Sitting of 22 August 1889

QUESTIONS.

  LADY CANDIDATES FOR INDIAN SCHOLARSHIPS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that a lady, Native of India, who had graduated with first-class honours at an Indian University, has been held to be ineligible to the scholarships instituted by the Government of India, and tenable in England; and, whether there is anything in the resolution of the Government of India of 12th February, 1886, constituting these scholarships to exclude women from their benefits; if there is not, would he communicate with the Government of India, with a view to throwing open the prizes of University education to all Her Majesty's Subjects irrespective of sex?
  THE UNDEE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The facts are as stated. The Indian Scholarships were constituted as an experiment, and were intended for men only. The Secretary of State considers the decision of the
  96
  Government of India right, and does not intend at present to make any alteration in the system.

  SUPERANNUATION CLAIMS.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will consider the claim for superannuation of the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum, while they are considering the evidence given before, and the Report of the Select Committee on the grievances of the Woolwich Arsenal workmen, or whether the Government will assent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of the attendants and messengers of the South Kensington Museum?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I have to inform my hon. Friend, whose patience in dealing with this question I fully acknowledge, that Her Majesty's Government have given the most careful and complete consideration to the claims put forward by the men referred to, and they have come to the conclusion, which probably the men themselves would not dispute, that they have no legal claim to the benefits of the Superannuation Act, 1859. During the recess, however, the Treasury will consider whether it may be possible to meet in any way, and, if so, in what way, what I may describe as a sentimental feeling on the part of the men that they have a claim to some consideration, especially when their case is compared with that of men doing similar work elsewhere; but I am unable at present to say what direction the action of the Treasury may take.

  THE BISHOPRIC OF NATAL.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to a printed Report of the Standing Committee of the Church Council of the Church of England in Natal, dated 30th October, 1888, in which the archbishops, bishops, chaplain general, and others in England are accused not only of throwing obstacles in the way of obtaining a bishop for the vacant See of Natal, but of actively intervening to intimidate clergymen of the Church of

  97
  England from going out to minister to their congregations in Natal, and stating in particular that the Bishop of Wakefield, in a letter dated 17th September, 1888, wrote respecting the Rev. W. P. Ingledew, with whom the congregation at Durban had arranged to go out from England, stating that he had warned him that he would have a difficulty in finding any bishop in England to welcome him back did he go out in that connection, and citing two further cases of clergymen who were informed that they would place themselves in opposition to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Chaplain General of the Forces if they held services for congregations of the Church of England in Natal without taking license from Bishop Macrorie, who is well known as the head of an Independent Church in South Africa; whether the Government will make inquiries respecting the alleged action of the archbishops, bishops, and chaplain general in preventing the congregations alluded to from obtaining the services of English clergymen, and in endeavouring to force upon them the licensees of what is to them an alien authority; and whether any steps can be taken to secure these congregations and their clergy against interference with their liberty in the future?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de Worms,): The Secretary of State had not seen the Report referred to until it was received from my hon. Friend; but the circumstances as alleged are not such as to give him any jurisdiction to inquire into or deal with them. The Secretary of State is not aware that there is any power to interfere with the action of any Ecclesiastical Authorities or other persons who may think it right to make such representations as are alleged to have been made in this case.

  CEYLON—THE BUDDHIST TEMPORALITIES ORDINANCE.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the purport of the "Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance" lately passed through the Legislative Council of Ceylon by Sir A. Gordon; does it involve in any form the endowment of the Buddhist religion; and, is
  98
  an ordinance of this character subject to the approval of the Secretary of State?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The purport of the Ordinance is to vest the property belonging to the Buddhist temples in trustees appointed by and acting under the control of district committees elected by the Buddhist householders in the district, the object being to ensure that the revenues of the temples are applied to their proper purposes. The Ordinance does not involve the endowment of the Buddhist religion. The draft of the Ordinance was approved by the Secretary of State before it was introduced in the Legislative Council and the Ordinance has been confirmed and allowed by the Queen.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY: Is not the Ordinance a distinct departure from the principle of non-interference on the part of the Local Government with Buddhist affairs?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I think not, Sir.

