now under the consideration of the Treasury. Representations have been received and continue to arrive from the West Indian Islands interested in the question; and due attention has been given by the Government to the commercial interests involved.

  THE LOTT ESTATE.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received a Petition from one Alfred Charles Lott relating to an estate situate at Harrow, in Middlesex, of the estimated value of

  1767
  £3,000,000 or upwards; whether the allegations in the Petition show that Henry Page, the last tenant in tail of the said estate, executed a voluntary deed by which he conveyed the whole of the said estate to his solicitor, acting only under the advice of that solicitor; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the opinion of eminent counsel of the Equity Bar has been taken, to the effect that the said deed and will subsequently made in pursuance thereof could not be made against the Crown claiming by escheat or failure of an heir; whether the facts of the case have been submitted by the Treasury to the opinion of counsel; and, whether, in view of the fact that money is being raised from various poor persons by the above-named Alfred Lott on bond, purporting to show that in the event of the Crown obtaining possession by escheat of the said estate he would be entitled to a statutory payment as informer, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury will deem it right to have the facts submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, whereby an authoritative opinion on the rights of the Crown may be obtained?
  MR. JACKSON: This question of the Lott estate at Harrow has been frequently before the Treasury and its legal advisers, and it was decided, after the most careful consideration, that there was no ground for interference on the part of the Crown.

  THE IRISH SUNDAY CLOSING BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps I may remind the First Lord of the Treasury that there are still 70 Votes to take in Supply, many of them highly contentious, and that the Irish Sunday Closing Act is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Under these circumstances, I would ask whether the Order for the SECOND READING of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill is to be kept on the Paper, thereby keeping Members interested in the matter in attendance until Supply is disposed of, although there can be no possibility of completing legislation on the Bill this Session.
  MR. R. POWER: I have only risen to say that the Sunday Closing Bill will meet with the most strenuous opposition. There are 17 notices of Amendment to the Second Reading,
  1768
  and these may occupy 17 days in discussion.
  MR. T. W. EUSSELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question I wish to ask him whether in the month of January last, after the Act had been 10 years on the Statute Book, and renewed every year, having been passed in 1878, and after it had been reported favourably on by a Select Committee, he did not give a pledge to a deputation which waited on him at Dublin Castle—that pledge being one of the Cabinet—that the day for argument was past and the Bill must now be passed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: It is perfectly true that in January last a deputation of gentlemen, I think representing all Parties in Ireland, waited upon me at the Castle, and I told them after consultation with my Colleagues that though we should not bring in the Bill as a Government measure, we would do our best to enable a discussion to be taken on it in this House and for the Bill to be passed if the House should so decide. The House is aware now of the situation of public business, and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), as representing some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, has informed us of the strenuous opposition which this measure is likely to receive. There are now 20 Notices of Amendment down to the Second Reading, and if that stage should be passed, there would, no doubt, be Amendments in Committee placed on the Paper proportionable to this number. Under these circumstances, I fear it would be absolutely useless—speaking as a practical man, who has to deal with Parliamentary forces as they are, and not as I should wish them to be—to hold out any expectation whatever that it will be possible to pass the Bill, even if the House desired it, at this time of the Session. That is the decision we have come to, but with the most profound reluctance. We have had to sacrifice, as the House knows, many Bills of our own in which we are deeply interested, and to which we were pledged quite as deeply as we were to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. I am sorry that Bill has to share the fate of other measures; but I think my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell) will yield to what is, after all, an absolute necessity in this

  1769
  case, and I can only say if he regrets the course we are driven to pursue, he does not regret it more sincerely than I do.
  MR. LEA: I beg to give notice that in Committee on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill I shall call attention to the conduct of the Government in connection with the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. I shall also ask the Government what steps they propose to take to redeem their honour, and I shall also call attention to how utterly impotent this House apparently is to legislate on behalf of the Irish people.

  THE IRISH PRISONS VOTE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVEE: It is intended to take the Irish Prisons Vote to-night, and if not when?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I offered yesterday to take the Vote to-day, but receiving no request from hon. Members below the Gangway I have decided that the Votes should go on in the ordinary way, the Land Commission Vote being taken to-night, and the other Votes in their order. I am still willing to take the Prisons Vote out of its order if hon. Gentlemen so desire. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I have Dr. O'Farrell's Report on the condition of Derry Gaol in manuscript. I am unwilling to give it to the printers, as it would necessarily take some days to get out. But I am willing to place the document in the Library for perusal by hon. Gentlemen interested in the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: I am most desirous to see the Report on the earliest opportunity. There are two reasons why I do not wish the Prisons Vote to come on out of its turn—first, because I want time to consider Dr. O'Farrell's Report on the vital question of the sanitary condition of Derry Gaol; and, secondly, because two of my hon. Friends who have been imprisoned under the Crimes Act will be at liberty to-morrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will do all I can to bring the Report of Dr. O'Farrell under the notice of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: When will the Technical Instruction Bill be proceeded with?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will not be taken to-night. I am unable to give my hon. Friend any further information at present.

MOTION.

  DRAINAGE SEPARATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Stephens, Bill to enable Local Authorities to deal separately with the Sewage and the Drainage of their Districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephens, Mr. Hastings, Sir Henry Roscoe, Sir Guyer Hunter, Mr. Shiress Will, Mr. Isaacs, and Mr. Ambrose.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 368.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.
    1. £73,214, to complete the sum for Irish Land Commission.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The first observation I have to make in regard to this Vote is that I notice a decrease in the amount for the present year under some of the heads. Although the total net decrease is only £5,000, it is a decrease of which I think we have a right to complain. As there is a decrease in the salaries of the Assistant Commissioners, both legal and non-legal, it shows that to some extent the Government are attenuating the Commission.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: May I be allowed to explain. The decrease is purely apparent, and it arises from the fact that the Land Commission is only continued until the end of the year. It will be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and the decrease in the amount included in the Estimate is really a matter of account.
    MR. T.M. HEALY: The explanation upon that point is quite satisfactory, but I only mentioned the circumstance in order to lead up to another point—namely, that the Government only propose in the Bill which they have brought in to appoint two additional Sub-Commissioners. In view of the glut of cases awaiting decision, the

    1771
    Government ought to have appointed a larger number of Assistant Commissioners. There ought certainly to be an increase in the number of Sub-Commissioners, and greater regularity in the sittings of the Commission. At the present moment one Commissioner is attempting to deal with two whole counties. This is a great hardship on the tenants, who have to pay arrears on rent which they do not really owe at all. The tenants of the hon. Member for Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry) are suffering greatly from this cause, although I believe that the hon. Member cannot fairly be described as a rack-renter. The hon. Member has issued writs against his tenants for the full rent, notwithstanding the fact that they claim very large reductions. If that be the action of a landlord like the hon. Member, who is not a rack-renter, what is likely to be the action of rack-renting landlords? In many instances rents have been reduced from £30 to £15, and yet the landlords are, by the process of the law, exacting the full rent. We are asked, why not have recourse to the Acts of 1881 and 1887. I protest against the broad assertion of the Chief Secretary, and the still broader assertions of the right hon. Gentleman's much less informed Secretary, with regard to the effect of these Acts. The only way to test any law is by its application, and it will be found that in all the cases in which a desire has been expressed to come under these Acts, the Courts have refused to put the law in force, and have given the landlords their remedy. It may be imagined how much injustice is thus done to the tenants of petty landlords. The "staying" section of the Act of 1887 has proved to be of very little value, and is inapplicable where the rent exceeds £30. Of course, the substantial tenants are all rented above £30, and the result is that a man whose farm is valued at £100 has actually no remedy at all under the Act. It is altogether a different story if an action for ejectment is brought against him, but he has no remedy in an action for the recovery of rent. As to Section 30 of the Act, it only enables you to have a "stay" put on in order to prevent the sale of the tenant's interest, but not to prevent you from having your stock and farming utensils sold up. A more abominable enact-
    1772
    ment than Section 30 of that Act was never passed, and no legal adviser, unless he were a criminal lunatic, would recommend a tenant to have recourse to it. A tenant who applies under that section has to pay by instalments, and if he makes default by a single day in one instalment all his efforts are made nugatory, and he loses the whole benefit of the Act. Then there is unconscionable delay in the hearing of applications under the Act of 1887, and one tenant of the hon. Member for Hunts had to wait for two years. He was one of the persons who waited upon the hon. Member as a deputation some time ago, and immediately afterwards he was served with a writ. I cannot understand why justice is to be delayed and defeated in the Land Court. The Four Courts and the Civil Law Courts are open to every landlord who wants an ejectment. Why, then, should there be any delay in having recourse to the remedial Courts of the realm? I cannot help feeling that it is a very strong order indeed for the Government to allow the Land Law to be obstructed, impeded, and defeated in this way, owing to the weakness of the staff of the Court. From this Vote I find that the salaries of the legal Sub-Commissioners who hold office under the Act have been reduced from £6,000 to £4,500; and I claim that the tenants of Ireland should be no more impeded in their action than the landlords. They have a remedy which has been given to them by Statute, and they should be able to avail themselves of it without a month's delay. If we are to have this delay, then the process of the landlord should be delayed also. In my opinion, it would only be reasonable to enact that the tender of rent to the full value should be a bar to an action for ejectment. We may fairly complain of the bias shown in these appointments. First of all, these men are employed as if they were day labourers. We have attacked the Removables in Courts in Ireland, and I myself asked the Chief Secretary some time ago a question which, I think, neatly explains the position of the Sub-Commissioners. I asked him to explain why Mr. Cecil Roche was willing to give up a salary of £1,000 a year as Land Commissioner to take a salary of £450 as Resident Magistrate? The answer of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to

    1773
    be—to use a Mitchelstown phrase—of a ricochet nature. He laid it down that Sub-Commissioners are removable; that the position of a Sub-Commissioner is frailer than that of a Resident Magistrate. The idea that a man who has to fix rent between landlord and tenant should be paid as a labourer by the day—should be dismissable at a moment's notice—is most appalling. Mr. Wrench shuffles these men about as he would a pack of cards; they are in his hands but a set of ninepins. Take the case of Colonel Bailey, a gentleman of large experience. He is no friend of ours, as his name well denotes. He has held his appointment since 1881. He is an honest man, and he has been shunted about from pillar to post. I have never seen him, and I have had no communication with him; but I notice that when he goes with Mr. Doyle's Commission he very frequently dissents from the ruling of Mr. Doyle, on the ground that the rents are fixed too high. Mr. Doyle is the gentleman who described the Mitchelstown tenants as a pack of howling savages, and, in consequence, Mr. Doyle himself is known as the "howling savage." Colonel Bailey is a judge of land, and in Waterford he said, "I dissent from the decision of the Court on the ground that the rents are too high." For a legal Sub-Commissioner to vote down a lay Commissioner who is a good judge of land is a course which is not to be defended for a moment. I regret that Mr. Doyle is taking such a course. I think the proper course to pursue in a case when the two lay Commissioners disagree as to the fair rent is for the two to strike some average between them. It is not a good system; but you must come to a decision one way or the other. If the course I suggest were pursued, we should have something like an approximation to what Colonel Bailey thinks a fair rent. Now, there have been about 100 Sub-Commissioners appointed since the Land Act was passed. I am sure I am within the mark when I say that of the 100 there have not been six tenant farmers. Again, three-fourths of the people of Ireland are Catholics, but not 20 out of the 100 Sub-Commissioners have been Catholics. I may be told that Sub-Commissioners are not selected on religious grounds; but if a man subscribes to the Thirty-nine
    1774
    Articles it does not make him a good judge of turnips. It really seems to me that Protestantism and the fixing of rents go hand in hand. You go to the landlord and the agent class for your Sub-Commissioners. I protest against a gentleman like Mr. Wrench ringing the changes upon the Sub-Commissioners. Under the Act of 1881 you had the greatest chance you ever had of quietening the country as you call it, but instead of working that Act fairly and thoroughly and determinedly you appointed gentlemen to fix rents so high that in 1887 you had to pass an Act to enable the rents to be adjusted. You are doing the same thing now. The rents are being fixed abnormally high, because the men who are fixing them are men of the landlord class, and men with landlord sympathies. I wish we could see a schedule of the reductions of rent made in England without the operation of law. I am sure the Chief Secretary himself has given far greater reductions to his own tenants than the Irish Land Commissioners have given to the Irish tenants, and yet he has not been able to go about and talk about spoliation and so forth. I now come to the action of the head Commission. The Chief Secretary really ought to do something in regard to the question of appeal. Of all the farces that ever were invented the appeal to the head Commission is the greatest. I say that in the interest of both landlords and tenants. If anybody wants to see a curiosity let him go into the Land Commission Court when an appeal is being heard. Lawyers get their fees, but they take them with regret, because they can do absolutely nothing for their clients. Three gentlemen who have never seen the farms, and never will see them, proceed to reverse the decisions of three men who have visited the farms. The system of appeal is an absurdity. It is simply a method for harassing the tenants, because landlords often insist upon higher rents than those fixed, threatening if they do not receive them to appeal. If there is a question of law to decide the head Commission is a very good tribunal. I do not attack the tribunal as a legal tribunal, but it ought to be a legal tribunal. It ought to decide questions of law, and nothing else. It, however, raises rents all over the country and upon the most absurd

    1775
    grounds. A man's rent may be £40; the Court below fixes it at £30; the head Commission fixes it, say at £31 7s. 6d., which is an absolutely grotesque proceeding. How gentlemen can take part, and take £3,000 a year for taking part, in a farce of that kind I cannot understand. But, of course, every human institution is infirm, and the head Land Commission is amongst the most infirm of all human institutions. Under a schedule of the Act of 1887, which was passed with the intention of enabling the Commission to grant abatements of rent, the Commission raise the rents en masse. The history of the Act of 1887 was certainly very curious. Between Devonshire House and Birmingham, and this House and lobbying, and Star Chambering, and what Lord Salisbury said in the House of Lords, which was swallowed in the House of Commons, the Act was one of the most remarkable pieces of steeple chasing legislation which was ever witnessed, but it got through. The original section was altered in this House, and I ventured a prophecy which I never believed would eventuate in a reality. I said the section was one to enable the Land Commission to raise the rents. I did not believe it would do it—I did not think it would have the cheek to do it—but it did raise the rents. It is a nice question whether it was legally competent for them to do it, or for two of them to do it without the agreement of the third. Mr. Justice O'Hagan dissented. In the Report made to Parliament on the question of what is called the adjustment of rent, it was stated—
    "Mr. Justice O'Hagan felt himself unable to concur in signing the Order of the 18th December instant, or adopt the Schedule as sanctioned for the same reason assigned by him and reported to your Excellency in January, 1888—namely, that in his opinion the 29th section bestowed on the Commission larger power for determining what alteration should be made in judicial rents having regard to prices and yield."
    That was our argument at the time the section was passed. What do Mr. Litton and Mr. Wrench say as regards that section? and herein lies another of the frauds this House, no doubt unintentionally, committed against these tenants. They say—
    "We are precluded by the Act of Parliament from taking into consideration the question of
    1776
    the yield of the various agricultural produce."
    Why does not the right hon. Gentleman bring in a clause to amend the provision in the Act of 1887, which sets up price as the only standard of rent? According to the view of Messrs. Litton and Wrench, if there is a dearth in the country and corn rises 100 per cent in price those people who have not grown corn would have their rents raised with those who have grown corn. It does seem to me, therefore, that this Government, if it really were what it pretends to be—a paternal Government—would at once amend the law which declares that yield was not to be taken into account, but price only. How is it that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is always boasting about his attempts to make law and order respected? How can law be respected when it is not respectable? It is not respected, and you cannot make it so by means of such men as Cecil Roche. I should have thought that, under the circumstances, we should have had an amending Bill. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to take the Irish Members into his confidence; they would help him to put some clause into the Judicial Rents Bill which would not be too high for the stomach of the House of Lords, but which would very considerably mitigate the present state of things in Ireland. We know he will not do that. The only Bills which the right hon. Gentleman brings in are such as the Irish people do not want; and a Bill that would do any good to the country has to be thrust on the right hon. Gentleman by agrarian revolution, outrage, disorder, and distress. The ears of this Parliament are deaf, and it cannot hear unless addressed by the public through some intimidatory speaking trumpet. I have not the smallest doubt that if the people of Ireland refused to pay their rents, or something of that kind happened, we should have some alleviation of the present state of agrarian matters, but without momentum the Government and Parliament will not act. I think the Land Commission were very badly advised in acting contrary to the manifest intention of Parliament and raising the rents. This was a question of the construction to be put upon an Act of Parliament, and the legal head of the Commission, Mr.

    1777
    Justice O'Hagan, gave it as his opinion that the Commission was entitled to take into account both yield and price, but Mr. Wrench, an English gentleman, a lawyer, no doubt, but appointed as a layman, sets up his legal opinion against that of Mr. Justice O'Hagan. Of course, the Commissioners adopted a strained interpretation of the Act, and we know why they did it. It was because their tenure is insecure, and they are exposed to the influence of the Kildare Street Club, which is, indeed, the most important factor in the Land Commission. The Kildare Street Club represents the landlords of Ireland. It is from there, rather than from the Castle, that Ireland is ruled; the Castle is, in fact, only the ante-chamber or Executive Chamber of the Kildare Street Club. The members of this Club meet and condemn "Those blackguards of the National Party." They say, "So-and-so has made a bad speech; he must be prosecuted;" "So-and-so must be made a Resident Magistrate;" "My rents have been cut down by that blackguard So-and-so, and he must be shifted." I say these Commissioners should have security of tenure in their appointments. It is a monstrous thing that the right hon. Gentleman can cease to employ them at any time. It has been stated in the newspapers that the Government have a Bill in the pigeonholes of Dublin Castle by which Mr. Litton was to have been deprived of his appointment altogether. That may or may not be the fact, but it was so stated, and when a man is drawing £3,000 a year it is only natural that such a statement should affect his nerves. It would mine under similar circumstances when I had regard to my little family. These gentlemen may be above the ordinary laws which govern the apprehensions of mankind, but my own experience is that one man is very much the same as another, and that making him a Judge and putting him in horse-hair does not always endow him with the true attributes of a judicial position. I maintain that something should be done in the case of these gentlemen to give them a suitable tenure of office. If that is done, and they are relieved from the embarrassment consequent upon the present system of intimidation, so much the better will it be both for landlords and tenants. Landlords write to the Times
    1778
    and to Dublin Castle, and these men' whether rightly or wrongly, know that the landlords wield enormous influence. Whether they do or not, they should be relieved of the reproach that can now be cast at them; and I do trust that, under the circumstances, the Government will take the course that will put the Land Commission in a sounder position for itself and for the litigants who come before it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, a good deal that has fallen from the hon. and learned Member has more direct relation to the failure of legislation passed by this House in previous years for the Irish tenants, and the particular view the hon. and learned Gentleman takes as to the course this legislation ought to have followed, than to the matters connected with this Vote. He began by reproaching the Government for not having done more in the way of increasing the Sub-Commissioners in order to deal with what the Government admit to be an unduly large amount of arrears. I would remind the hon. Member of two things. In the first place, the Government have attempted in the present Session, as well as in the last, to introduce legislation which would have had the effect of diminishing the amount of arrears, and which would not have been open to the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman of depriving the tenant of the value of his improvements. Of course, if it had done that it would have stood condemned at once. We do not think it is open to that criticism. It was, therefore, with very great regret that the Government saw the determination of hon. Gentlemen opposite to oppose this legislation—which opposition, having regard to the period of the Session, they can, no doubt, bring to a successful issue. In addition to these Bills the Government have done much to increase the number of Sub-Commissioners. Before the Act of 1887 the number of Sub-Commissioners was 20, and the number of Sub-Commission Courts was four. Now, the number of Sub-Commissioners is 70, and the number of Courts in which they act is 10; and these Courts are far more expeditious in their working than the previous Courts, because the relative number of legal Sub-Commissioners has been diminished. Originally there were two lay Commissioners to each legal

    1779
    Commissioner, and now the proportion is six to one. But this enormous increase of the staff has not been sufficient to reduce the arrears as much as could be desired. The Government may be driven to increase the number of Sub-Commissioners; but I would remind the Committee that it is not a light matter to make a great increase in the staff. The number of persons capable of undertaking the responsible functions of Sub-Commissioners is not unlimited; and it is a very great evil to be arbitrarily increasing and diminishing the number of the Sub-Commissioners according as the business increases or falls off. The hon. Member reminds us that these Sub-Commissioners are all removable, even more than the Resident Magistrates. How can it be otherwise if the policy recommended by the hon. Member is to be carried out, for his policy is to adapt the number of Sub-Commissioners to the number of cases to be dealt with. If that be done it is impossible to give fixity of tenure. There were 20 Sub-Commissioners a year or two ago; now there are 70; and the hon. Member would make the number 90 or 100. Are they all to have fixity of tenure at £1,000 a year, whether there is business for them to do or not? [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Appoint for a term.] Appointment for a term would not remove the objection that has been taken that the Sub-Commissioners are more or less servants of the Executive. Appointed for terms they would have to be re-appointed or dismissed, and their dependence would be as great as it is at present. The two parts of the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Government destroy each other, and if he wishes to increase the number of Sub-Commissioners for the purpose of reducing arrears of business, he cannot expect the Government to give permanence of tenure. The Chief Commissioners, however, are in a different position. The hon. Member for Longford a few days ago criticised the continuance in office of the Chief Commissioners from year to year by an annual Bill. I hoped both last year and this year to pass a Bill to remedy what I recognise as a defect. In the ensuing Session we hope to pass a Bill which will give permanent tenure to these officials, who after all discharge
    1780
    high judicial functions. Attacks on the impartiality of all the Commissioners are to be expected, and I do not see how they could be avoided, but I regret that the hon. Gentleman should take part in them. It is inevitable that Commissioners charged by Act of Parliament with the duty of fixing rents should be accused of partiality by one side or the there. It was foreseen that this would be so; but I trust the Committee will abstain from attempting to review the decision of the Land Courts. In my opinion, the head Commissioner acts according to the direction of the Act of 1887 in having regard only to the alteration in prices. The complaint has been made that judicial rents fixed in 1882–3–4 were fixed when prices were high, and that it is wrong to maintain the rents so fixed when prices have fallen.
    MR. T. HEALY: It was contended at the time that the clause would enable the Commissioners to take yield as welt as price into consideration.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be surprised if any declaration of that kind could be found in the speeches of any Member of the Government. At all events, the attack upon judicial rents-was based upon prices and not upon yield; and the consideration of yield would have injured the tenants, because in nearly all agricultural crops the yield has been above the average this year and last, and the augmentation of rents would have exceeded the reduction of them. I have now noticed all the points that were strictly relevant to the Vote, and I trust that we may be allowed to pass on to other Votes and to make progress with the Estimates.
    MR. M. HEALY: Sir, the only satisfaction which I can derive from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is the promise which he has made to increase before long the number of Sub-Commissioners for the purpose of getting rid of the enormous arrears of land cases now pending in the Land Courts. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the present state of things in the Land Courts is most unsatisfactory. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say some three weeks ago that there were no less than 47,000 fair rent applications pending before the Commissioners, and that they were being disposed of at the rate of 2,700 a month, a rate which, exclud-

    1781
    ing holiday months, would occupy the next two years. The right hon. gentleman is aware that during that two years the tenant would be liable to pay full rent. I have had a great deal of experience in the Land Courts, and I can confirm in the strongest manner what my hon. Friend has said, that for the purpose of protecting tenants against evictions while the fair Tent proceedings are pending, the equitable Sections of the Act of 1887 are not only useless, but are worse than useless; in fact, an absolute danger to any tenant who may unwisely endeavour to take advantage of them. The landlord can almost in every ease, if he pleases, evade the provision of that Act, because all he has to do is to take proceedings in the County Court, and serve this writ upon the tenant for the debt due to him. I can promise to any landlord who does so that the provisions of the Act of 1887 will prove no obstacle to him. The cost of going to the superior Court would be too heavy for the unfortunate tenant. In the first place he would have to pay his own costs of the application, which would amount to £7 or £8, and he would have to pay the landlord's costs as well. I did succeed in getting an appeal in one case, but the costs which the tenant had to pay amounted to £50. It is nothing short of a scandal that the Government should make no practical attempt to expedite the fixing of fair rents. The right hon. Gentleman has compared the staff of Sub-Commissioners now at work with the staff in operation just before the Act of 1887. A more absurd comparison I never heard of. The staff which is now in existence was necessarily called into existence to deal with the mass of cases which turned into the Courts when the Act of 1887 was passed. He should have made comparison with the staff in operation in 1882 or 1883, and he would not have found that serve him very much. The Act of 1881 enabled the Land Commissioners to appoint as many Sub-Commissioners as might be necessary, after first obtaining the consent of the Treasury, who limit the number of Sub-Commissioners whom they have to pay. The Treasury have sanctioned a number at least four or five in excess of the number of Sub-Commissioners now actually at work; and the smallest effort of the Chief
    1782
    Secretary in that direction would induce his friends at the Treasury to appoint a much larger number. The Chief Secretary says he brought in a Bill last year to deal with the enormous mass of cases before the Land Commissioners at present, but there were objections to many of the clauses of that measure. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) has said that the Bill involved confiscation of the tenant's improvements; but I am further convinced, even if that danger were not present, that the Bill of the Chief Secretary as it stood would be absolutely useless for any purpose whatsoever. The Land Commissioners, I would add, under the Act of 1881, have full and complete powers to do what the Bill proposed to do, under another name—namely, instead of getting the work done by Sub-Commissioners, to get it done by Court valuers; but I cannot see how a difference in name makes a difference in substance. It appears to me that all the Bill of the Chief Secretary proposes to do is to confer on Assistant or Land Commissioners the powers which are already possessed by the Court valuers, and which have been found absolutely useless for the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in view. I have only one word to say as to this Bill; it would necessitate the appointment of a large number of Assistant Commissioners for the purpose of working it, and if that is so, why on earth cannot he use the power which he undoubtedly possesses of appointing Sub-Commissioners to work the existing Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not permit the present state of things to continue, and that he will appoint additional Sub-Commissioners. My hon Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) says the Commissioners are removable, and are, therefore, open to influences of an improper kind, and to that the right hon. Gentleman replies that the additional appointments would involve the element of removability. But the complaint is that the present system combines the element of removability and insufficiency of staff. It does not, therefore, lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to use that argument. When the Act of 1881 passed, the Commissioners were under the necessity of appointing Sub-Commissioners to deal with the exceptional pressure of work, but they divided them

    1783
    into two categories—those who were to be permanently employed and those who formed the removable staff. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not follow that example? I see nothing whatever in this argument of irremovability, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry out the promise he has made of increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners. So much for the general working of the Act. But I have a special complaint to make. I have practiced in nearly every union of the County of Cork, and I have to complain in the strongest manner of the way in which that county is treated in this matter. On the passing of the Act of 1887 the County Cork had a staff of Sub-Commissioners—three Commissioners and four Assistant Commissioners, subsequently receiving the addition of two Sub-Commissioners. That staff was adequate to the requirements of County Cork, but the County of Waterford in 1888 was deliberately added, and thus the time of the Commissioners devoted to the County Cork was reduced. Very inconvenient results have followed. At the present rate of progress the balance of work in the County Cork will take three years to dispose of. I find in other counties that the average number in unions within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Commissioners is 17; of the County Cork it is 25, which shows that the latter county is not being fairly treated. The present arrangement is most absurd and inconvenient. At present the two lay Commissioners are sent together to the County of Waterford. The other four are in the County Cork. The two legal Commissioners and the Registrar have to go backwards and forwards between Waterford and Cork. In March last the Commission sat at Bantry, in Cork, and from there the legal Commissioners and the Registrar had to travel 100 miles to a place in Waterford. Next week they travelled 100 miles back to Skibbereen, in Cork, which is only about 20 miles from Bantry, where they could have gone in the previous week in a couple of hours. From Skibbereen they journeyed 150 miles to Dungarvan, in Waterford, and from Dungarvan they journeyed back to another place in Cork. Hampered by these absurd conditions, it is impossible that the Commissioners can get through their work. I ask the right
    1784
    hon. Gentleman to put an end to such a state of things, and give the County Cork a Sub-Commission to itself. One of the Commissioners died three months ago and the vacancy caused has not been filled up. It seems to be the present policy not to increase the number of Commissioners but to actually reduce them. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that all his efforts seem to have been directed to getting rid of the hearings in Court, which are a part of the proceedings that occupy least time. In the County Cork the Commissioners can get through sufficient cases in two or three days to keep the lay Commissioners inspecting for months. The hearing in Court does not occupy more than a quarter of an hour in each case. The right hon. Gentleman is beginning at the wrong end. He should first endeavour to quicken the inspection. His Bill would only meet the ease where there is no question of law involved, and where there is no question of law involved the case only occupies 20 minutes. The right hon. Gentleman will gain very little by getting rid of that 20 minutes' hearing, and he will deprive the tenant of the satisfaction he feels in having his case dealt with by a public tribunal. On the subject of appeals, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to carefully consider whether we should not abolish altogether appeal on the question of value, and restrict it to the question of law, on which it is the most proper that both landlords and tenants should have the right of appeal. I think there is general agreement on that point, because it approaches burlesque to see these gentlemen, who know nothing about land, and who are appointed for legal and administrative purposes, hearing an appeal as to the value of a farm which they never saw, and that appeal taken from two gentlemen who are appointed because of their special knowledge about land, and who have gone over the farm on which they have given a decision. That is a matter to which I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his consideration.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Sir, the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated that the yield of all agricultural produce in 1888 was very much better than the yield in 1887. That remark, however, cannot be taken as applying to potatoes, because, compared with 1887,

    1785
    there was a diminution in the yield of potatoes in 1888 of over 1,000,000 tons. That was a very important factor in many of the poorest districts of Ireland. The number of Sub-Commissioners for which the vote is asked is 70. In 1888 there were 24,000 cases decided; but 6,000 of these were decided by agreement out of Court, so that the actual work of the 70 Sub-Commissioners is brought down to 18,000 cases a year, or 1,500 a month. I can understand how the 70 men only manage to get through 1,500 cases a month after what has been said as to the way in which they travelled about the country. The sooner the Chief Secretary for Ireland takes the Commission in hand the better. But there was another reason for the delay in the settlement of cases. The hon. Member for Longford has spoken of there being a good deal of human nature about the Commissioners in relation to their removability. The Sub-Commissioners are now paid by the day, and it was only human nature for them to lengthen out the job as much as they can. As long as these men are paid by the day the work of the Commission will drag on and the tenants will suffer. Then with regard to appeals, a farmer lodging an appeal is forced to the conclusion that it will be two or three years before his appeal was heard, This ought not to be. What is now done? Two experts are sent down to value the land for the purpose of fixing the rent. The appeal from them is given to three men, who know nothing about land and who send down a valuer. [Mr. T. M. HEALY and Mr. M. HEALY: No.] That makes the matter worse. A valuer used to be sent, and upon his recommendation the decision was given. But even then it was simply one expert in land against two. I, therefore, beg the right hon. Gentleman to give a position of something like permanence to the Commissioners in the Bill, which I hope will be brought forward next year. I trust, also, that the appeal will be restricted to questions of law only. In one of the Returns presented under the Ashbourne Act a sale is recorded in County Galway by the Land Investment and Settlement Company, and I wish to know what the tenants paid in the shape of years' purchase for their hold-
    1786
    ings, and to whom the Land Commission paid the money.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think, Mr. Courtney, it is impossible to exaggerate the hardship and inconvenience to all parties, and especially to the tenants, which are caused by the delay in hearing cases under the Act of 1887, and the great cost which that delay involves. In 1887, when the last Land Act was under the consideration of this House, I ventured to propose a plan by which those difficulties might be got rid of. That proposal had the assent at that time of all the Irish Members.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir, I rise to a point of Order. Both the hon. Member for Longford and the right hon. Gentleman propose to discuss the legislative methods for dealing with the block in the Land Court. I have no objection to the discussion of those schemes, but I would like to know whether, if they are discussed, I shall be at liberty to make a full answer.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I discussed this very question last year at some length in Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The action of the Commissioners can be discussed on this Vote, and it is quite competent for hon. Members to suggest methods for diminishing the arrears still pending. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Longford did, no doubt, enter at considerable length into an examination of the Statute of 1887, in order to show that it did not get rid of the difficulty of arrears, and it is quite competent for hon. Members to discuss facilitating measures.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I proposed a method of dealing with arrears which received the full assent of Irish Members, and which, if adopted, I believe would have cleared them off, and saved the State a vast expenditure of money. My plan was this—to take holdings under £30 and to apply to them an average of the decisions of the Commissioners with respect to holdings of the same size, and provisionally to fix their rents at the same proportion without reference to valuation, allowing either party the right of appeal to the Land Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman has taken credit to himself for having made proposals to lessen the amount of the arrears, but it appears to

    1787
    me that the right hon. Gentleman's method is based on the principle of not consulting the Irish Members on a subject with which they are intimately concerned. I feel satisfied that if he entered into consultation with the Irish Members and made a proposal in the direction I have suggested, he would find it possible to clear off the arrears. For my part, I look with some hesitation and dismay on the proposal to increase the number of Sub-Commissioners. I think there is great force in the remark of the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) that the method of pay by the day accounts for the slow progress the Sub-Commissioners make—only 1,500 cases a month.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not accurate.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: At all events, the amount of work done is not large. I entirely agree with what the Chief Secretary said as to the inexpediency of increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners, and I agree that the more you multiply their numbers the more difficult it will be to give them security of tenure. The hon. Member for Longford observed that when the Act of 1887 was passed, the Commissioners were not to increase the rent under the schedule of prices. It was never for a moment suggested that the rents should be increased, but that they should be reduced according to the fall of prices. And the hon. Member for Carnarvon proposed that the Commissioners should take into account the yield of crops as well as the prices. I certainly understood from the Debate that the Chief Secretary practically admitted that it would be within the competency of the Land Commissioners to take into account the yield as well as the prices. The hon. Member for Carnarvon withdrew his Amendment. But of this I am quite sure, that if at the time of the passing of the Act of 1887 it had been contemplated that the Land Commissioners might raise the rent, we should certainly have raised the question that the yield as well as prices should be taken into consideration. I own I was greatly surprised to find that the Land Commissioners adopted the course of raising the rents in spite of the protest of their legal members. As to the plethora of work before the Commissioners, I most earnestly urge the
    1788
    Chief Secretary to consider, instead of increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners, some such scheme as I have suggested.
    MR. FLYNN: Sir, I am afraid that the plan which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested would not work well, because of the diverse conditions of the different holdings—some having been reclaimed from mere bog, and others which had been entered upon in a better condition. It would be difficult to apply to such holdings the same average of reduction. As regards the prices of 1888, I think the Chief Secretary will find, on close examination, that he is very much mistaken, and that the average prices of 1888 were worse than the average of 1887. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman contains a fallacy as remarkable in its way as anything which he has foisted on the House since he became Chief Secretary. He says that the prices ought only to be taken into account by the Commissioners. When the Commissioners originally fixed the rents, between 1882 and 1885, they took into account both prices and average yield, and surely when they come to revise the rents they are bound to adopt a similar course. The worse the year the higher the price may be; and if they only take into account the prices, they may be compelled in a year of absolute famine and starvation to raise the rents. I cannot conceive by what course of reasoning the right hon. Gentleman, who is clever enough on most points, can identify himself with an argument so transparently absurd. In the opinion of all people in Ireland who have watched the proceedings under the Land Act since the year 1881 the whole system of administration has been more or less in conflict with the spirit of the Act. What is the use of passing Acts which are supposed to be of value to the struggling tenant farmers of Ireland if they are administered in such a way that justice is denied to the people? I believe that a certain number of these Commissioners are men of fair and impartial characters; but when we see the system under which they are appointed, the class of men who appoint them, and the result of their operations as a whole, it is not surprising that the tenant farmers of Ireland view the proceedings with considerable distrust, and only accept the judicial

    1789
    rents as a settlement on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. Mr. Wrench, who has recently been appointed a Land Commissioner, was a land agent, and belongs at the present time to a landlord club, called the Kildare Street Club, in Dublin. I am bound to say that the feeling in Ireland is that a Commission presided over by a man like Mr. Wrench, cannot be expected to be fair or impartial. This gentleman and his colleagues have the appointment of land valuers and sub-Committees, and, although it is a matter of congratulation that the number of Sub-Commissioners has been increased to 70, we find that a large number of them are connected with the landlord interest. Looking through the list I find that one of them, Mr. Charles Hamilton, is a Member of Kildare Street Club; another, Mr. Armstrong, has been hitherto employed in making valuations for landlords; another is a Galway landlord, another a Roscommon landlord, and so on through the entire list. Take the case of legal Commissioners. If they had only to decide points of law, perhaps the argument would not affect the case so strongly, but I am informed that they have an equal voice with the other Commissioners in the adjustment of the rent and the sole voice in law. The legal Commissioner in the County of Cork, Mr. Lawrence Doyle, has been a strenuous advocate of the landlord party, and is equally well known as a strenuous opponent of the tenants' claims for fair rents under the Acts of 1881 and 1887. About a year ago when a large number of tenants were in Court and their solicitor was making a statement as to the value of the tenancies and the exclusive claim of the tenants to the full value of their improvements, they burst into some kind of applause in Court. The applause was very promptly subdued, and the legal Commissioner turned round upon them, and said he would not have his Court turned into a pandemonium, and called the people who were coming before him as suitors "a pack of howling savages." I can easily understand an outburst of temper from a judicial functionary whose temper was ruffled by an act of disrespect of that kind, but the language Mr. Doyle used shows the animus and the utter want of impartiality on the part of a large number of these men. The right hon.
    1790
    Gentleman has found fault with my hon. Friend the Member for Longford for raising this discussion, and has said that this Committee is wholly unsuited to judge of the impartiality or otherwise of the Sub-Commissioners. But what other Court of Appeal is there m the land? If the people of Ireland have strong grounds for believing that these appointments are unfair, and that the men appointed do not act fairly between landlord and tenant, what other avenue have they for the expression of their opinions except that of their Representatives in this House? This is why we have to raise a Debate on this Vote year after year. It is not out of "pure cussedness," to use an American expression, that Members on this side of the House get up and talk about the Commissioners. It is, to say the least of it, an unpleasant thing for us to find fault with functionaries who are not directly connected with the Executive and do not fall under the same censure as Resident Magistrates or constabulary officers. But we have to point out that there is a widespread feeling in Ireland that the Sub-Commissioners are appointed almost directly in the landlords' interest and that when they are not landlords themselves or agents, they are directly connected with the landlord interests. It has been pointed out that out of the large number who have been appointed, only eight are tenant farmers We are told that a large number of them have a practical acquaintance with the value of land, but we are not told how. If 70 Commissioners have been appointed, I want to know why 50 or 60 per cent of them should not have been farmers? There are plenty of hard-headed practical farmers in the North of Ireland whom you might have selected if you object to men from the South and West. Could you not have got 50 farmers, say, from South Tyrone, who could not be accused of under partiality towards the tenants of the South and West, and yet who would be sure to have a knowledge of the value of land? It would not have been too much to expect that one or two of the members of every one of these Sub-Commissions should be tenant farmers, having a practical acquaintance with the value of land and with the difficulty of making money out of it in these times. I suppose it would be a matter of extreme