  IRELAND—CONSTABLES BIDDING AT MARKETS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if any other constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary besides Sergeant Dallas are engaged in cattle dealing; from what source are funds provided for the purchase of cattle by the police; and, in the event of a loss arising through these transactions, out of what fund will it be defrayed?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Constabularly Authorities report that it is the case that some other constables besides Sergeant Dallas have been employed in bidding for cattle at fairs, with a view to detect persons unlawfully engaged in preventing the sale of cattle belonging to boycotted persons or raised on evicted farms. No expenditure for the purchase of cattle has been incurred; nor is any loss anticipated.
  MR. M. HEALY: May I ask what would happen if the constables' offer was accepted?
  MR. MADDEN: That question I shall answer when the circumstance has arisen.
  MR. FLYNN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question—namely, out of

  99
  what fund any loss arising from these transactions would be defrayed.
  MR. MADDEN: I have just stated that no loss has, as yet, occurred, and none is anticipated.
  MR. FLYNN: My question is in the future tense, and applies to the future only.
  MR. MADDEN: I have not the least doubt that if any loss did occur it would be borne by the public funds.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How or in what cases can a loss arise? How is it arranged that these constables shall attend sales? Can a boycotted man require the Government to bid for his cattle?
  MR. MADDEN: The employment of constables in the manner which I have mentioned must rest with the Executive, who would exercise a discretion in the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is to become a system that land grabbers are to secure the attendance of the police at Irish fairs, and get the Government to bid for their cattle, so that any loss that may be incurred may be thrown upon the public funds?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that, having just entered the House, I know nothing of the question or of the answer which has been given to it. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must take the answer of the Solicitor General as the answer of the Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place, may I ask him, before the Government decide upon allowing the cattle of the land grabber to be paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer, whether the Treasury will be consulted?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I must ask for notice of that question.

  DERRY GAOL.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland what number of prisoners were confined in Londonderry Prison on the date of the discharge of the man M'Gee, since dead; what number are at present
  100
  in Clonmel Prison; and, how many baths are there available for the use of prisoners in the latter prison?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board report that on the 8th instant, which is the date referred to, there were in Londonderry Prison 144 prisoners. On the 19th instant there were in Clonmel Prison, 125 prisoners. There are four baths available for the use of prisoners in the latter prison.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware that Rose Trainor, of Brackaghlislea, County Londonderry, who had been confined in Derry Gaol and released on the 1st instant after undergoing a month's imprisonment, was, on 17th August, removed to the fever hospital at Magherafelt on the certificate of Dr. Hegarty, the medical officer of the district; that this certificate is in the following terms:—
  "I hereby certify that I have been attending Rose Trainor, Brackaghlislea, for typhoid fever, and I am perfectly certain that she contracted the disease before she left Derry Gaol on the 1st instant.
  "A. HUGARTY, M.D."
  And, will Rose Trainor's case be inquired into in relation to the sanitary condition of Derry Gaol?
  MR. MADDEN: I have already made a statement in relation to this case in reply to a question of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill). From further Reports received it appears that Rose Trainor, after refusing to proceed to her place of conviction (Drapers-town) by rail on the date of her discharge on the ground that she was going to stay for a time with some friends in Londonderry City, subsequently altered her plans and proceeded on foot to Draperstown, walking a distance of 32 miles. I understand that the medical officer named did give a certificate to a newspaper correspondent in the terms stated in the question. The medical officer of the prison reports that the woman during the period she remained in prison had never complained of any illness, was not at any time under medical treatment there, and was in her usual good health when discharged.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Government, in view of this statement by an experienced medical man that this woman was seized with typhoid fever in