    1791
    difficulty for anyone to arrive by any process of calculation at the average reductions that have been given by landlords in England; but with reference to the instances that have come under ray own observation, I do not think I am indulging in the language of exaggeration when I say that the average reductions given in many cases in England without pressure, without Land Acts, and without agitation, murder, violence, and bloodshed, have exceeded the reductions given under the Irish Land Acts after intense agitation. We see on the Treasury Bench two or three Gentlemen who are themselves the strongest examples of the argument I have laid before the Committee, because they themselves have given to their tenants larger reductions than we have been able to get for the tenants who have made all the improvements. We have a maximum of expense and a maximum of legislation with a minimum of results; and if this question of the Land Commission has to be raised again and again on the Vote in Supply, the reason is that the Government have never risen to the height of the situation, and have never honestly and fairly administered the Act in the spirit in which the Legislature passed it. For my part, I believe that, although you may increase the number of Sub-Commissioners from 70 to 100, the land question will still be with you until you change the mode of appointment. I believe that the hard working bees, as well as the idle drones, have some right to a voice in the settlement of the value of the land, and that, until you recognise that, Parliament will have to pass Land Act after Land Act, and will still find itself choked up with arrears of the land difficulty. I am convinced that you will never settle the land difficulty in Ireland until you adopt a different method of dealing with it.
    MR. MACNEILL: I wish to refer only to one subject, which has been brought before the House previously, and which, I think, cannot be too often brought before it. Frequent complaints have been made to the Chief Secretary in reference to the question why the tenants have been defrauded of their rights. The Land Commission, either from defects of machinery or from some worse cause,
    1792
    has acted in such a way that men have had the agony and suspense of having their cases left unheard for 18 or 19 months. I have asked many questions in reference to the Olphert Estate, which was a typical case. There you had oppression on the one side and iron-handed power on the other. On the 9th of May I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) a question in reference to the hard and cruel delay which had taken place in the adjustment of the rents of that estate. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "From the Report received by the Land Commissioners it appears that the applications to fix judicial rents from the Olphert estate, received by them before the 1st November, 1887, and at the present outstanding number not 125, as alleged in the question, but 82."
    Eighty-two of these starving tenants had, before the 1st of November, done the only thing in their power to get the rents adjusted and to get permission to live in their own home for 18 months. No Land Commission was sent down to adjust the rents. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say—
    "All cases received from this estate up to the 31st of December, 1887, are on the list for hearing, which will be delivered in a few days. It may be recollected that the landlord has offered 25 per cent reduction on non-judicial rents, and that any tenant against whom proceedings in ejectment are brought, who has made application to have a fair rent fixed, can apply to the Court in which such proceedings are pending to obtain a stay of execution upon such terms as the Court may direct."
    How could a tenant without the means to support himself or his family employ counsel to institute a motion in Dublin to have his case expedited or to get evictions stayed? Under the most humble process in the ordinary Quarter Sessions Courts a defence of eviction proceedings, even if successful, would cost £6. That would be the entire six years' rent of many of these people. Well, the evictions took place, and I heard of the right hon. Gentleman only a few evenings ago glorying in their success, and saying that the battering ram was the best thing to use in reference to such people. Why was not the Commission sent to the estate? In every case the arrangement was to give these tenants no judicial settlements, and to allow Olphert a free hand to dispose of them as he thought fit. This case affords an object lesson

    1793
    in misgovernment in Ireland, and shows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
    SIR C. LEWIS: I wish to refer to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that during the Debates on the Act of 1887 it was never suggested by anybody of position that that Act could possibly be used with the result of increasing rents. My recollection of what took place during the Debate was so different from that of the right hon. Gentleman that I have taken the trouble to refer to there-port of the discussion. I find in Volume CCCXVII. of Hansard, page 416, that no less a person than my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose connection with the Land Question and with the landed interest in Ireland is perfectly well-known, said on the 11th of July, in reference to a speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman):—
    "The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that under these proposals the rents might be increased, and that that was unfair. But our object is to do justice between man and man, and if you allow the tenant to go into Court that his rent may be reduced if it is too high, why should you take from the landlord the power of having his rents increased where they are too low?"
    I am not entering into the question whether it was just or prudent on that occasion to include in the provisions of the Bill an enactment which could be used in that way. I am dealing simply with the question whether the right hon. Gentleman was right in maintaining it was never contemplated by anyone that rents might be increased. During the Debate from which I have quoted this very probability was used as argument on each side of the House. I merely rose to refer to this point, as I think it is a matter of the gravest importance that the Debate on this matter should not go upon wrong lines, and that we should keep to the facts of the case.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I made the statement after reading the Debates which took place in 1887, and after special reference to the speeches made by those who were responsible for the Bill—the Chief Secretary and the Irish Attorney General. I did not think it worth while to read the speech of the
    1794
    First Lord of the Admiralty, which, after all, does not lay down principles; his observations are merely in the nature of obiter dicta.
    MR. M'CARTAN: The hon. Baronet has, as usual, been advocating the interests of the landlords, and I believe that in the Debate to which he has referred it always was in the minds of the landlords in this House, and, indeed, in the minds of hon. Members opposite, that there should be an increase in the rents. It was intended, if possible, to turn the Land Bill into a weapon against the tenant in favour of the landlords, and well have hon. Members succeeded in doing it. In the year 1881, when the Land Law (Ireland) Act was passed, hon. Members opposite admitted that it was absolutely necessary to bring in a Bill to deal with arrears, and a similar admission was made when the 1887 Bill was before the House. But all that was done in the latter ease was to provide that any reduction of the rent should be applicable to the rent accruing from the gale day next before the application was made to the Court. For instance, if the application was made before November, 1887, the rent running from May, 1887, would be affected by it. It then became the duty of the Government, in order to bring the relief to the tenants which was so much required, to appoint a sufficient number of Sub-Commissioners to administer this law which the House passed, and which the House itself intended for the relief of the Irish tenants. But what has happened? For nearly two years applications have been before the Court that are still unheard. Time after time has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary been directed to this fact—that there is not a sufficient number of Sub-Commissioners to deal with the applications of tenant farmers to have fair rents fixed. Time after time I, myself, have directed his attention to this fact, and it has also been pointed out from these Benches, that there are in Ireland landlords hardhearted enough to enforce their powers against tenants whose applications to have a fair rent fixed are still pending. One of the first of the landlords to carry out this act of injustice towards tenants was the head of the Executive of the Government, the Lord Lieutenant himself. The unfortunate tenant tried by

    1795
    every means in his power to come to a settlement with Lord Londonderry; he offered to leave the matter to arbitration. But it was of no avail; the Lord Lieutenant wanted to set an example to the rest of the landlords of the country, in order to show them how to turn the Act of 1887 into an engine of persecution against the tenants. But while we were not allowed a sufficient number of Sub-Commissioners to carry out the remedial provisions of the Land Act, we were given a sufficient number of removable officials to carry out the penal enactments of the Statute, and to enforce the charges made against unfortunate tenants, who rushed back to the homes from which they had been unjustly evicted. Now, what is the remedy for this state of things? I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that the appointment of additional Sub-Commissioners would not be a remedy. It is, to my mind, the only remedy that there is. You want a sufficient number of Courts to deal with all the cases which are awaiting settlement, and unless you have a sufficient number of Commissioners, how can the cases be disposed of? One of my hon. Friends has pointed out that in certain counties you only have one legal Commissioner to preside over three sets of Sub-Commissioners. In the North of Ireland—in County Down and County Antrim—that state of things prevails, and the legal Commissioner has to be continually travelling from one part of the county to another in order to take part in the work of the Sub-Commissioners. This, to my mind, is a most unnecessary expenditure of time and money, and it is certain that if we had more legal Commissioners the Sub-Commissioners would be able to get through a considerably greater amount of work. I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends who have suggested that the appointment of two laymen to sit with County Court Judges in order to deal with these cases would give satisfaction. My experience in the North of Ireland leads me to an entirely different conclusion. In my own county, for instance, we have a County Court Judge whose tendency is certainly in favour of the landlords, and what has been the result? Why, since the passing of the Act in 1881, not half a dozen cases have been brought before him by
    1796
    the tenants. In fact, they will not avail themselves of the opportunity of going before this County Court Judge. It is my opinion that the Court which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to constitute will prove nothing more or less than a mockery. It is a Court which will not command the confidence of the tenants, and I would strongly recommend the Chief Secretary not to persevere with his proposal. There is another subject to which I wish to refer, and that is the subject of appeals. I think it is a scandal that appeals which have been pending for three or four years are still unheard. A short time ago we had a sitting of the Land Commission in my own county, and several appeals were tried without the holdings being inspected by the Commissioners. In a large number of the cases the rent was increased, but in some seven or eight cases the decisions were withheld, and it has since been decided that a Court valuer should be sent to inspect the farms. But who is the Court valuer to be? It is Mr. Babington, a land agent in the County Armagh, a gentleman who has never appeared in the Land Court unless it has been to give evidence in favour of the landlords. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary why such a man as that is appointed to this position? Under the present state of affairs, I think it would be far better if we had no appeal on the question of value. I think that the appeals should be limited to questions of law, and I go farther, and say that in order to get rid of appeals within a reasonable time there should be power to go before a Judge of Assize and get the point decided. With regard to the revision of judicial rents, I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend's references to this matter. We have never been able to lay our hands on the instructions which have been sent out to the Commissioners with regard to the basis on which the revision shall be made. We find that in the year 1887, when straw was very dear, it was dealt with as one of the articles of produce on which to ground the revision of rent; but in 1888, when it was very cheap, it was conveniently omitted from the list, and the tenant was deprived of all advantage arising from the reduction in the price of straw. Now, I should like to know on what principle the Land Commission

    1797
    proceeds in regard to the revision of these rents, and I think we ought to obtain this information from the Government. In conclusion, let me state that the course which has been adopted by the Chief Secretary is not one which is calculated to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. I would strongly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he means to do anything towards pacifying the country be must alter his whole course of procedure, and administer the Land Act in a very different spirit.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I have had as much experience as any Member of this House in the matter of the Land Courts practice. I have had experience of the working of the Sub-Commissioners and of the Head Commissioners, and I have had experience of every kind, especially on the question of appeals. Now, I do not agree with the suggestion that the Head Commissioners do not listen to the evidence as to the value. On the contrary, my experience is that they consider that evidence fairly and conscientiously. Where I think the mistake has been made, is in cases where Sub-Commissioners who are best acquainted with a pastoral country are brought in to value land in a tillage country, and I am happy to say that even where these mistakes have been made they have been rectified on appeal to the Head Commissioners. The men who are chosen as Sub-Commissioners are generally large farmers—men in the occupation of large tracts of land—and they are, therefore, competent judges for large holdings, although they may be poor judges for small farms. An appeal, therefore, on the question of value is necessary. The great thing is to do justice between landlord and tenant in regard to a particular farm, and if mistakes have been made in doing that, it has been possible to get them remedied by appeal. My hon. Friend who spoke last has complained of the appointment of a gentleman as Court Valuer with whom I am well acquainted, and I must say that when I heard of the appointment being made I viewed it with pleasure, because, although Mr. Babington was a landlord's valuer, he undoubtedly succeeded a man to whom be was infinitely superior. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend need be afraid that
    1798
    MR. Babington will do any injustice to the tenants. I know it is impossible, under the present administration, to appoint anyone to these positions who has not strong Conservative support; but I believe that, when appointed, these gentlemen do their duty well, and I think it is to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman should look upon Mr. Babington as a béte noire. The Sub-Commissioners, at any rate, are not so bad as our friends the removables under the Crimes Act, and they certainly do not deserve that unqualified condemnation which some of my hon. Friends seem inclined to shower upon them. We must view things as they are, and not as if we lived in Utopia. Another matter I wish to point out as a reason why the Sub-Commission will always have my strong support, and that is that they bring justice to the poor man's door. This is in itself sufficient, to my mind, to make allowances for the natural defects of men who are not trained lawyers and have not shone as legal lights. As to leaving decisions to the hurry and chances of the Assize, I say, "deliver us from that evil" above all things. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that suggestion; that would mean that you would not have a case properly heard at all. I have had as much experience as most men on these matters, and I can say that such an arrangement would not conduce to justice between landlord and tenant, and before a ease was tried it would be estimated, from the known character of the Judges, when the landlord would be treated severely, and when the tenant would be treated severely. I have only to add that I deplore the delay that has occurred everywhere, and, not the least, in my own district, and for this the Government have incurred great responsibility, having regard to the peace of the country. It is not by raising the Police Estimates they can secure that peace. Why haggle over a few thousand pounds for the expense of another Sub-Commission? Why you spend in half a year on extra police and Crimes Court officials enough to supply the entire machinery for wiping off the arrears of judicial rents. If the Chief Secretary connot bring his mind to transfer the expenditure, let him by way of equipoise spend a pound on the Land Court for

    1799
    wiping out arrears for every pound spent on the Crimes Act, and he will find the arrears quickly lessen; and perhaps he will find he can decrease his Crimes Court expenditure as quickly. My object in rising was to deprecate any change of policy in the way proposed by my hon. Friend. I say you cannot have a tribunal for the hearing of these cases half as good as the present. I had experience of the working of the Act of 1870, and from the passing of that Act to 1881 I had, I suppose, as much active interest in the cases that came before the Court as any man, and I can say that it was the want of sympathy of the County Court Judges that forced the Act of 1881. The Act of 1870 failed of its effect in a great measure through the cold technicality of County Court judgments, but we have now a tribunal with some portion of sympathy with the matters they deal with. Let us not criticise this tribunal too severely. They make mistakes, as every tribunal will, but the great grievance is not due to any fault of theirs—it is due to the right hon. Gentleman and his fear of the British taxpayer. Well, the British taxpayer was played out last night. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a more cheerful view, after seeing what the British taxpayer can be reduced to. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take courage and spend money on the Land Court.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think, before the Question is put, we might be favoured with a reply from the Treasury Bench.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very reluctant to add another to the many speeches I have made, but if the hon. Member thinks it necessary I will do so. I do not think it is necessary for me to survey the whole course of the Debate since I last spoke, and I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has demolished the accusations brought against the Land Court. We were told earlier that eight Sub-Commissioners only were drawn from the tenant farmer class, but the hon. Gentleman has shown that this class is very numerously represented, so on that point it is not necessary for me to speak. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford went into the scheme he propounded last year, by which an automatic system of fixing fair rents should be adoped towards
    1800
    small holdings. I do full justice to his motives, but I do not think he has quite apprehended the difficulties that would attend any rough-and-ready process of the kind suggested. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that the number of cases disposed of by the Court in a month is 1,500, repeating an error into which the hon. Member for South Tyrone fell. The number of cases disposed of in June last was 2,300, and I hope eases will continue to be disposed of at that rate.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I gave the numbers for 1888. A very large number of cases are disposed of out of Court.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but the year 1888 shows an average that is not a real test of the speed now shown in giving decisions. For a considerable period in 1888 there were not so many Sub-Commissioners at work as there are now. The present speed is much above that of 1888. Then a great many criticisms have been passed on the arbitrary manner as hon. Members think in which Sub-Commissioners have been moved from one part of the country to another, compelling them sometimes to traverse long distances. In this respect, I believe, a great reform has been effected by the Commission in the last few months, and whereas formerly cases used to be taken in the order in which they were listed for hearing, now, some regard is had to the manner in which the holdings are distributed. The Land Commissioners have in view, as far as possible, the economising of the time of the Sub-Commissioners, and they have devoted themselves, not unsuccessfully, to administration in this respect, and I hope, even without the passage of the Bill I am anxious to have passed, a still greater amount of work can be got out of the Land Commission in proportion to the number of persons employed. That, I think, includes all the references I have to make.
    MR. MACNEILL: There was my specific charge in reference to the rehearing of cases on the Olphert Estate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for South Donegal has made it a matter of complaint that the Executive did not send down a Land Commission Court to fix fair rents on the Olphert Estate. I may tell the hon. Member

    1801
    that I have no control over the movements of the head Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners. The House has given an absolute discretion to those officials, and the Executive have no right at all to interfere. But if the hon. Member is really of opinion that any serious injury has been caused to the tenants on the Olphert Estate by the absence of a Land Court decision, he is labouring under a mistake. The landlord offered a reduction of 25 per cent on non-judicial rents, and the utmost reduction that would have been made by a Land Court would have been from 30 to 35 per cent. The difference between the voluntary and the judicial reduction would only amount to 6d. or perhaps 1s. in the year. That being so, it is a great exaggeration to represent that a serious loss has been inflicted upon the tenants. I hope the Committee will now feel that we have dealt sufficiently with this important Vote, and that we may pass to Votes of not less importance.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: There is one question connected with the disposition of these cases to which I should like to call attention, and that is the manner in which the Commissioners are turned loose into counties altogether without regard to their local knowledge of requirements in the districts where they are called upon to adjudicate. A Sub-Commissioner is taken from Dublin and sent to fix fair rents in Donegal, and though he may be perfectly acquainted with the conditions of agriculture in the first mentioned county he may be absolutely unacquainted with the requirements of Donegal. So also to send a man from Ulster to fix fair rents in the County of Cork, where the system of agriculture differs widely from that in the North, almost amounts to a travesty of justice. I would urge that the labours of a Sub-Commissioner should be confined, as far as possible, to the province with the agricultural conditions of which he is well acquainted. A man well accustomed to the usages of Ulster may be unqualified to appreciate the requirements of Munster or Connaught. In Munster you have grass farms combined with little cultivation; in Ulster you have wholly different conditions of farming. What would be a large farm
    1802
    in Ulster would be a very small farm in Munster, and fair rents have to be determined on wholly different conditions of farming. There are parts of Ireland where the conditions differ more widely than they do between some parts of Ireland and England. I would urge, therefore, that Sub-Commissioners should deal as far as possible with cases where the conditions of farming are nearly identical. That will conduce more to uniformity in the fixing of fair rents upon an intelligent system, and greatly reduce the number of appeals. Then under Subhead D I observe an increase in expenditure for collecting market prices, which cannot, I think, be excused; and there is less excuse when we find associated with this increase, an increase in the judicial rents under the Act of 1887, and the self-acting machinery for increasing or decreasing judicial rents. The increase has been in a manner never contemplated under that Act, and indicates that the system of collecting prices is imperfect. I am convinced that had this result been foreseen the clause in this Act would never have been sanctioned. Warnings were given at the time, but unheeded; and unfortunately the result on the increase of rents has surprised even the landlord party. Unfortunately, too, the only Chief Commissioner who occupies an independent position, and can give an opinion on legal authority is Mr. Justice O'Hagan. The other Com missioners holding their tenure of office from year to year are apt, as the time for renewal of office comes round, to become extreme advocates of the landlord party. I would urge on the Solicitor General the consideration of my suggestion in reference to the fixing of fair rents by Sub-Commissioners acquainted with, the conditions of farming in the districts in which they adjudicate.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum not exceeding £4,478 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
    MR. MAC NEILL: I have but a few words to say in reference to this Vote, and I regret that it takes precedence of the more important Vote for the Chief Secretary. However, a vast sum of money is wasted on the frippery and nonsense of this ginger bread Court, and many items require examination. There is an entry of £829 0s. 8d. for the Private Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant—there is a certain economic ring about the 8d. What are the duties of this gentleman that he should require such a large remuneration? He has not occasion to write many letters, he has not occasion to correspond with "Dear Mr. Army-tage." Does he keep the Lord Lieutenant's racing accounts? Let the Chief Secretary consider. He could keep two Resident Magistrates for this amount! Cecil Roche and Captain Segrave could go from one end of Ireland to the other and sentence us all to six months' imprisonment for this amount. Then what do the four Aides-de-camp do for their £200 each? What are the duties of the three gentlemen in waiting who, together, receive £443? Will the Chief Secretary, the Secretary of all Secretaries, tell us what are the duties of these gentlemen? Does the Private Secretary draw up those short and foolish speeches with which from time to time Lords Lieutenant irritate the people? What are the functions of the State Steward, for which he is paid £506, or of the Comptroller with £414? Does the Gentleman Usher or the Chamberlain discharge any duty for the salaries they receive? The same question applies to the Master of the Horse and the Sergeant of the Riding Horse. Is there a riding horse in the Castle, or where does the Sergeant earn his £30 a year? Passing from these I come to the provisions made for the welfare of the soul of the Lord Lieutenant—and these amount to £789. The chaplain to Dublin Castle is allowed £335, and his reading clerk £42; organist, choristers, and chapel keeper bring up the total to £789. But I would ask do any members of the Lord Lieutenant's household attend the ministrations of the chaplain? Do they not usually attend the services at the Hibernian Military School, or St. Patrick's Cathedral, or elsewhere? Very interesting also are the items
    1804
    under the head of "Salaries and Allowances for the Office of Arms." First we have "Ulster King of Arms," £920. Sir Bernard Burke supplies genealogies and arms to all and sundry who require such distinction. No doubt he would, if requested, add a "battering ram" argent to the Chief Secretary's quarterings. Various other items make up the total of this sub-head to £1,091. Now that would not be an unreasonable amount for the genuine work that Sir Bernard Burke does. He is a learned antiquarian scholar, and his services as keeper of the State Papers in the Irish R cord Office are most valuable. But for the most genuine work he does in this capacity he is paid much less than for ministering to the extravaganza at Dublin Castle, and deciding questions of precedence between a "knight banneret" and a "knight bachelor," or who has the claim to take certain ladies in to dinner. Then there is the entry of £12 16s. for the "kettle drummer" to which official reference has been often made in this House, and who still survives all criticism, and then we come to the expenses for the Insignia of the Order of St. Patrick, £60, and it is curious to note that the emblazoning and repairing of arms invariably comes to the same amount every year. The insignia are never cleaned. They are dirty deal shields, and so on, in St. Patrick's Cathedral. They are never brushed from year's end to year's end, and the cobwebs are never removed from them. Yet £60 a year is charged for attending to them. It will be little short of a gross violation of trust if we vote the sum. The Committee is asked to supply money for keeping up the paraphernalia of a gingerbread Court, and for administering to the vulgar vanity of people who have emerged from shops, and are ashamed of their origin.
    MR. BLANE: One would have thought that the Lord Lieutenant got quite enough money to pay his own servants. An examination of the list of minions who are attached to the vice-regal household shows that a number of them are in receipt of very large pensions. We are bound to believe that the pensions have been awarded to them because they are no longer of any service. Here, however, they turn up smiling, and one of them

    1805
    gets £150, another £250, another £240, and so on. The one who has £240 is surgeon to the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, and everybody who is acquainted with that force knows that any farrier or blacksmith in the City could do all that is required. A great many of these appointments date back to the Lord Lieutenancy of the Duke of Abercorn, and I think that no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks Beach) how the hungry Hamiltons in Ireland search for every office. Their maw is insatiable. They hang on to their friends in every Department, and there is no getting rid of them. These men are the boa constrictors of the State. If anyone rises in this House to protest against their proceedings, a defence is always made for them. £800 a year is spent on aide-de-camps to the Lord Lieutenant, though those who occupy the posts already draw their pay as officers in the Army. Then there is a chaplain, I suppose for the preservation of the soul of the Lord Lieutenant. I wonder whether it has never struck Lords Lieutenants with surprise that their souls should be so very expensive. I cannot imagine why the Lord Lieutenant should not pay for the servants of his household. If I had £20,000 a year from anybody I would pay my own servants. Of course we are told that the Lord Lieutenant could not keep up the necessary state unless he had this staff. I can understand that there should be a certain amount of state in the Court of the Sovereign; but surely no one expects that you should keep up splendour in the half-crown Court of Dublin. Even the Chief Secretary cannot endure to spend more than three days there at a time. The place is left to dusters and housekeepers—some of the officials have residences outside in the small suburban villas of Dublin, and they rarely put their noses into the place. To throw down £7,400 of the public money every year to be scrambled for by these people is really preposterous. As I said before, the Hamiltons, the Stewarts, the Vane Tempests, and the other families that exploit Ireland for the benefit of themselves and their followers should pay their camp-followers themselves. These camp-followers are generally a most useless and vagabond
    1806
    set, and would not be tolerated in any other country in the world.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I hope the Committee will not fail to note that this Vote does not represent all that is asked for for the Lord Lieutenant, the total amount being not £7,400, but £38,600. I am disposed to think that a Vote of this kind is more or less necessary as long as the Lord Lieutenant is retained. We may, some of us, have no objection to the principle of the maintenance of the Lord Lieutenant, and I myself think it a very good thing that it should be maintained. I believe I am right in saying that the office of Lord Lieutenant is not a profitable one, inasmuch as the holders of it have always to expend more than they receive, but at the same time I must enter my protest against such a large number of minor useless offices, some of which are purely grotesque, being attached to the Department. I think that the office of Ulster King-at-Arms, held by Sir Bernard Burke, might very well be dispensed with. He is a great genealogist, and has published many books which have more circulation in England than in Ireland. The reward he has got for publishing these books is that of being practically quartered on the taxpayers of the country. He receives £750 as Ulster King-at-Arms and £500 a year more as Keeper of the Record Office. Both these offices are sinecures. As Keeper of the Records Sir Bernard Burke has an unrivalled opportunity of making himself useful in the collection and publication of documents dealing with the history of Ireland. With the exception of tracing the history of families he has done nothing whatever to earn his salt. I would respectfully suggest to the right hon Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he happens to be Chief Secretary when Sir Bernard Burke resigns or vacates his office, that he might very reasonably reduce this annual Vote by abolishing the Office of Ulster King-at-Arms. There is in the Vote an item of £40 for providing certain insignia for the Order of St. Patrick. I believe that no investiture of the Order has taken place during the last twelve months, and I do not understand what the item is for. The Vote also includes an item of £1,563 for Queen's Plates. This was originally intended for the purpose of encouraging and im-

    1807
    proving the breeding of horses, but in England it has been discovered by experience that the money so devoted does not produce any satisfactory results, and it has been devoted to other purposes. At present there is already an allowance of £5,000 annually made to the Royal Dublin Society for the encouragement of horse breeding, and it would be far better if this sum of £1,500 was also devoted to that society for a similar purpose. I should be sorry to ask the Committee to reject the sum, but I think the whole amount that comes under Sub-head D might be dispensed with; and for the purpose of protesting against the waste that occurs in this connection, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,091 for the salaries and allowances of the Office of Arms.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D, of £1,091, for Salaries, and Allowances of Office of Arms, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Matthew Kenny.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman in the attack he has made on the Ulster King-at-Arms has omitted to refer to the fact that the expenditure of £1,100 is not a charge on the Treasury. At all events, he carefully kept it out of his observations. As a matter of fact the Office of Arms is almost self-supporting, the fees received being nearly sufficient to cover the expenditure of the office. The average deficit is annually only about £220 a year. Attacks have been made on various officers of the Lord Lieutenant's household. I do not think it is worth while to enter into details, but I will content myself with saying that so long as there is a Lord Lieutenant there must be a Lord Lieutenant's household. Whether there ought to be a Lord Lieutenant at all is an open question, and one upon which the hon. Member who introduced this subject appears to have a much more decided opinion in favour of the retention of the office than I myself have. As has already been stated, however, there are certain offices which, when they become vacant, it is not intended to fill up without previous consultation with the Treasury. Among these are the offices of Ulster King-at-Arms and the drummer who is the last survivor of the Viceregal band. With regard to Queen's Plates, I confess
    1808
    that I am not an admirer of this mode of encouraging horse breeding, and when I was Secretary for Scotland I did what I could to alter it in Scotland. As Chief Secretary for Ireland, soon after taking office, I inquired into the subject, but a very small amount of inquiry convinced me that any attempt to interfere with the Queen's Plates would raise a storm of indignation, and this I was unwilling, in regard to this subject, to undergo. I quite admit that I do not wish to add to the many controversies which I already have on my hands with regard to Irish affairs. The hon. Member holds, perhaps rightly, that the money might be better spent in encouraging horse breeding. In that opinion, however, he needs the concurrence of many of his friends, and certainly of many people in Ireland.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I have the support of everybody except those who are personally interested in the races.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member is wrong, and that if I took the course he asks me to take a large number of gentlemen opposite would get up and denounce this new instance of alien tyranny. I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his Motion to a Division, and I hope the Committee will consent to pass the Vote, which is not for the Lord Lieutenant, but for his household, a Vote of a kind that must pass so long as Parliament determines to maintain the office.
    MR. MAC NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the ecclesiastical establishment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The ecclesiastical establishment of the Lord Lieutenant comes directly under the general argument I have used. If you abolish the ecclesiastical establishment you will not effect an immediate economy, because you will have to give pensions to the present holders of offices. It has always been held that an ecclesiastical establishment is a necessary part of the Lord Lieutenant's household. In these circumstances I should no more assent to the abolition of the ecclesiastical than I should to any other part of the Viceregal state.
    MR. FLYNN: I should not have troubled the Committee but for the concluding observations of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to be

    1809
    his peculiar misfortune, or else it is his deliberate intention, that whenever he intervenes in Irish Debates, whether of a set character or upon the Estimates, to raise a storm or, at all events, to set a breeze ablowing, which is altogether unnecessary. Anyone who listened to my hon. Friend will agree that he spoke in a most temperate manner, and certainly there was no idea in our minds of that "acrimony and that storm of indignation" to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in connection with the Vote for Queen's Plates. We reserve our indignation for some subject more worthy of it; we reserve it, for instance, for the consideration of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is straying beyond the limits of the Amendment before the Committee, which is to omit the item for Ulster King-at-Arms.
    MR. FLYNN: I defer to your ruling, Sir, and will only refer to the item, and at once I take issue with my hon. Friend who has moved the reduction. This item is one of the last remnants of respectability allowed to remain from the Civil List of the ancient Irish nation. It is a touching tribute from a parsimonious Treasury to the instincts of a separate nation, and to the treatment that nation is entitled to at the hands of the people of this country. It is a survival of the time when Irishmen, whether they recognised the Lord-Lieutenant or not, were proud of a state of things in which there really is a Court, and something more than the tawdry flippery and trivial tinsel such such as we now see in Dublin. I do not agree with my hon. Friend in his Motion for reducing the Vote. But it is needless for the Chief Secretary to talk of denunciation of tyranny; there is nothing of the kind in this discussion. I express my opinion when I say that I should regret to see the item abolished, and I hope that when the present occupier of the office has ceased to hold it his successor will hold it under circumstances of greater dignity under the authority of this or of an Irish House of Commons. Differences of opinion we have on this subject, but the right hon. Gentleman altogether transcends the importance of these differences. It is one of the functions of this Committee to criticise these items, and of this amount
    1810
    of £7,478 for the household of the Lord Lieutenant there is much, if we were disposed to criticise with severe economy, to which we might take exception. The Vote for the Lord Lieutenant himself is withdrawn from criticism because it is payable out of the Consolidated Fund, but all the criticisms that we address to this particular Vote before us are not unconnected with the higher subject which we have in view, though technically we cannot deal with it. I hope my hon. Friend will not find it necessary to divide on his Amendment.
    MR. COSSHAM: It is quite clear that we cannot enlist our Irish friends on the side of economy, and that whatever is to be done in that direction must be done by English Members. I would contrast with this enormous expenditure, which we are called upon to provide for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the figures that in the same connection apply to that great people on the other side of the Atlantic.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is the Motion on the item for the Ulster King-at-Arms.
    MR. COSSHAM: I quite understand that, because it is part of the household expenditure which I conceive to be on an extravagant scale, and of it this item of £1,091 is a considerable part. It does not appear to me that a poor country like Ireland is justified in having all this expenditure on a Court, and if a Division is taken I shall certainly support my hon. Friend. We have the assurance that some of these offices will not be filled up when vacated by the present holders. I hope this will be carried out rigorously, and that the right hon. Gentleman will retain office long enough to give effect to his undertaking.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 101.—(Div. List, No. 334.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. GILL: There has been an outcry in some quarters for the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant, and it has been stated that the office has been filled in recent years by those who certainly have not endeared it to the Irish people. For my own part, I am not prepared for the abolition of the office, for as long as Ireland occupies the position she does under the Act of Union, I look upon the office of Lord

    1811
    Lieutenant as one of the few symbols left of our separate nationality.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss the question of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. GILL: I was merely making a reference in passing. I was going to refer to the changes in the personality; but I pass from that. I will only say, in relation to the present holder of the office, that the Irish people have good reason to believe that they do not get full value for its retention.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The allowance to the Lord Lieutenant is specially charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and it is impossible to discuss the performance of the Lord Lieutenant upon this Vote.
    MR. GILL: Under the circumstances, I do not think is worth while my proceeding any further.
    MR. M. HARRIS: It is a delusion and a sham to vote this money to keep up the household of the Lord Lieutenant while the homes and rooftrees of people in all parts of Ireland are being levelled to the ground by the forces under his control. Day after day we have records of these things, and certainly if I had it in my power I would sooner vote money for the support of these poor people and their homes than I would vote anything to keep up the household of the Lord Lieutenant.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,271, 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 Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not rise for the purpose of raising any general discussion on the policy and administration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but for the purpose of raising a specific question in accordance with an undertaking which I gave some days ago, namely, as to the correspondence between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and Father Costello, the newly-appointed
    1812
    parish priest of Woodford, and with Bishop Healy, the coadjutor Bishop of that diocese in reference to the renewed wholesale evictions by Lord Clanricarde on that property. It is now some 18 months since I dealt with the whole of this question, and still this miserable dispute continues; from time to time fresh batches of evictions have taken place in continuance of Lord Clanricarde's avowed purpose to clear his property if the tenants did not give way and abandon to their fate those already evicted. Within the last fortnight 24 families have been evicted, 15 of them on the Portumna estate, where, owing to circumstances I will presently mention, there have been no previous evictions; nine of them on the Woodford estate, and of these nine I am informed that five are widows. Adding these to previous evictions, I find that 97 families have been evicted; and upwards of 170 persons have been sent to prison for various causes under the Coercion Act, directly or indirectly connected with this dispute. Further evictions on a large scale are threatened. Upwards of 60 tenants on the Portumna estate are in a position where they may be evicted at a moment's notice; a still greater number are in the same position on the Woodford estate, and, taking the whole property, I am told on authority I cannot doubt, that 800 tenants may be evicted if agreement is not come to. Under these circumstances, I have felt it a public duty to make a final protest before the House rises and to urge on the Chief Secretary for Ireland a course which will prevent what I believe will be a crime of unparalleled magnitude—namely, the clearance and depopulation of a whole district. Some days ago, before the recent batch of evictions, I put a question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland with reference to his correspondence on this subject and asked him to produce it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland replied to me in a tone and in terms which, if I did not wish on the present occasion to eliminate any personal controversy, I should feel it my duty to characterise in the terms it deserved. The Chief Secretary said he had no intention to gratify my curiosity by submitting to me his private correspondence. Hon. Members will probably understand by this that the parish priest of Wood-

    1813
    ford and Bishop Healy have written to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a private manner, and not intending their correspondence to be made public. This, however, is not the case. I have the assurance of both those gentlemen that their letters were of a public character, on a public matter, intended to be made public. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply, took the unusual course of making his letters private. In my experience, which extends over a good many years, I have never known a Minister, written to on a public matter, mark his letter in reply private. But I have consulted other and better authorities than myself on such matters, and I am told that it is a most unusual course for a Minister to answer public matters by a private letter and to refuse their publication. It can only be justified where the reply introduces fresh matter, which I understand was not the case in this instance. I have before me the letter of Father Costello, the parish priest of Woodford. This gentleman has only recently been appointed to that post in place of Father Coen, whose death was caused by the anxieties he underwent in consequence of this unfortunate dispute. [Mr. A.J. Balfour at this point returned to his place.] I am glad the Chief Secretary has returned, because although I quite appreciate the large amount of time he devotes to the business of the House, yet the matter I wish to bring forward is one which specially concerns himself. Father Costello is one of the most moderate men, though with deep sympathies for the tenants, and his first task on being appointed was to make an effort for the settlement of this question. He obtained authority from the tenants to act for them, and he then entered into communication with Lord Clanricarde. What occurred will best be explained by his letter to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He wrote—
    "As parish priest recently appointed, I have, in the interests of justice and the public peace, endeavoured to effect a settlement of this unhappy dispute between Lord Clanricarde and his tenants. The latter authorised me to convey to his Lordship, as I did, that they were willing either to purchase their holdings at a fair valuation or agree to leave matters in dispute to arbitration or agree to any moderate terms. Instead of acceding to these terms Lord Clanricarde is preparing for wholesale evictions."
    Father Costello then entered into a
    1814
    narrative of recent events on the property, pointing out the number of evictions and imprisonments. He concluded by saying—
    "In view of such facts and complications I request that the Government may send here an impartial Commission to hear both sides and present an accurate Report on the whole case; secondly, that all further action on the part of the Government be meanwhile suspended until the Report shall have been presented. Doing so will certainly avert social disorder, and afford reasonable but necessary protection to a notable section of Her Majesty's subjects against unrelenting extermination."
    This letter was a public one, addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his public capacity. The Chief Secretary for Ireland replied in a private letter. The letter, I am told, rejected the demand of the tenants and abandoned them to the tender mercies of Lord Clanricarde, whom the Government supported in his wholesale evictions with all the forces of the Coercion Act. I submit that we are entitled to have that reply or, at all events, the reasons for the action of the Government. I now come to the correspondence with Bishop Healy with reference to the Portumna district. Bishop Healy is the most conservative of all the Irish prelates on the land question. He holds the Plan of Campaign in holy horror, and he has done his utmost to prevent the Portumna tenants from throwing in their lot with the Woodford tenants. He has, however, the strongest possible opinion that Lord Clanricarde's conduct to his tenants has been unjust and cruel, and he has espoused the cause of the tenants with the utmost warmth. He has corresponded at length with Lord Clanricarde, but without obtaining any result. He has also corresponded with the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I cannot doubt that it has been owing to his remonstrances and entreaties that till quite lately the Government did not support evictions on this part of the property. Time after time Lord Clanricarde has been in a position to evict on a large scale on this part of his property, and has made all his preparations; but time after time, at the last moment, on one excuse or other, the forces of the Crown have not been lent by the Government, and I believe that there is little doubt that this was due to Bishop Healy's exertions. I make no complaint on this score against the action of the

    1815
    Chief Secretary. On the contrary, I applaud it; but I want to know why this policy has now been reversed, or why the evictions have now been supported. I have the authority of Bishop Healy for saying that his letters were of a public character, intended for publication, and I cannot think that the Chief Secretary should shelter himself under the plea that his replies were marked private. I have not seen the letters of the Bishop: but the tenour of them may be gathered from an address which the Bishop made to the Portumna tenants some few weeks ago, when evictions were imminent, under solemn circumstances, in the Portumna Parish Church, in which he reviewed the whole position, and stated the part he had taken. I wish that I could read the whole of that address. It would convert the most stony-hearted to a view of the injustice of the proceedings of Lord Clanricarde. The Bishop said—
    "The question is whether you are to become landless or not. It is, in fact, a question of life or death to you."
    The Bishop then entered into a history of the dispute. He showed how the rents had been raised in consequence of the tenants having voted contrary to the directions of Lord Clanricarde in the celebrated Galway election. He showed how, at the commencement of the dispute in 1885, he had personally urged on Lord Clanricarde's agent an abatement of rent on the ground that the tenants could not pay full rent. He showed that the agent had suggested a memorial to Lord Clanricarde; and that the memorial, signed by himself and by the Protectant rector, asked for an abatement of 25 per cent. He showed also that no answer was ever sent to this memorial, and that Mr. Joyce, the agent, was dismissed for advising abatements, and that evictions were then carried out. The Bishop then proceeds—
    "Just 12 months later, in October, 1886, Messrs. O'Brien and Dillon came down and launched against Lord Clanricarde the Plan of Campaign. I had no great reason to like Lord Clanricarde. He treated me as no gentleman ever treated a Bishop. But, on the other hand, you know, for reasors it is unnecessary now to explain, I kept aloof from the Plan, and, to put it in the mildest form, I did not like it. Besides, I denounced the excesses of boycotting on more than one occasion, and every official of the Government knows well that I earnestly
    1816
    and constantly counselled you against outrage and exhorted you to patience and charity.… Then when last year Mr. Shaw Lefevre went to Loughrea I advised you to follow his counsel as that of one of our own friends, to follow his counsel, and to meet Lord Clanricarde, so to speak, half-way, and secure you the sympathy of all honest men."
    He then detailed the course of negotiations with Lord Clanricarde, and that with the consent of the tenants he had made a most reasonable offer, and that after three months' silence Lord Clanricarde replied with an alternative which could not be entertained. The Bishop concluded by urging the tenants to—
    "Go out if you are so minded; but go out without violence to the officers of the law."
    Owing, I believe, to the exertions of the Bishop with the Chief Secretary the evictions were further postponed; but lately Lord Clanricarde has again found himself in a position to resume them. Just before the evil day another exertion was made to avoid them. Father Pelly, the administrator of the parish, by the desire of the Bishop, called the Portumna tenants together, and they made another offer to Lord Clanricarde. They would pay at once a year's rent with the abatement of 20 per cent, and would pay the arrears, subject to some abatement, if time were given, and if the tenants already evicted were reinstated and costs foregone. This offer was peremptorily rejected by Mr. Tener, and the evictions already described were carried out a few days ago. The tenants followed the advice of the Bishop. They offered only a passive resistance; they opposed no force to the Sheriff; they submitted to eviction quietly; and they have joined the ever-increasing band of evicted men. Now, I submit upon this statement that the tenants have made every exertion for a reasonable settlement of the case. The question is, which of the parties was in the wrong when the dispute arose? It is now certain that if Lord Clanricarde had made a reasonable abatement at the commencement such as has now at length been wrung from him, there would have been no dispute, no evictions, and no convictions and imprisonments. It is equally certain that for two years after the commencement of the dispute Lord Clanricarde made no offer which could be expected to be accepted by the tenants. I think it is equally clear that Lord Clan-

    1817
    ricarde is unwilling now to effect a settlement, through a vindictive feeling and a desire to punish his tenants for their present and past action to him. Bishop Healy, in one of his letters on the subject, stated that Lord Clanricarde had publicly, in writing, stated that he had inherited from his father a vindictive feeling against his tenants. Lord Clanricarde wrote to the Times denying, in the most absolute terms, the statement of Bishop Healy, and saying that he had never written any such letter. With some trouble I have been able to find the letter referred to by Bishop Healy, which I think hon. Members will say is one of the most extraordinary ever written by a landlord—one which sheds a most lurid light upon all Lord Clanricarde's proceedings, and fully justifies Bishop Healy's remarks. Some tenants from Woodford had written to the Freeman's Journal in 1879—that year of terrible agricultural distress to every lessee of Lord Clanricarde—for not making abatements of rent, and making a comparison between his conduct and that of his father. Lord Clanricarde replied in these terms—a letter, it will be recollected, written eight years after he had come into possession of the estate—
    "Sir,—I have been informed that within the last week you have published a letter dated Loughrea, in which the writer, with indifferent success, attempts the easy task of drawing a comparison between my conduct and that of the late Lord Clanricarde towards the people of my Irish property. It is perfectly true my father devoted many years of his life to the interests of those on his property in Gralway, but he was so deeply wounded by their ingratitude that in one of his last letters he not only strongly expressed his bitter disappointment and mortification, but even begged that I would remember it against them, the only instance of vindictive-ness on his part I can remember; and I further gathered his opinion (which I share in) to have been that the people in question are incapable of gratitude and impossible to satisfy. Is it reasonable to expect that I, discouraged by the evil for good my father met with from his tenants, should care to tread in his footsteps.
    "Your obedient Servant,
    "CLANRICARDE."
    The ingratitude complained of was, I believe, that the tenants of this property refused to vote at Lord Clanricarde's dictation in the Election of 1871, when Colonel Nolan was returned. This letter, I believe, gives the clue to the present Lord's action. He is not in-
    1818
    fluenced by the ordinary feelings between landlords and tenants, nor even by the enlightened view of his own interests; he has all along been actuated by vindictive feelings, which he admits he inherits from his father; and having the tenants in his power, and supported by the Coercion Act, he is prepared to clear the estate and to depopulate the district unless the tenants will bend to him and abandon those who have already been unjustly evicted. Now I ask the Chief Secretary, under all the circumstances I have detailed, is he prepared to support this man in his vindictive action in clearing his estate? I cannot believe it. No greater crime, in my opinion, could be committed. What, then, is to be done? I could suggest many courses if there be a desire; but for the moment I believe the best and wisest course would be to follow the moderate and prudent suggestion of Father Costello, to appoint an impartial Commission to investigate the causes of the dispute, and meanwhile to suspend lending the forces of the Crown to evict. Before such a Commission I will undertake to prove every word that I have written and said on this case; and I shall be very much surprised if the appointment of it will not be an inducement to Lord Clanricarde to come to terms. I have, in conclusion, to apologise to the House for having detained them with this story at this period. I have returned to the House at great personal inconvenience, and in spite of the fact that I am paired for the remainder of the Session and cannot vote. I have done so because I have felt it a public duty to make an effort—it may be a last effort—on behalf of a people whom I believe to be cruelly used, and against a policy of extermination which Lord Clanricarde, supported by the forces of the Crown, appears to be bent on.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is due to the right hon. Gentleman that I should at once reply to him, though I confess it taxes my ingenuity to find out what connection there is between the indictment of the right hon. Gentleman and the Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has attacked the action of the Government with respect to the enforcement of certain debts which he regards as being harshly

    1819
    exacted by the creditor. What would be the condition of this House if the Home Secretary in reference to England had to answer, not merely for the legal justification of any action of the forces of the Crown in enforcing debts, but for the moral character of the creditor and the general conditions under which that debt was enforced?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may not have heard my opening sentences. If he had he would have seen the connection. I referred to the correspondence between Father Costello and Bishop Healy and the right hon. Gentleman. On this subject I, on a previous occasion, asked the right hon. Gentleman some questions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I heard that reference, but I ask the Committee what difference does it make? Suppose, in the case I am putting, a friend of the debtor wrote a letter to the Home Secretary, would that bring the matter under the purview of the House of Commons? Lord Clanricarde may be as wicked as the right hon. Gentleman has painted him; but if Lord Clanricarde's conscience were loaded with every sin which the imagination of casuists has been able to conceive, is that a reason for not voting the salary of the Chief Secretary? I confess my utter inability to perceive the connection between Lord Clanricarde's moral guilt and the right the holder of the office I occupy has to receive the remuneration attached to the post. It is not my business to defend Lord Clanricarde, and I do not mean to defend him—it is quite outside my business; but granted he managed his estate not merely badly but unjustly, I do not see why I am expected to give any answer on the subject at all. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he has connected his indictment with the Vote because he has been able to state that the Rev. Father Costello and the Bishop Coadjutor had correspondence with me on the subject. It appears to be thought that, because these two rev. gentlemen have written to me, therefore my reply ought to be made public; but that is an unreasonable contention. If I had supposed that view would have been taken I should merely have sent them an official acknowledgment of the receipt of their letters, according to the well-understood rule,
    1820
    and there would have been an end of the matter. But I have great regard for both those rev. gentlemen to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I believe that both have at heart the good of the tenantry among whom they are placed, and that they were animated by a sincere desire to end this unhappy quarrel, and therefore I was most unwilling to send them a dry official acknowledgment, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is the sort of answer I ought to have given. I sent them, both private letters——
    MR. SEXTON: The-reason why the correspondence is asked for is that the evictions were delayed for a considerable time, and it is believed the correspondence will disclose the reasons why the evictions were delayed, and why those reasons ceased to operate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, Sir, if that is the reason, I can afford the right hon. Gentleman immediate comfort, because on that particular point the correspondence would not afford any information. It was suggested in the letter from Father Costello, which I have not by me at the moment to quote from, that a Commission should be sent down to inquire into the relations between the landlord and the tenants on the Clanricarde estate, and that until that Commission had reported the Crown should refuse the aid of its forces in protecting the sheriff's officer. There is one objection to that course which is conclusive, and that is that it would be absolutely illegal. A Commission, unless appointed by an Act of Parliament, cannot take evidence on oath compulsorily, and it would have no more machinery for arriving at the truth than any policeman who might happen to be on the spot. Could we delay the ordinary legal process until the Commission reported? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that we should be going far beyond our duties if we were to take any such course. Conceive the Home Secretary in England arriving at the conclusion that any particular creditor was acting, not illegally, but harshly in the exaction of a particular debt; conceive him announcing that he proposed to appoint a Commission to inquire into the conditions, under which the debt was contracted and the payment of it was asked; con-

    1821
    ceive him adding that until he was satisfied by the Report of the Commission that the debt was a just one, on the broad principle of equity, that he would absolutely decline to allow the forces of the Crown to be used in order to obtain for the creditor his legal right——
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: A main part of ray case was that for four years the right hon. Gentleman had practically suspended evictions, and denied the use of the forces of the Crown on the Portumna estate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears to be becoming a rule that I am to be interrupted more than any other Member. Could not the right hon. Gentleman wait until I had finished my argument? His interruption is absolutely irrelevant—foolishly irrelevant. I have stated an English parallel to the course I was asked to take; and the mere statement of it ought to convince every Member of the Committee that the course suggested, with the best of motives on the part of Father Costello, was a course the Government could not adopt. I believe there are not two members of the Irish clergy more anxious than are Bishop Healy and Father Costello to see, not only the law maintained, but these unhappy disputes settled; I believe they have done a great deal of good where they could exercise their influence, and I only wish they had imitators in every part of Ireland; and if these two gentlemen took, as I think they did, too favourable a view of the action of the tenants I would be the last to blame them for it. They rightly regard it as their business to do everything they can for their flock. Although I think that, if the Commission desired by the right hon. Gentleman reported on all the facts of the case, the result would be that blame would be thrown, not entirely on Lord Clanricarde, but that some share of it would fall upon the tenants, still I am not prepared to criticise these rev. gentlemen because they threw in their lot chiefly with the tenants. It is stated that for four years, by one expedient or another, I have prevented the forces of the Crown sometimes from being used to enforce evictions. Personally, I have not been in my present office for four years; and, speaking for my own tenure of office alone, I entirely deny that the Government have refused to sheriffs' officers the support which they have a right to demand in
    1822
    the Portumna district. Of course, in cases in which disturbances are anticipated, time must be allowed for inquiry and for concentrating the forces of the Crown. In cases in which sufficient notice has not been given and in which hardship would be inflicted on the troops and the police by concentrating them hastily, the Government have the right to tell the persons locally concerned that protection could not be given at the particular moment it was desired. Some discretion has always been left to the Executive Government in these cases. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely in error if he supposes that the Government have acted upon or have laid down any such indefensible proposition as that they have the right, if they happen to think any particular creditor, be he a landlord or any one else, is exacting a debt in a harsh manner, to prevent him exacting it, if it is a legal one, by refusing him or the sheriffs' officers who are carrying out the duties imposed upon them by a Court of Law the protection they have a right to require. I have said it is not my business to defend Lord Clanricarde or any other creditor in this country. I do not believe Lord Clanricarde is worse than many a creditor in this country. No doubt a man in Lord Clanricarde's position, the head of a great family in the county in which his property is situated, has duties that are not enforceable by law, but duties which would naturally be discharged by any man who fully accepted the responsibilities of his position, and which cannot be expected of every creditor in this country or in Ireland; that I will grant. Supposing Lord Clanricarde has not acted in a manner in which we had a right to hope he would act, is that a reason for not enforcing the law? Supposing Lord Clanricarde has acted as hundreds and thousands of creditors in London act every day of the week, is that a reason for refusing to him the protection that is given every day in London? It may or may not be a sufficient justification for visiting Lord Clanricarde with punishment by the pressure which I hope public opinion will always exercise through public-spirited members of the community; but it is not my business, it cannot be the business of any man

    1823
    connected with the responsible government of either England or Ireland, to enforce, by a violation of the actual law, his particular view, not of the legal, but of the higher moral obligation of individuals; and until it can be shown that the Government should undertake in Ireland a new and modern duty which no Executive has ever undertaken, either in England or in any civilised country, I maintain that no legitimate criticism can be passed upon the action of the Government with regard to the Clanricarde estates.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I do not rise for the purpose of following the Chief Secretary in the remarks he has just addressed to the House; no doubt they will be dealt with by those competent to deal with the matter. But, in reference to his English parallel, I cannot refrain from saying that when England is covered by a centralised police employed in extracting unjust rents for cruel landlords under the direction of Resident Magistrates in direct communication with the Home Office, then it will be time to discuss the parallel the right hon. Gentleman has suggested between England and Ireland. One of the principal duties of the Chief Secretary is to answer the complaints of the Irish Members, too often well founded, with regard to what, in many instances, appear to us on this side of the House to be harsh and illegal conduct on the part of the Irish police. Why should we not know the code of regulations which govern the conduct of the Irish police? If there is nothing illegal in the code, what object can there be in concealing the instructions? If it contains anything that is illegal, it is all the more necessary that the House should be in possession of the facts. If we had this knowledge, I certainly think it might tend to prevent many of those questions now addressed to the Chief Secretary, and we could ascertain for ourselves whether in any given instance the police acted according to rule, or whether they acted according to their own ideas. So far as I can ascertain, this secrecy about regulations does not exist elsewhere. In regard to the Naval and Military Services, the regulations are most voluminously laid down in the Queen's Regulations and other documents that govern the Services and are
    1824
    open to all. With the exception of the case of the Metropolitan Police, which is also a centralised body, there is practically no secrecy kept up in connection with police regulations in this country, and I have the testimony of Chief Constables in many parts of England that there is no secrecy about the Police regulations. In many cases the actual rules and Code have been forwarded in response to my inquiry. From the ex-chairman of the Birmingham Watch Committee I have the information that there is nothing secret about the rules for the Birmingham Police, and he says he does not see how there can be any advantage in secrecy; and from Oxford, Scarborough, and other places, I have similar answers to my inquiries. At Scarborough even the Minute Book of the Watch Committee can be inspected by the public. The Chief Constable at Liverpool informs me that there is no secrecy about the Liverpool Police Code, and that any citizen can obtain a copy of it. This gentleman tells me he was formerly in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he says he could never understand why there should be any secrecy about the Irish Code. He mentions, also, that on one occasion a friend of his wanted a copy of the Code for guidance in reference to a Police Force at the Cape, but he was informed, in reply to his request for a copy, that he must make his application through the Cape Government. Before this formal action could be taken the need for the Code had passed away. What can be the reason for all this pretended secrecy? I say pretended because, as a matter of fact, it is always possible to get a copy of the Code if you will only take the trouble. I am sorry the Chief Secretary has gone away; there is another question I have to ask him in reference to the now famous battering ram. I take an interest in the machine, for I believe I was the first to make its acquaintance. I came across it by chance at Letterkenny Railway Station, and by inquiry obtained many particulars about it. We were also able to obtain some information about it by questions here in the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question cannot be raised under this Vote. If it is an instrument used by the police, then it should be discussed under the Police Vote.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I bow to your ruling, Sir, my reference was only to answers I was about to quote, given by the Chief Secretary on this subject in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That in no way alters the view I take, that the subject cannot be discussed under this Vote.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: Then I pass from that subject to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is now in his place some questions in relation to the system adopted in Ireland of watching the movements of English Members of Parliament who visit that country. At various times, in answer to questions, the right hon. Gentleman has given various rulings on this subject, and I should like to know the rules under which the police act, for we have heard sometimes that Members have been followed because they were known sympathisers with the Nationalist Party, and at other times we have been told that Members were viewed with suspicion because they were not known to the police. We have also good cause to complain of the inaccuracy of the information which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gives us in this House. The right hon. Gentleman seems to believe in the infallibility of his informants; he may hear the statements of hon. Members on this side of the House, but if these statements are contradicted by any of his subordinates the right hon. Gentleman at once accepts those contradictions as correct.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be always ready to accept proof of any error.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: This false information must be supplied by somebody. I do not attribute his replies to his imagination. The right hon. Gentleman ought to afford us means of tracing to its source the grossly inaccurate information which he offers to the House. In the case of Mitchelstown the Chief Secretary has been obliged to admit his error; but he has not informed the country of the source of that error. Yet the right hon. Gentleman will not afford opportunity for checking his statements.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said I should be delighted to receive any proof that the statements made were erroneous.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has made the matter much clearer. In conclusion, I desire to protest against the abominable system by which Ireland is governed, and which necessitates the perpetration of all kinds of iniquity by the subordinates of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I must say I could not see the analogy the right hon. Gentleman attempted to draw between his own position and that of the Home Secretary in England. The Home Secretary governs on Constitutional principles and is amenable to public opinion. The right hon. Gentleman governs Ireland in defiance of the wishes of its representatives and in defiance of every Constitutional principle. The Chief Secretary is simply the governor of Ireland and the real head of all Departments, though of some he is not the nominal head. The Irish Secretary is as despotic in Ireland as the Czar in Russia. To-night the right hon. Gentleman assumed something of his earlier manner, of the acidulated virtuous manner when he said that he would not interfere with the course of justice. The present Secretary shows a very different spirit from his predecessor, the President of the Board of Trade, who displayed a more benevolent and humane spirit than the present Chief Secretary with respect to the Clanricarde estate. I bring this charge against the present Administration, that the Crimes Act is being administered by agents of the right hon. Gentleman, not for the purpose of prosecuting crime, but as a means of destroying political opponents for partisan, selfish, and personal ends. I will divide the administration of that Act under three heads.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it does not come under the head of this Vote.
    MR. MAC NEILL: As it is under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman that prosecutions have been instituted, may I not refer to the circumstances?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Not under this Vote.
    MR. MAC NEILL: The position of the right hon. Gentleman is so complex that I feel some difficulty in keeping within the limits of a Vote. But I think I may be allowed to say that I have always thought it an axiom of

    1827
    criminal justice that the punishment should quickly follow the crime. But that is not the rule followed by the right hon. Gentleman. The punishment under the Crimes Act is sometimes suspended for four or five months, and it was so in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for N. E. Cork. My hon. Friend delivered a speech at Ballyneale on September 30; but not until four months afterwards was he prosecuted for that speech. He was not prosecuted until late in January, and meantime he had given evidence before the Special Commission.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not appear to appreciate what I have said. Prosecutions under the Crimes Act no doubt constitute a branch of Irish Administration. No doubt many branches of Administration are under the Chief Secretary, but there are certain Departments charged with certain duties, and the performance of those duties ought to be discussed on the Votes for those Departments.
    MR. MACNEILL: It is difficult to obey your ruling, Sir. The matter is very complicated, and the Departments of the Irish Government are very closely interlocked with each other. The Chief Secretary is really the ruler of them all.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be the head of the Customs Department and the Post Office, it would not be open to an hon. Member to discuss the Customs or Post Office on the Vote for the Salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Then, Sir, I will pass away from that question. My speech has been very much cut down by your ruling, and I suppose I must only take the Chief Secretary in his general aspect. I may say that I believe him to be a very high minded Minister; but at the same time he has the unfortunate knack of attracting to himself the most low-minded agents; and month after month he is answering questions simply as the conduit pipe of his informers at Dublin Castle. He states things which he believes to be true, and his faith is great; but we know them to be false. When there is a distinct contradiction between his statements and those of the Irish Members we ought to know the sources of his official information, so that we may be able to trace the persons
    1828
    from whom he derives his tainted knowledge. I must say this—that the most obnoxious of the Irish Magistrates are those whom the right hon. Gentleman seems most readily to single out for advancement. The right, hon. Gentleman at first said that Donegal was in a state of revolution, but he afterwards stated that the revolution was confined to a single barony; but, at any rate, whatever Donegal is now, it was quiet before the right hon. Gentleman came into office, and its disturbed condition, since then, may be regarded as a curious coincidence. But if the police had to be in occupation of that district, how does it happen that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) can go from one end of Donegal to the other without police protection? The people of Donegal are not fools. They know who the hon. Gentleman is; he could not disguise himself there, and they well know what he is doing. This fact proves how utterly fallacious is the information of the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, with regard to the state of Donegal. In conclusion, I have only to say I am, sorry I have been obliged to curtail my speech, but it may be that I shall hereafter come out with a new and revised edition of it.
    MR. GILL: I suppose that, under this Vote, I shall be entitled to refer to the general administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in Ireland and his conduct in this House. We have now had the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's supervision of Irish affairs for nearly three years. He began those three years by setting before himself several very portentous tasks, and at the close of that period we find that he has not succeeded in accomplishing a single one. He set out armed with the Coercion Act—the most formidable Act ever passed by the British Parliament for the oppression of the Irish people. He set out intending to crush the organisation which the Irish people had formed for their protection against rack rents and unjust landlords, and against the policy of extermination which the landlords had been pursuing, and having sought, by imprisoning the Irish Members, to degrade them to the position of criminals in the eyes of the British people, he has, nevertheless,

    1829
    failed to carry out his original intention. He also set out to crush the Plan of Campaign, but in this, as in every one of his projects, the right hon. Gentleman has miserably failed. He says, on English platforms, that he has restored to Ireland peace, liberty, and prosperity; but what is the fact? Throughout the greater part of Ireland at this moment the right hon. Gentleman dare not allow a public meeting to be held at which his policy would be criticised. He stifles the voice of the Irish people by his battalions of soldiers and police. If he has restored peace and order in Ireland, why is it that if we wish to address our constituents we are obliged to employ strategy? As it is, none of us can go to any part of the South of Ireland to address a meeting without risking the lives of the people to whom we desire to speak. All the elements which constitute a healthy public life are suspended in Ireland. If you go to any typical town like Tralee, Cork, or Killarney, you will find a state of things which can only be paralleled in those places that are under the rule of the Czar of Russia or the Sultan of Turkey. We cannot call a meeting but the police rush forth with their bayonets and batons and smash the heads of the people, whom they disperse in all directions, afterwards preparing prosecutions against any public man who happens to have made a speech. No one who has anything to do with public affairs can travel about the country without being followed by policemen, who mount guard over every house he enters, and no newspaper can publish reports of public meetings without the publisher being subjected to prosecution, several Members of this House having been imprisoned simply for reporting in their papers speeches delivered at public meetings. The right hon. Gentleman has only succeeded in holding down the great bulk of the Irish people under the grip of an iron coercion by means of a police force and a military force more numerous and more powerful than that which is required in any other portion of the British dominions, and the moment the right hon. Gentleman relaxes that iron grip, all the elements which the boasts he has suppressed will spring up again in full strength. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the affairs of Ireland has
    1830
    been a miserable and a contemptible failure from beginning to the end. With regard to the Vandeleur estate the hon. Member for South Tyrone wrote a letter to the Times, in which he practically said that Captain Vandeleur was a fool for submitting to the demands of the tenants, and yet he has had the face to get up in this House, trusting to their forgetfulness of the facts of the case, and pretending that he did his best to induce the parties to bring about the settlement. That settlement was arrived at in spite of the hon. Gentleman, and in spite of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and all the forces at the back of the Executive. The audacity of the hon. Gentleman is only paralleled——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point?
    MR. GILL: The Chief Secretary for Ireland has done his best to prevent the settlement on the Vandeleur estate. Private individuals, however, have managed to bring the dispute to a satisfactory close. The Very Rev. Dr. Dinan and several priests helped to bring about the settlement, and they were described in a letter by the right hon. Gentleman's chief agent (Colonel Turner) as "Old Dinan and his villainous priests." The Chief Secretary for Ireland has not dared to repudiate that language.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I knew nothing about the letter.
    MR. GILL: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not heard of the letter makes his own attack on the priests of Clare more wanton and uncalled for. I brought Colonel Turner's letter to the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireland a night or two ago, and the right hon. Gentleman did not repudiate the language it contained, nor did he say it was reprehensible. On the contrary, he adopted the spirit of the language by saying that there were priests in Clare who were unworthy of their cloth. I say that to plain men this means that he justifies and adopts the language of Colonel Turner. The conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter is certainly not wise, looking at the way in which the Irish people venerate the clergy of their Church; and it is conduct of which he has every reason to be ashamed, and for which, if he has the spirit of a man, he would get up and apologise. Advan-

    1831
    tage ought not to be taken of a seat in this House for the purpose of levelling gratuitous insults at anybody. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman in justice to these gentlemen whom he has traduced, and in justice to this House, which ought not to be made the vehicle for gratuitous insults—I challenge him to name the priests to whom he intended to refer. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered when I said that this House should not be made the vehicle for gratuitous insults. I beg to inform them that I do not use language against any man in this House which I would not use outside, and I venture to assert that unless the right hon. Gentleman names these priests he is guilty of conduct which I do not care to describe. I ask him not to despise or sneer at these imputations against him in regard to the manner in which he discharges his duties as Chief Secretary, and as the representative of the Government of a great empire. He has described some of the priests of Clare as men unworthy of the cloth they wear; and I again appeal to him not to lightly pass over this matter, for if he does I am sure that this assembly, which still possesses the instincts of honour which has been one of its noblest traditions, will view his conduct in the light which it deserves. The right hon. Gentleman has thrown himself against the Plan of Campaign, but he has failed to break it down. He has interfered to prevent settlements, yet private individuals have carried out settlements between landlord and tenant, despite his efforts. I should like for a few minutes to refer to the case of Lord Clanricarde, which has been so ably dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford this evening. The whole gist of the answer of the Chief Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman's charge was that he had had nothing to do with this case; that it was simply a matter between a creditor and his debtors, and that, consequently, he did not concern himself with it. But may I point out that that is not the view which his predecessor in the Irish Administration—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol—took. When the right hon. Baronet was in office he also had to deal with Lord Clanricarde, and in what manner did he deal with this very difficult question? He found that
    1832
    Lord Clanricarde was described by the highest Court in Ireland as a person whose name had become notoriously disgraceful throughout the Empire, and whose conduct towards his tenants could not be justified under any circumstances. He found, in fact, that justice was on the side of the tenant, and that injustice, cruelty, and oppression were ranged on the side of Lord Clanricarde. Lord Clanricarde, at that time, appealed to the Government for help in carrying out his policy of extermination and vengeance, and the right hon. Baronet, who was then Chief Secretary, did not hesitate to enter into a correspondence which was made public, and which in fact came out in the course of the trial of the libel action brought by Mr. Joyce (Lord Clanricarde's agent) against Lord Clanricarde. From that correspondence we find that the right hon. Baronet summoned Mr. Joyce to his presence, and informed him that he could not lend him the forces of the Crown to assist in the evictions, unless the claims of the tenants got a better hearing at the hands of Lord Clanricarde. Lord Clanricarde thereupon wrote to the right hon. Baronet in his usual style, abusing him for the attitude which he, as a member of the Executive, had taken up, and the right hon. Baronet, in reply, justified his action, and again refused to lend Lord Clanricarde the forces of the Crown, or in any way to facilitate the carrying out the process of the law against the tenants under the circumstances which then existed. Therefore it will be seen that the right hon. Baronet did not plead that he had no concern in this matter as the present Chief Secretary has asserted. The right hon. Baronet found it was essential, in the interests of peace and order, that Lord Clanricarde should not be backed up by the Government in his proceedings against his tenants, and consequently in an hour of mistaken zeal he did his best to exercise what he himself described as "pressure within the law." The attempt, unfortunately, proved a miserable failure. Indeed, it was one of many miserable failures which have characterised the present Irish Administration. The right hon. Baronet having failed in his exercise of "pressure within the law," the tenants were compelled to meet the exigencies of the case by establishing an organisation of their own,

    1833
    and this organisation, which I contend was absolutely necessary and laudable under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary has done his best to crush. I declare that the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman has been a failure from first to last. I declare that in his administration of the prisons, and in his action towards public meetings, as well as in his attitude towards the Plan of Campaign, and the position which he has taken up in regard to recalcitrant landlords he has failed in every respect, and he has simply led the Government on from one disgraceful failure to another. At the present moment after all his efforts to break down and crush the Irish people, we know that combinations against the landlords have succeeded. Over and over again in this House attention has been called to the action of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the proceedings of the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire and his syndicate in the South of Ireland. I do not think it is necessary to refresh the memories of the Committee on this subject. We have too recently seen the right hon. Gentleman using the forces of the Crown as well as the eloquence which he undoubtedly possesses in upholding the action of that syndicate against the unfortunate tenantry on the Ponsonby Estate, simply because they had succeeded with the assistance of the Plan of Campaign in holding out against the injustice which was to be perpetrated upon them. We have seen the right hon. Gentleman proceeding against these tenants as an act of vengeance and tyranny, and we have seen him helping this miserable gang of landlords, who have leagued themselves together with objects of vengeance. Can he point to a single feature of his Government which can be described as a genuine success? When he first came into power there did exist in Ireland some measure of public liberty. Members of Parliament, at any rate, were able to visit their constituencies without running the risk of getting the heads of those constituents broken by police batons, or of themselves being arrested and prosecuted. We cannot forget how the Member for North Monaghan was brutally treated by the police on a recent occasion, and yet we know that no steps have been taken to punish the assailants
    1834
    of that hon. Gentleman. Not only have public meetings been suppressed, not only have the people been batoned, but Irishmen have been sent to prison wholesale; and scarcely a week passes but that a Representative from Ireland is either sent to prison or is released from gaol after serving his punishment. Indeed, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland there reigns simply brute tyranny, oppression, and coercion; a condition of things which constitutes the greatest mockery of the name of British liberty.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I very much regret that the consideration of the Irish Estimates should have been delayed till this advanced period of the Session. I do not know who is to blame for it, but I know that it is very much to be deplored that only in the middle of August should we have an opportunity of examining the Irish administration as a whole. Now I am not going to inflict a speech upon this House, but I do wish to enter one or two protests on the subject of Irish administration, not with reference to the right hon. Gentleman personally, but with reference to the policy which he is carrying out and for which he is responsible. The right hon. Gentleman is often attacked with great severity for what is really not his policy but the policy of Parliament. Parliament has resolved that a certain policy shall be carried out in the administration of Ireland, and Parliament has no right, therefore, to find fault with a Minister who is honestly, capably, and courageously carrying out its policy. It is only fair and just to the right hon. Gentleman that I should say that. I may remind hon. Gentlemen of the celebrated repartee of Lord Beaconsfield when a right hon. Gentleman was attacking him on the ground of the illogical nature of the policy of his Government. Lord Beaconsfield told the right hon. Gentleman who complained that he forgot that this country was not governed by logic; it was governed by Parliament. The Chief Secretary does not, however, follow Lord Beaconsfield's precedent; he governs by logic, but he does not govern by Parliament. I have often admired the astuteness with which the Chief Secretary logically defends his position; indeed, he has a logical answer on every point on which he is attacked.

    1835
    Of course, if human beings were factors in a mathematical problem it would be all very well; but they are not; they are possessed with infirmities and weaknesses, aye, and excellences, which statesmanship must deal with, and, therefore, you cannot govern a great nation logically, as the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to do. The attempt to govern Ireland logically will consequently be a failure. Now, what I want to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to is this—there are three classes of feeling existing at the present time in Ireland for which the Chief Secretary is responsible, and which are among the most deplorable facts of the present situation. The first, which I do not think will be disputed, is that there exists in Ireland a widespread dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. We are so familiar with the fact in this House that familiarity breeds not only contempt, but almost indifference; but outside the House it is plain that we have in Ireland that which exists in no other part of Her Majesty's Empire or indeed in any part of the world. The overwhelming majority of the Irish people and their 86 representatives in the House of Commons, rightly or wrongly, do not believe that justice is fairly and impartially administered. That feeling arises to a great extent from the conduct of the Executive Government. Now, an Executive Government can do many things, it can deprive the people of their political rights, dissociate them from the government of their own affairs, and oppress them with taxation; but in the long run it cannot deprive the people of justice. A man's sense of injustice is his keenest feeling, and this fact will have to be dealt with sooner or later. It will be impossible to go on governing Ireland with four-fifths of the people believing that justice is not fairly administered, and with the Executive Government, under the superintendence of the right hon. Gentleman, sanctioning, supporting, and defending the administration of justice of which the people so keenly and constantly complain. The next sentiment for which the Chief Secretary is responsible is the patent hostility to the administration of the law in every part of Ireland. This antagonism to the administration of the law does not exist in England, because the people are in sympathy with
    1836
    the law, and a different feeling would prevail in Ireland if the Executive Government regarded the people as much as the administrators of the law. It may be asked, how is the Chief Secretary responsible for this? Well, the Chief Secretary is responsible for the antagonistic feeling in Ireland, because he chivalrously regarded it as part of his duty to defend every man who is engaged in the administration of thelaw. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheer that; but they would not let a Home Secretary act in the same way. They do not look upon him as a Minister to defend the administration of the law, but to protect the liberties of the people and to hold an equal balance. The Chief Secretary ought not to take it for granted that out of 12,000 or 14,000 men engaged in the administration of the law every one is perfectly trustworthy, perfectly wise, and blameless of any irregularity—that they are invariably right and the public are invariably wrong. During the last two years in the House I do not think that I have once heard the Chief Secretary admit that the police are wrong, yet they must be wrong sometimes. Even a Queen's County Grand Jury of Tory landlords at the last Assizes proposed a Presentment censuring the police for their foolish conduct at the time of Father M'Fadden's arrest. I am not taking the events connected with that arrest and with the unfortunate murder which followed otherwise than as an illustration of how a feeling may be created in the minds of the people that whatever is said or done by the police, by the Resident Magistrates, or by the Prisons Board, it will be defended in the House of Commons. I arraign and challenge the policy which the Chief Secretary honourably, courageously, and chivalrously pursues. Every man in this large army engaged in the administration of justice is turned into a combatant in the civil war now going on in Ireland with the people on one side and the police and Executive on the other. The other point for which the Chief Secretary is responsible is that the right hon. Gentleman has sanctioned, and, I fear, upheld, a great amount of official disrespect for Parliamentary government and for the Members of this House. The men who are in command of the

    1837
    Constabulary and who have the administration of justice in their hands have, I am sorry to say, with the sanction of their official superiors, fallen into the belief that the correct thing for them to do is to show contempt for the House of Commons. If anyone is to be dealt with in Ireland with more contempt than another that man is a Member of Parliament. We are sometimes irritated and annoyed in this House with oppositions and proceedings which we do not like, and there is, perhaps, a great deal to justify our irritation; but it is a great blunder to weaken the respect for Parliamentary institutions in this country, even when it is done by Parliament itself. It is a serious thing when any Department of the Public Service is allowed to do this. Such is not the rule in the English Service—either in the Military or the Naval Service or in the English Constabulary. The rule is for every head of an Administrative Department to insist upon the officers under his control treating the decisions of the House, and the proceedings of the House, and the Members of the House with that respect—official respect, at all events—to which they are entitled, having regard to the place they fill in the Constitution of the Empire. It is dangerous to encourage a want of respect for Parliament and its Members—there is a menace in all these things. In England and Scotland we have been safe, members of the Civil Service caring not who comes or goes. They know that they have done their duty to the Crown and Government, and they say: "We have never mixed ourselves up with political Parties—our destinies will be as safe with one side as with the other." But do you think that if these men became political partisans, that will be their state of mind; and do you think there is no danger of introducing the American system into this country? That, to my mind, is one of the rocks ahead in the administration of Ireland. I would point that out to the Irish Government and to those Civil servants who do not seem to look many days ahead. The Civil servants pursue an unwise policy in bringing themselves into collision with one of the great Parties of this House. I do not wish to protract this Debate, or to introduce anything of a personal element into it, or anything which the right
    1838
    hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could regard as reflecting upon himself, but I feel it to be my duty, conscientiously holding the opinions I do, to say that whether you are to have Home Rule there or not, if you are to have contentment and peace and prosperity in Ireland, the people of Ireland must be satisfied that justice is fairly administered. You must have the Irish people satisfied with the administration of the law and supporting it, and not in hostility to it, arid you must not allow one branch of the Public Service in Ireland to take part in the great political conflict which is now raging, and to show antagonism to one of the Parties in the State by trenching upon what has been the well-understood rule of the Public Service up to the present time. No doubt the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is sanctioned by the Votes of this House, and represents the views of the constituencies at the last Election; but granting all that, I must say that, armed with this power and with all that moral force at his back, it would have been wiser for himself and better for Ireland if he had taken the policy of that great Irish Secretary, Sir Thomas Drummond, as his model, and regarded every individual citizen and peasant in Ireland as being as much entitled to equal and impartial treatment before the law as any policeman or Resident Magistrate in the country.
    MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I cannot help differing from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the statement he has made that the policy of the Government was authorised at the General Election. Hon. Members opposite, when before the constituencies, declared against coercion; but no sooner had they obtained their majority than they departed from their pledges, and substituted for the policy they had declared one of violence and coercion. But my object in rising is to say a word on behalf of peace and order in Ireland. I desire to ask the Chief Secretary whether on the 23rd of next November, when the celebration of the memory of Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien takes place, he will reverse the policy he has hitherto pursued, and allow the people of Ireland fairly to express their sentiments towards these men. The people of Ireland believe that the men who suffered at Man-

    1839
    cheater in 1867 were brave men, who tried to do their duty to their country; that they were unjustly convicted and unfairly punished. The memory of these men has been cherished with affection, and will continue to be so cherished as long as Irish hearts can beat. For 20 years the memory of these men was celebrated without opposition on the part of the authorities; but the present Chief Secretary, on entering office, changed all that. Although these meetings had been of a peaceful character, he issued proclamations against them. He did so in 1887, in the case of Limerick, where great irritation was caused, and the police exhibited a violence which was denounced even by the correspondent of the Irish Times. Last year meetings were proclaimed at New Ross, in the County of Wexford, and at Kilkenny, where, had it not been for the action of the Mayor, bloodshed would have occurred in the streets. A proclamation was also issued at Waterford, and the priests and leading inhabitants of the town assembled in the Town Hall, and advised the people not to give the police an opportunity for another Mitchelstown. A similar proclamation was issued at Cahir, and another in the town of Tralee. In the last-named town Mr. Cecil Roche published a proclamation, every word of which was a stab to the feelings of the people over whom he ruled, because he described Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien as convicts who, in due course of law, had been executed at Manchester for the murder of Sergeant Brett. Now, what I want the Committee to apprehend is that while these meetings I have mentioned were proclaimed, nothing was done to prevent meetings in Dublin, in Thomastown, and in Athlone, and it is, therefore, obvious that the policy of the Executive was not uniform. But there is something still more extraordinary behind. In all these towns where the meetings were prohibited, the people were of one mind; consequently, there would have been no breach of the law; but in the town of Dungannon, in loyal Ulster, where there is a large Orange population, the meetings were permitted, and a torchlight procession actually took place. Why was the meeting permitted there? What was the object of the Chief Se-
    1840
    cretary in permitting the torchlight procession to take place at Dungannon? Was it to provoke a breach of the peace? I cannot believe that that was the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and I should like him to explain to this House why he allowed that meeting to take place in Dungannon, where disturbances might have arisen, owing to the antagonism which prevails between Nationalists and Orangemen, when he prohibited meetings in the South of Ireland, where no such hostile feeling does exist. I do not want to appeal to the humanity of the right hon. Gentleman, I think it would be a waste of words to do that after all he has done in Ireland, and after the small amount of sympathy which he has shown for my hon. Friend (Mr. Patrick O'Brien), who was most cruelly batoned by the police the other day. I repeat that I do not appeal to the humanity of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do appeal to his feelings and ideas as a philosopher. Before the right hon. Gentleman became a distinguished statesman he was not undistinguished as a thinker and as a writer, and there is one doctrine which he has laid down in this House which seems to speak of his better days, and to point to the time when he considered carefully what were the rights of his fellow-men. The doctrine to which I refer was his declaration in this House that there was no man in the House of Commons who more carefully regarded or more respected the expression of the opinion of others than he did. Now, Sir, I say that the action of the Irish people in celebrating the death of these men by processions, and by holding meetings, is simply an expression of opinion, and there is no excuse whatever for interference on the part of the Crown. Twenty years have elapsed since these men were executed at Manchester. In that period a great change of public opinion has occurred; therefore, if the Chief Secretary really cares for freedom of speech, and for freedom of opinion in Ireland, he will allow these peaceable processions and peaceable meetings to take place in November next. He will know that they are merely an expression of opinion on the part of thelrish people. Does he suppose that by suppressing these gatherings he will change the belief of the people that the men executed were martyrs into the directly opposite belief that they

    1841
    were convicts deserving the punishment that they received? If he thinks that, he must be strangely ignorant of the feelings of Irishmen. Now, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say plainly does he intend to proclaim these meetings next November, and does he desire to exasperate the people by preventing their taking place? There are a large number of Englishmen who have come to look upon these executions in a very different way from that in which they regarded them during a time of panic; and I have no doubt whatever that the time will come when the historians of the future, whether they be English or Irish, will see that it was a generous and self-sacrificing act on the part of these men which led them to their fate. And the right hon. Gentleman might as well try to turn the sun from its course as seek to reverse the verdict of history which is being formed before his eyes.
    MR. ARTHUE O'CONNOR: I think we may be content to leave all considerations as to the general effect of the right hon. Gentleman's administration in Ireland to the calm, authoritative, and unanswered speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. Everything ha said was unquestionably true, and very little, indeed, can be added to it. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman thought it judicious not to attempt an answer. I desire now to pass away from questions of general policy and to ask a practical question with regard to a particular Department in the office of the Chief Secretary, and with respect to a subject which peculiarly affects some of my own constituents. In the year before last an Act of Parliament was passed, entitled "An Act to amend the Fishery Acts of Ireland," and it provided that where a certain proportion of the fishermen of any particular district petitioned the Inspectors of Fisheries for the prevention of trawling, the Inspectors should be empowered to make bye-laws prohibiting trawling within the limits referred to in the petition, and if they did not grant the prayer of the petitioners within two months, then they were to forward the petition to the Lord Lieutenant stating their reasons for the refusal. The Act further provides that the Lord Lieutenant in Council
    1842
    should have power, on receiving the petition, to direct the prayer of the petitioners to be heard. Now, Sir, under that Act two petitions were presented; one from Galway Bay, and the other from Lough Swilly. The fishermen of Lough Swilly, in their petition, represented that their industry was being ruined by the operation of a very small number of trawlers, and that petition, as well as the petition from Galway Bay, was rejected by the Inspectors of Fisheries. There has for 70 years been free fishing in Lough Swilly. Between 1844 and 1869 trawling in Lough Swilly was prohibited, and during that period the condition of the fishermen there was satisfactory. But since 1869 trawling has been again allowed, and the fishing industry has been seriously injured. Indeed, the injury is so extensive that whereas before trawling was allowed 500 families lived there in comparative comfort now only 300 men are engaged in the industry, and they gain but a very precarious livelihood, while the mischief is done by four trawlers employing only 14 men. The Fishery Commissioners having rejected the petition, it was, in accordance with the Act, sent to the Lord Lieutenant, under whose directions an inquiry was held, and without any assignable reason the petition was rejected by the Privy Council. The unfortunate fishermen taxed themselves to the uttermost to send up members of their body to Dublin to give evidence, and they also went to the expense of feeing counsel. But their counsel was scarcely heard before the Council. Not one of their body was called as a witness, and within four or five minutes the case was disposed of.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
    Committee also report Progress.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  On the Question that Supply be fixed for Wednesday,
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Having observed that there is a general feeling in the House that Supply should be brought to

  1843
  a close at the end of this week, I would suggest, with a view to facilitating this object, that the Committee should proceed to take non-contentious English Votes for a couple of hours to-morrow evening after half-past 5 o'clock, an arrangement which, I think, may materially help to shorten the Session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion, which is an exceedingly reasonable one, and I shall to-morrow propose, therefore, with the concurrence of the House, "that the House do sit after half-past 5 on Wednesday for the consideration of Supply." I understand it will not be agreeable to Irish Members to go on after 5 o'clock with the Irish Votes; but it is exceedingly probable that many English Votes may be disposed of during the two hours and a-half before 8 o'clock. As far as possible these will be non-contentious Votes. I therefore wish to give notice that to-morrow at 12 o'clock I shall move the suspension of the half-past 5 o'clock Rule, so far as Supply is concerned.
  MR. DILLWYN: While offering no opposition, I hope the proposal will not be regarded as a precedent in the future, and I protest against the Standing Orders being tampered with upon such short notice.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury to tell the House what Supply will be taken, so that hon. Members may have some short time to prepare.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure the hon. Member will be quite prepared with a speech on any Vote we may take.
  MR. COSSHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Technical Education Bill on Saturday?
  MR. SEXTON: I take it that any Irish Vote that may happen to be under discussion at half-past 5 to-morrow will stand over until Thursday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Member will see that it will be desirable to conclude the discussion of a Vote which may be before the Committee at half-past 5, otherwise it will be necessary to withdraw the Vote. There should be some little elasticity allowed.
  MR. SEXTON: If an important Vote should be under discussion at half-past 5, we should prefer to go on with it.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We have-every desire to meet the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland, and the business to-morrow can be made a; matter of arrangement.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope that the rule for the termination of business—or what has come to be considered the rule for the termination of business under the present Government—will not be applied at half-past 5 to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow,

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [17th August] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

      CLASS VI.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £260,472, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which wilt come in course of payment during the year-ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for Superannuation, Retired, and Compassionate-Allowances and Gratuities under sundry-Statutes, and for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I desire to-ask for an explanation in regard to the enormous number of English prison officials who have retired on the ground of ill-health. The number is put down here at 127 in one year, whilst the corresponding number for Scotland and Ireland is only some half-dozen. It is evident that this enormous number of retirements is not a normal state of things—that there must have been some extraordinary clearance of these officials, and I have a right to ask what that clearance is owing to. We were told yesterday that in every case of retirement these officials are examined by the public Medical Officer, and I want to ask whether a special officer has been sent round to the prisons to weed out these officials, or whether the duty has been left to the local gaol Medical Officers? [Cries of "Divide!"] This is a most important matter. Here we have 127 pensions, and I want to know what are the grounds on which we are asked to pay them? [Cries of "Divide!"] I have a right to go into this matter on behalf

      1845
      of the taxpayers of the country. I desire to know whether the Government took measures to ascertain whether or not these people were entitled to retire?
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I think I shall be able to satisfy even the critical requirements of the hon. Member. I think that if I can show the hon. Member that these retirements—leaving out the question of cause for the moment—are retirements which actually affect a reduction in the total before us, the bon. Member will admit that we are better off paying the pensions than paying the full salaries. If these retirements had been made on account of abolition of office we should have had to pay higher pensions. As a matter of fact, the phrase "ill-health" in connection with prison warders is different from what it would mean in the case of other Government servants. In the first place, a prison warder has to be in very full physical vigour; he has to take charge of men not always of the most orderly or ruly character; and it is perfectly within the proper meaning of ill-health when the doctor certifies that the warder's physical vigour and capacity are not equal to the arduous duties he has to discharge. I explained on a previous occasion that the length of service mentioned in the Estimates only refers to the time served under Government after the taking over of the prisons. The hon. Member will find that the number of warders and other officials of corresponding rank in Class 1 is 208 as against 243 last year, so that there is a total reduction of 35, while there is a reduction in the total strength from 1,333 last year to 1,225 this year, or a reduction of 108 men. The total number retired in the year 1888–89 was 130. The staff of the prisons in the United Kingdom represent about 2,500 men, and I believe that this is not much in excess of the average retirement. Last year it was 110. Be that as it may, these men have all been certified by medical men belonging to the State as being eligible for retirement under the ill-health clause. I believe that they have been properly retired, and I think that as their places have not been filled up the Committee has no reason to complain.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: We know these men have important duties to discharge, and that it is essential that they should be maintained in a perfect state of health and physical vigour. They have occasion now and then to knock down Members of Parliament, and to cut off their moustaches; therefore I think the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is wrong in the position he has taken up in objecting to the retirement of debilitated warders.
      MR. BRUNNER: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury states that warders retired on account of ill-health receive smaller pensions than those retired on abolition of office. That seems to me a remarkable official rule, and it seems to me that it would be far more fitting that men retired on the ground of ill-health should have higher pensions than those retired on abolition of office. Those retired on the ground of ill-health.
      Resolution agreed to.
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000, 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 Pensions to Masters and Seamen of the Merchant Service, and to their Widows and Children."
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £65,500, 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, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Scotland."
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,005, 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, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Ireland."
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,658, 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 support of certain Hospitals and infirmaries in Ireland."
      MR. SEXTON: The Secretary to the Treasury indicated on Saturday that the Bill the Government have prepared for future settlement of this annual grant would be immediately introduced. As it has not yet made its appearance, I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman for some statement on the subject.
      MR. JACKSON: I hope to be able to give notice of the introduction of the Bill to-morrow.
      Resolution agreed to.
      6. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,533, 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, 1S90, to make good the sum by which the Interest accrued in the year ended 20th November, 1888, from Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, on account of ' The Fund for the Banks for Savings,' and 'The Fund for Friendly Societies' is insufficient to meet the Interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to Pay and Credit during such latter mentioned year to the Trustees of Savings Banks and to Friendly Societies."
      7. "That a sum, not exceeding £939, 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 certain Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances in Great Britain."
      8. "That a sum, not exceeding, £1,474, 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 certain Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances in Ireland."

      CLASS VII.
      9. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,639, 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 Incidental Expenses of Temporary Commissions and Committees, including Special Inquiries."
      10. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,463, 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 certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
      11. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,348, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."
      12. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,859, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, as a grant in aid to make good certain amounts required to be written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund "
      13. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,507, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for certain Grants in respect of the Estate of Matthew O'Reilly Lease, bequeathed for the Reduction of the National Debt."
      14. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,885, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge
      1848
      which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for certain Advances in Aid of the Emigration and Colonisation of certain crofters and cottars of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including Expenses of Administration."

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
      15. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,752,553, 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 Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
      MR. CHANNING: The House will remember that on Saturday afternoon I had a notice of Amendment on the Paper in reference to this Vote but withdrew it, in order to enable the Government to obtain the Vote, the understanding being that I should raise the question I desired to bring under the notice of the House on Report. I wish to draw attention to two matters—namely, the neglect of the Postmaster General to carry out any of the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed in 1887 to consider the question of Sunday postal labour, and secondly, the excessive hours of labour of the telegraph clerks of the Metropolis. The Committee of 1887 recommended, with reference to the question of the discontinuance of Sunday postal deliveries, that a system of local option should be introduced, with the proviso that where the postal delivery was discontinued there should be a window delivery. The Committee also recommended that the indoor and outdoor officials should, as far as practicable, have every alternate Sunday to themselves. These were recommendations of a very moderate character, and the second one was in accordance with the views of the Select Committee of 1871. What I complain of is that although the recommendations of the Committee were moderate, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has refused to act on them. In November last a question was put to the Postmaster General, and his reply covered, the whole ground of the recommendations of the Committee. I will not deal with all those recommendations; but I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question with

      1849
      regard to the experiments carried out with book and newspaper packets at Bristol, Nottingham, and Wolverhampton. The right hon. Gentleman stated in his reply that the reduction of the work to the outdoor Post Office officials was counterbalanced by the additional work imposed on the indoor officials. I should like to have some further explanation on that point. He also took exception to our recommendation that window deliveries should be substituted for the present system. He stated that window delivery was dangerous and uncertain; but I would draw attention to the evidence laid before the Select Committee from the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the system has prevailed for a long time, and where it has resulted in cutting down the labour of Post Office officials to a very considerable extent, because whereas formerly about 50 officials were required, now only 20 have to be in attendance on Sundays. I believe, too, that in only one trifling instance has there been any danger to correspondence in consequence of letters being delivered to a wrong person. Similar evidence was given with regard to towns in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman obtained the opinion of the Town Councils in eight large towns, and he stated that, on the whole, that opinion was adverse to anything like a discontinuance of Sunday postal deliveries Now, it will be remembered that the Committee recommended that two-thirds of the ratepayers should have the power to decide the point as to whether there should be Sunday deliveries, instead of two-thirds of the receivers of correspondence, as is now the case. We contend that this question of Sunday labour is a national question, which interests everyone in the country, and on which every ratepayer has a right to express his opinion. Now, I am chiefly interested in the last recommendation of the Committee, because it was owing to my own action that it was adopted. That recommendation was that the indoor and outdoor officials should have an alternate day's rest on Sundays. I was very much struck by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He said that the indoor officials generally did only two hours work on Sundays, and in most cases they got at least one Sunday out of
      1850
      every three, and he did not think it necessary to afford any further relief. Now, I absolutely contest that assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I find, on reference to the evidence of Sir Arthur Blackwood, that in the town of Aberdeen the indoor officials are on duty every Sunday; that in Belfast they are on duty three Sundays out of four; that in Cork the first-class officials are on duty three Sundays out of four, and the second-class on every Sunday; that in Halifax the officials are on duty seven Sundays out of eight, and that the same proportions prevail in many other towns. I venture to suggest, therefore, that this evidence does not support the reply which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General gave to a question last November. I think it is a great hardship that the sorting clerks should have to be on duty on Sunday after Sunday. I believe, indeed, that in some cases they only get one Sunday off in every 12. We ought to bear in mind that even if a man works only two or three hours on a Sunday the day is practically broken up, and it cannot be considered a complete holiday. I am not bringing this matter forward on Sabbatarian grounds. I am putting it merely on grounds of fairness, and I think we can fairly ask the Postmaster General to advance in the direction I have indicated, and which was indicated in the recommendation of the Committee, and give these men more relief than they now have. I hope I shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman to night that he is prepared to grant this relief. Now, I desire to touch for one moment on the question of rural messengers. Sir Arthur Blackwood, in his evidence, stated that of the 3,304 rural messengers working on Sundays, 2,242 had alternate Sundays as a day of rest, and that the remaining 1,062 were on duty every Sunday in the year. I should just like to draw the attention of the House to this question: How much would it cost to enable these 1,062 men to get a complete rest on every alternate Sunday? In the Debate last year there was a strong expression of opinion on this point by the hon. Member for Oxford University—an opinion which should carry great weight with it on the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman said it was plainly the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to

      1851
      loosen, the purse strings and provide the moderate amount necessary to furnish this much desired relief. I will not quote the speech; but if hon. Members will refer to Hansard they will find that the hon. Gentleman gave the strongest possible expression of opinion on the matter. Surely out of the mighty surplus arising from Post Office administration the trifling sum of £3,000 or £4,000 could be set apart for this pupose. I therefore hope we shall have from the Postmaster General some assurance of his willingness to give way on this point. And now I wish to draw attention to some facts which have been placed in my hands by the noble Lord the Member for the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire with regard to telegraph clerks in the Metropolis, and on these facts I have to ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. It will be remembered that some years since, when Mr. Fawcett was at the head of the Department, it was pointed out that the clerks at the Central Telegraph Office suffered severely from the long hours of night labour, and as a result they were reduced from eight to seven. But I am informed that even now some of the clerks do day as well as night duty; that they work from 10 a.m till 3 p.m., from 5 p.m. till 8 p.m., and from 8 p.m. till 7 a.m., or a total of 19 out of every 24 hours. I am informed that the telegraph clerks are performing 14 hours work a day—from 12 at noon until 2 a.m. on the following day—with only one hour during the whole of that period for their meals. I am also told that the clerks who have objected to working these hours have been called upon to give a written explanation. I should like to have some information as to the truth of these statements, and a guarantee that these excessive hours of work for these officials, if substantiated, shall be reduced. I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out "£4,752,653," in order to insert "£4,752,453,"—(Mr. Channing.)
      Question proposed,"That'£4,752,553' stand part of the Resolution."
      MR. T. M. HEALY: As a point of order, I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it has not been ruled that a re-
      1852
      duction of a Vote cannot be moved on Report stage?
      MR. SPEAKER: It has never been, so ruled.
      MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General if he will give us some information as to the issuing of warrants by the Chief Secretary in Ireland and the Home Secretary in England for the opening of the letters of Members of Parliament? I would ask whether the warrants have been directed against the correspondence of particular persons; whether they are for stated periods of time, and, if so, for what periods; what is the date of the last; and considering the admission that a certain letter addressed to me was opened by an unauthorised person, what precautions the right hon. Gentleman has taken, or intends to take, against the opening of a letter in the Post Office by a person not having legal authority?
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman of my intention to direct his attention to the Special Commission, and to Mr. Maberley's conduct in connection with the trial. We know from the action of the Attorney General during the Parnell Commission that, although it has been strenuously denied that such a thing has taken place, letters of Irish Members have been opened in the Post Office, for the Attorney General was able to produce one addressed by Dr. Kenny to Mr. O'Kelly. The Attorney General could only have obtained possession of the letter surreptitiously. I make no comment on the Attorney General' saction as a lawyer in using a document which could only be obtained burglariously. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not hesitate to make use of the letters improperly obtained; but that, of course, is merely a question of good taste. We know that this practice of opening letters of ours has been constantly going on, and I think it most desirable we should have a clear understanding of what is taking place in the matter. For my own part, I have always made it a rule, not only since I entered public life, but before, not to put anything in a letter which I would not care to have published at Charing Cross. Therefore, I do not in the least object to the Postmaster General having my correspondence opened before him, provided he for-

      1853
      wards it on to me afterwards without unnecessary delay. Unfortunately, however, that course has not been pursued, because letters, and letters even containing cheques for large amounts, addressed to me, have been unwarrantably detained at the Post Office. This has not occurred for some time, but still it has taken place, and only lately I have seen letters addressed to other hon. Members which have been opened before delivery. There is a gentleman in subcommand of the General Post Office in Dublin, named Maberly, and the moment the Parnell Commission began its sittings, Maberly put himself in communication with Mr. Soames. This established what we have had always contended—namely, that this was a Government inquiry, or, as the Home Secretary puts it, a great State trial. Members of the Government have spoken with two voices in this matter. While the Home Secretary has described the Parnell Commission as a great State trial, other Members of the Government have taken an entirely different line, and have said it is not a great State trial, but a private inquiry conducted by a private newspaper against private individuals. I do not know on what ground the Postmaster General is going to defend Mr. Maberly's conduct, but this I do say that the Times could never have got at the contents of any letter in the Dead Letter Office in Dublin if the arrangements of that office had been kept absolutely secret from Mr. Soames by the gentlemen connected with the Department. If the Government were placing all their resources at the disposal of the Times, and thoroughly glorified in the transaction, I should not attach the least blame to Mr. Maberly for going to Mr. Soames and giving him all the information at his disposal. That would be an intelligible stand to take; but when the Government allege that they have given the Times no aid at all, and when they say that the Attorney General who conducted the case for the Times was not the Attorney General in that case but Sir R. Webster acting as a private barrister, and that Mr. Soames was there as a private solicitor, I want to know how they obtained their information from the Dead Letter Office. Speaking roughly, Mr. Maberly is a gentleman who is known in Ireland as of the
      1854
      Orange persuasion, and has replaced all his Catholic officials by Protestants. In this ease the Government, or rather Mr. Soames—I really do not know which, for they are like the trinity in unity—served Mr. Maberly with a subpæna daces tecum to produce certain letters from that office, and the documents which he had to bring with him must have been specified. How could Mr. Soames have known of Mr. Ma-berly's existence or of the evidence which he could give and the documents which he could produce from the Dead Letter Office except from Mr. Maberly himself? But though Mr. Maberly was in attendance at the Court, he was never called, although no doubt his documents were examined by the Attorney General—or, I ought to say, by Sir Richard Webster, because, of course, he was not Her Majesty's Attorney General. Dr. Jekyll was then Mr. Hyde. Mr. Soames was supplied with all the information which it was in the power of Mr. Maberly to produce. Dead letters are dealt with in a particular way if no owner is found after a certain period; and why, then, were these particular letters kept so long? In the ordinary course they would have been destroyed. I would ask the Postmaster General if these were State documents, and were to be used for State purposes, why were they not sent to Dublin Castle or the Kildare Street Club? I ask for information on this point. I ask what is the rule with regard to dead letters and their destruction? I must say that all the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman may give will not satisfy the Irish Members as to the non-existence of the practice of tampering with our letters in the Dublin Post Office. I do not complain of their examining our letters for certain purposes. When they have a whole population against them as they have in Ireland, and when they believe that whole population to be murderers, as they say they do in the case of Ireland, they must take some precautions. I do not object to their getting up and saying, "We will open the letters of the whole 86 of you." That would be an intelligible and justifiable attitude to take up. In one of the Invincible cases, I forget which, it was the opening of letters which enabled the Government to

      1855
      get upon the track of the men connected with the crime. That, I say, would be an intelligible position to take up. But what I hate in the business is that the Government say they do not do this, and that they say—"We are a pure Government; we remember Sir Charles Graham, and do not do this sort of thing." They are ashamed to acknowledge in the face of Europe what they are doing, and they endeavour to obtain the advantages of the methods of foreign despotism with the appearance of liberal and enlightened administration. It is known for a fact that packets of letters were constantly taken to the Castle by an official, were steamed and opened, and read in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Londonderry), and afterwards forwarded, or not, as the Government thought best. Now, what is the rule with regard to Ireland? I presume that the Lord Lieutenant has power to issue warrants, and that he does issue them. So notorious is the practice, that when in the case of the famous Mr. Cornwall, the Secretary of the Dublin Post Office, the gentleman who retired on the ground of ill health, and whose pension has lately been voted, when we subjected him to inquisition in the French scandal, he said—
      "The only acquaintance I had with French was when he came to me and got certain letters; and sometimes £ would give him a letter because he never came to me without a warrant;"
      and yet at that time Mr. Fawcett was assuring us that nothing of the kind was going on. In the same way the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General will get up and say he is not aware of any such practice. I do not suppose that his subordinates come and tell the right hon. Gentleman; but I would ask him, will he take steps to ascertain from those in the Dublin Post Office whether this sort of thing is being done? Let the Postmaster General call them before him and have no hanky-panky about it; but say, "I want to know what is the practice; I want to see the steamkettle by which this is done." He might also visit the mail boats, which are mightily convenient and accommodating places for this sort of thing, it being notorious that letters are opened and examined on board those boats, and that numbers of the detective staff have travelled in
      1856
      them for the purpose of identifying the handwriting of certain persons; while in cases where they did not know it themselves, they have taken other persons with them for the same purpose. I could name a person who was at one time a Member of Parliament, who travelled with detectives from Dublin for the purpose of identifying the handwriting of Members, of this House; and there can be no doubt that Sir Hichard Webster got the letter of Dr. O'Kelly by some similar kind of metempsychosis. The Attorney General is sitting next the Postmaster General, who may, perhaps, consult his friend on the subject. What we say is this: Here is the system going on now as it has been going on for years. I should not object to its going on if the Government would only say, "We require it to be done and will continue to do it," because in that case the public would act accordingly. As far as we are concerned, it is well-known that where any letters of ours are urgent and require secrecy, we never entrust them to the British postman, and the fact that the Post Office is not trusted is one which the Postmaster General ought to take notice of and be anxious to remedy. I protest also against the way in which the Catholics are treated in Dublin. The Dublin Post Office is a nest of Orangemen and Freemasons—gentlemen who band themselves together for the purpose of preventing the Catholics from getting promotion, and who are, in reality, an association for boycotting Catholics. Under all these circumstances I do think the right hon. Gentleman, if he has the time, ought, during the holidays, to pay the Dublin Post Office a visit in order that he may overhaul these people and find out what is really going on.
      THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: In reply to the remarks that have been made by hon. Members opposite, I may say that I have made inquiries, as well as experiments, as to the subject introduced by the hon. Member for East Northampton; but, after inquiries, I have found that work would be rather increased than diminished if his suggestion were carried out. Careful consideration has also been given to the subject of the delivery of letters on Sundays with a view to

      1857
      the possibility of its being discontinued. The Department put themselves in communication with the eight largest towns in England, and asked the Town Councils to give their opinions as to the practicability or desirability of introducing that change. Six, including Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, declared against making any such change in the postal arrangements. Bristol did not express an opinion, and Nottingham was in favour of the change; but even in Nottingham the majority was not sufficient to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. The hon. Member suggested that we might try the system of window deliveries. After consulting the persons most experienced in the large towns of this country, the Department were forced to the conclusion that it was not adapted to populous places in this country. The danger of letters getting into wrong hands and the great pressure are certainly to be avoided in the interests of the public. In some places there would be danger of the post offices being mobbed. This country is not like Scotland or Newcastle, where the people are not accustomed to have their letters delivered on Sundays. The principle shall, however, be recognised in less populous places. As regards giving postmen alternate Sundays off, a good deal has been done, and some thousands of pounds spent. I can assure the hon. Member that my attention has been called to the question of reducing the pressure of labour inside post offices as well as outside. As to the hours of work by telegraph clerks in the Metropolis, the hon. Member did not give notice of his intention to bring that subject forward, and consequently I am not prepared to meet him at this moment. I am afraid, however, it is a fact that some of the clerks, especially in the central office, work for a longer time than is desirable; but the work is generally overtime work, performed by volunteers for additional wages. But I promise to look into the matter. As regards the serious charges against the administration of the Post Office in Ireland, I can supplement the statement which I made on Saturday by saying that the warrants issued by the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland by the Home Secretary for England and Scotland, authorising the opening of the letters of particular persons, are not
      1858
      expressly limited in regard to their duration. A warrant given to intercept the correspondence of any particular individual continues to run until it is cancelled. But there is not at this moment in England or in Ireland any existing warrant. I believe there has been no warrant existing in Ireland since I have been in office, and in the same period there has been only one warrant in England, and that had reference to an ordinary criminal case. As regards Mr. Maberly, neither I nor the Department have any knowledge of any communication between that gentleman and the representatives of the Times. The Post Office have sanctioned no transaction whatever between Mr. Maberly and the Times and they have no knowledge of any such transaction.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the right, hon. Gentleman ask Mr. Maberly how the Times got the book?
      MR. RAIKES: I asked Mr. Maberly with regard to the question put to me the other day by the hon. and learned Member whether he took or produced any letters, and Mr. Maberly assured me that he did not. I am unable to see how Mr. Maberly could produce any letters unless he purloined them. I am told that this official is an Orangeman. That may be so. But I am also told that Mr. Maberly has driven every Catholic out of his office. I can only say with regard to the question put to me that Mr. Maberly's superior officer has not been removed from office. This gentleman has been temporarily employed in another branch of the Post office, and I have directed that he should be re-transferred to the position he previously held. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or any one else seriously believes there is any intention on the part of the Government to dispense with the services or to disparage the services of Catholic servants of the State. These gentlemen are among the most trusted of Her Majesty's servants, and I should be extremely sorry if any one for a moment supposes that the Government wish to dispense with their services. I will make inquiries with regard to the missing cheque referred to by the hon. Member for Longford if the hon. Member will supply me with particulars. I am not aware that any dead letters have been kept from the natural process

      1859
      of destruction for one moment longer than they ought to have been in consequence of any proceedings in connection with the Times. If I find there is any foundation for the statement that dead letters have been kept beyond their proper time I shall be happy to offer the hon. Member the best explanation I jean. Then the statement has been made by the hon. Member that letters have been taken in packets before Lord Londonderry during his Viceroyalty and opened in his presence. That is a serious statement, and the hon. Member has made it on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament. It imputes to the Lord Lieutenant conduct of a very serious character; and I think it will be my duty to ask Lord Londonderry whether there is any foundation for such a statement. The hon. Member has made the statement on his own responsibility.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: And I fully believe it.
      MR. RAIKES: I understand that he fully believes in its accuracy, and I suppose he is in a position to produce evidence in support of it. Of course it is not for me to positively deny a statement as to which I have no evidence whatever; but I perhaps may be forgiven if I say that it appears to me that the hon. Member must have been grossly deceived in making such an allegation. I cannot suppose it possible that the Lord Lieutenant could have been a party to transactions of this sort, which are so entirely irregular and, I presume, illegal. I will, however, make it my business to ascertain from the Lord Lieutenant whether there is anything which can give a colour to such a charge. With regard to Mr. Cornwall, that gentleman received no pension and had never applied for one. I will make inquiries as to whether the Post Office bags have been violated on board the Irish steamers. Of course, if anything of the kind had been done, it would constitute a grave crime; and I should be the first person to put the law in force if I found any person had in any way violated the sanctity of the post. If any person in England or Ireland opens a letter without having the proper authority to do so, he would be committing a grave crime, for which he might be severely punished. And I should be wanting in my duty if I did
      1860
      not take steps to punish any such offender. It may be the case that a letter addressed even to a Member of Parliament may be the subject of a criminal transaction. I know nothing of Mr. O'Kelly's letter; but if any person opened a letter addressed to that hon. Member, or to any other hon. Member, or, in fact, to any subject of the Queen in Ireland or England without a proper warrant from the Secretary of State in the one instance, or the Lord Lieutenant in the other, he would be committing a great crime against the laws of the land, for which he might be very severely punished. I certainly should be wanting in my duty if, under such circumstances, I did not take steps to punish the offender if evidence was forthcoming to enable me to act in the matter.
      MR. E. HARRINGTON: I wish to say that last year, on Report of a Vote, I brought to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman a rather singular case, in which three Catholic telegraphists, because they were suspected of communicating information from their office in Tralee, were removed, and three Protestant Freemason Orangemen being put in their place. This is the first time I have ever ventured to raise the question as between Catholics and Protestants, and I now do it simply in order to enlighten the Postmaster General, and to enable him to act in this case. I have been in a National School and have been reared with Protestants. I have lived amongst them all my life, and have never found any cause of quarrel with them, and I hope I never may. Still, the curious anomaly which I have referred to has taken place, and the Postmaster General seems to be utterly oblivious of the fact that the question of the religion of these telegraphists was raised. In the town of Tralee, Protestants are only one in ten, and yet in the Post Office there are now no Catholics. It is surely a hard thing to say that because you merely suspect people of misusing their information, you shall replace all the Catholics in the Post Office by Protestants. I recognise the kindly spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has spoken to my hon. Friend. He spoke to me in a similar strain last year, but he has done nothing. It seems to me

      1861
      that the Post Office as well as the police officials in the part of Ireland to which I refer, are completely in the hands of Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to grasp the facts of this case, and will ascertain why the three Catholic telegraphists to whose case I draw attention were removed from Tralee. I do not make any apology for reviving this question, and asking the right hon. Gentleman why nothing was done to carry out his promise. I do not want to see any change made in the rules and internal arrangements of Irish Telegraph Offices except such as are fair and equitable. I do not wish to have friends in the Post Office who can tell me secrets. I do not wish to see such an ugly and disagreeable system at the Post Office as that would involve; but, at the same time, I think the Government are setting a bad precedent in allowing clerks of one religious persuasion to be withdrawn in order to make room for others of another religious persuasion. I would ask the Postmaster General to apply his mind to this case in the spirit in which he has applied it to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy).
      MR. RAIKES: I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. I have some recollection of the case to which the hon. Member refers, though it is not so vivid as it was 12 months ago. This much I remember, that the telegraph clerks were not removed from the Post Office because they were Catholics, but because they had been persistently getting into what was considered rather disorderly company.
      MR. E. HARRINGTON: They were replaced by Protestants.
      MR. RAIKES: But they remained in the service, and there is no reason why they should not rise to high positions. All I can say is that they were not transferred because they were Catholics. They were transferred because it was represented to me that they had got into disorderly company. I was not aware before that the three clerks who replaced those who were transferred were Protestants, but I may mention that one of them has himself got into disorderly company in the North, and he has been removed to the South in the hope that he may do better there. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the
      1862
      question of religion does not influence, my action in regard to the transfer of officials.
      MR. E. HARRINGTON: I wish to explain, Mr. Speaker, that last year I did not gather from the Postmaster General that there was any allegation of misconduct against these men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is the first time that the allegations has been made against them.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire the House to take note of the fact that the Postmaster General has not answered me upon the specific point I raised, and I will therefore ask the House and the country to draw their own deductions from that. I asked, it will be remembered, how Mr. Soames got the information which appeared in the subpoena served upon Mr. Maberly. He replied that he was not able to give the House that information. I asked, in the second place, how Mr. Soames got the information which enabled the Attorney General to read to the Special Commission letters written by two Members of this House. Again, he was unable to tell me what I wanted to know; and I hope, therefore, that the country generally will appreciate at its full value the ignorance professed by the right hon. Gentleman.
      Resolution agreed to.
      16. "That a sum, not exceeding £484,405, 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 Expense of the Post Office Packet Service."
      Resolution agreed to.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL. (No. 367).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.
  MR. BARTLEY: I wish to move the omission of Sub-section 4 of this clause. I do not intend to make a speech. All I will do is to say that it seems to me rather early in the day for the London County Council to wish a purchase a large site for new offices. I think the matter might stand over another year, and I very much doubt whether it would be well to allow

  1863
  them to enter upon this expenditure, seeing that the rates have already gone up 4d., if not 6d., in the £1. I beg to move the omission of this sub-section.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 32, to leave out Sub-section 4.—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his objection to this clause. It may become necessary, and it certainly is desirable, that power should be given to the County Council to make inquiry as to a suitable site. The clause contains ample safeguards, I think, against an improper expenditure being embarked upon. All it will enable the County Council to do is practically to inquire into the matter.
  MR. BARTLEY: There is no possible difficulty in the London County Council inquiring into the question of sites. I do not object to their doing that. But the clause enables them to acquire a site, and that would involve the expenditure of a large sum of the ratepayers' money. I, therefore, think it my duty to press the Amendment.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 30.—(Div. List, No. 335).
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB&c): In regard to this clause I should like to point out that power is only given to raise £313,000 for the purposes of the Thames Valley Tunnel Act. I think that is an exceedingly small sum, bearing in mind that the whole of East London is anxiously looking for the completion of this work, and I should, therefore, be glad if any Member of the Government can give the Committee information as to what it is proposed to do in regard to it.
  MR. BARTLEY: In Sub-section 8 I think there must be a misprint, for it says that the London County Council shall have power to borrow for the purposes of the Metropolis Streets Improvement Act £1,000, provided that the amount does not exceed £4,300,000. What does that mean?
  MR. JACKSON: It means what it says, Sir. It means that another thousand pounds may be borrowed provided that the
  1864
  aggregate borrowings under the Act do not exceed the sum stated. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Bow, I may point out that the sum asked for is that which it is estimated will be spent in the course of the current twelve months, and it was thought unnecessary to ask for power to raise more than that.
  Clause 6, and remaining Clauses, agreed to.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I wish to move a new clause, the object of which is to enable the London County Council to pay all the costs, charges, and expenses which may be incurred by them up to the 31st December, 1890, in an inquiry to be instituted with respect to the water supply of the County of London. My reason for moving this clause is a very simple one, and I need not detain the House long in explaining it. It is, the Committee will remember, the clause which, at the instigation of the London County Council, the Government placed in the original Bill introduced this year, but it was subsequently omitted because of the number of Amendments placed upon the Paper in opposition to it by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I am told it has been stated that there was opposition to the clause from this side of the House also; but I cannot ascertain that this is the case, and I must say that were the statement confirmed, I should express my feelings as to the objectionable conduct pursued by hon. Gentlemen on this side equally as strongly as I have expressed them in regard to the conduct of hon. Members opposite. Now, this clause does not give the County Council for London power to purchase the water supply; it simply gives them power, within a little over 12 months, to make an inquiry into the whole question of the water supply, which is one of the most serious things with which we have to contend. I am quite convinced that the people of London will not allow simple monopolists to retain the control of their water supply for along time to come. I should like to inform the Committee who were the gentlemen who opposed the original clause. So far as I can ascertain, they were all, more or less, directly interested in the various Water Companies supplying London.

  1865
  One is the son of the Governor of the New River Company; a second is the brother of a director of another Company, and so it is in every case; and these Amendments were thus put forward, not in the interests or the welfare of the people of London, but because hon. Gentlemen were afraid that the proposed inquiry would disclose such a state of affairs as would induce the people of London to require their Representatives to deal forthwith with this great question. I think the importance of introducing this clause cannot be better illustrated than by reminding the Committee that in the year 1878, when the Metropolitan Board of Works spent a sum of £6,611 in connection with Bills introduced into Parliament on the question of the Water Supply of London, they were surcharged the amount by the Auditor in auditing their accounts for that year. In conclusion, I wish to say that we who support this clause are quite willing to agree to the insertion of a sum of money—say £5,000—as a limit of the expenditure to be incurred under it.
  New Clause (Expenses of inquiry as to water supply,)—(Mr. James Rowlands,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I represent a Metropolitan constituency. I agree with my hon. Friend opposite that this question is one of immense importance to London, and I regret that the Government should have thought it right to omit this particular clause. If my hon. Friend will agree to the insertion of a limit of £5,000 in his clause I shall be very happy to support him. I think that Londoners cannot much longer submit to the present state of affairs with regard to their water supply. They must obtain control over it; and if the London County Council will use such means as this clause will place at their disposal, they will be doing a great deal towards the work which the public will, sooner or later, call upon them to undertake.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 75.—(Div. List, No. 336.)
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Read the third time and passed.

  BANN DRAINAGE [EXPENSES].
  Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.

  BANN DRAINAGE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL. (No. 344.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LEASEHOLDERS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 179.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. P. A. CHANCE: The object of the clause which I have to propose is to prevent the further exclusion from the benefits of the Land Act of leaseholders whose leases are not really renewable. In some cases leaseholders hold under-tenants for life, who are not certain of their power to lease, and, consequently, covenants are introduced, that if the leases granted be bad, fresh leases within the lessors' power will be granted. These leases are not really renewable leases, although they are technically so.
  Clause (Covenants for renewal,)—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press this Amendment. The Government cannot accept the clause, for this reason. The Bill as it stands in no degree extends the class of leaseholders admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1887; it merely removes a flaw in the title of a limited number of cases. The hon. Member's proposal would, however, bring in an altogether new class, and the Government are not prepared to agree to that being done.
  MR. CHANCE: I do not admit that that is so. If the Government will not accept the clause I will withdraw it, for I will not take the responsibility of wrecking

  1867
  the Bill. Heave the public to judge of the conduct of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion and clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SUPERANNUATION [ALLOWANCES, &c]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Superannuation Allowances or Gratuities to certain persons under the provisions of any Act of the present Session, to amend the Acts relating to Pensions, Compensations, Allowances, and Gratuities to persons in respect of having held office in the Public Service (Queen's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.
  EDUCATION GRANTS [CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND.]
  Committee to consider of altering the conditions on which annual Parliamentary Grants for Education may be made to schools in the counties of Caithness and Sutherland (Queen's. Recommendation signified) to-morrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  Return ordered—
  "Giving (1) a Statement of the amounts payable from public moneys to the defence in cases where the venue has been changed, and (2) Copy of Order made by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland, pursuant to section 15 of the Act."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour).
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Two o'clock.