  101
  Derry Gaol, ease the public mind by ordering an independent inquiry?
  MR. MADDEN: The date of the discharge of Rose Trainor from Derry Gaol was the 3rd of August, and she did not receive medical advice until the 15th. Certainly the Government will inquire further into the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I may take it that the case is still under investigation?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it is a fact that for several months up to April in this year, when they were set right, the water closets in Derry Gaol were not acting, being out of repair, and whether any notice was taken of the matter by the medical Officer of the Gaol, Sir W. Miller, or any Report thereon made by him to the proper authorities; whether during this period several cases of diphtheria occurred in the gaol, and also several cases of fever, either typhus, typhoid, or simple continued fever in the female side of prison; whether those fever cases were removed to the workhouse where they were at once placed in hospital, and whether a female prisoner who went to workhouse to mind one of those cases developed fever when she subsequently returned to the gaol; whether it is a fact that about one-half of what properly constitutes the hospital of the gaol is at present used as a cook house and mess room for the officers of the prison, thereby seriously curtailing the hospital accommodation of gaol; whether the female cook and the hospital warder, a man named Fitzsimons, have at present sleeping apartments in the same division of the hospital; and, if so, will he order its discontinuance; and whether all the above matters were inquired into by Dr. O'Farrell on his recent visits; and if so, will he give his Report thereon; and, if not, will he direct an inquiry into them and lay the Report upon the Table?
  MR. MADDEN: I regret that I have not a full Report in reference to this and some other questions which are upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member, but I will give him all the information I have. It appears from the Report of Dr. O'Farrell that the closets are of the modern type, and that there has been
  102
  no case of fever of a serious character in the gaol for more than 20 years.
  DR. KENNY: I have next to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that M. Size, who recently died immediately after his discharge from Derry Gaol, was when he entered prison a remarkably powerful man of about 13 stone in weight and about 5 feet 8 inches in height; whether he will give his exact height and weight when he entered prison; whether he was specially selected on account of his strength to take charge of a dangerous lunatic named John Kelly, who had committed a murder, and whether it was owing to the fatigues of this anxious, dangerous, and laborious work that Size contracted the disease from which he subsequently died; whether he will inquire particularly into the facts and treatment whilst in prison of this man's case; and, if the facts are as detailed, procure from the Treasury a grant of money sufficient to compensate his parents, who relied greatly for their support on his exertions, for the great loss they have sustained through his untimely death.
  MR. MADDEN: I have not been able to get any special Report on the subject in time to answer this question; but I gather from Reports previously received that this prisoner's weight on reception was 175 pounds, and he had lost but six pounds when discharged. The medical history of the case of this prisoner is fully detailed in Dr. O'Farrell's Report which has been placed in the Library. The Government are not aware of any grounds upon which an appeal could be made to the Treasury as suggested.
  DR. KENNY: Is it the fact that on or about the 16th April last a man named Bingham, who had some time previously been committed on a charge of murder, hanged himself in his cell in this gaol; whether it was known to the prison doctor, Sir W. Miller, and the Governor of the gaol that Bingham had previously been an inmate of a lunatic asylum; whether the warder in charge of Bingham frequently called the doctor's attention to the prisoner's condition and demeanour; whether, on the morning of the day on which the unfortunate man hanged himself, the warder specially directed the Governor's, and subsequently Sir W. Miller's attention to Bingham; whether Bingham

  103
  was ever removed during his incarceration from his cell to hospital, or other place, where he could be constantly watched; and, whether any, and, if so, what, precautions were taken by the prison authorities to prevent the catastrophe which ultimately ended Bingham's life?
  MR. MADDEN: The prisoner Bingham committed suicide as stated. It was not known to the Governor or Medical Officer that he had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum. It is not true that the warder called the attention of the doctor or the Governor to him as stated. Bingham was not removed to hospital, and there did not appear to be any necessity for watching him specially, and there was no apparent reason to apprehend the catastrophe which happened.
  DR. KENNY: Was a prisoner named Doyle admitted into Derry Gaol about April last; was he, on admission, suffering from a wound in the groin, supposed to have been caused by a thrust of a stick in some brawl; was he, though walking with difficulty from this cause, exercised daily, and kept in an ordinary cell, and not removed to hospital at once; was he ultimately removed in a delirious state from his cell to hospital, it being found necessary to carry him there when removing him, and whether he died in hospital three or four days, i.e., about 14th May, after his removal there, with symptoms of blood poisoning caused by the wound in his groin; and was an inquest held in this case; and, if so, what was the finding of the Jury?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question. I have not yet received the information necessary to enable me to answer it.
  DR. KENNY: Is it a fact that up to a recent period the cell in Derry Gaol in which Mr. Conybeare is at present confined was used as a cell specially set apart for prisoners suffering from a highly contagious skin affection, easy to catch and tedious to get rid of; has Mr. Conybeare since his incarceration in this cell, contracted this affection; and, in view of this fact, and also that Mr. Conybeare suffers from rheumatism, will the Chief Secretary order his immediate removal therefrom to hospital or other appropriate place in the gaol
  104
  where he can get hot baths or other suitable treatment?
  MR. MADDEN: I must also ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this question.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: Seeing that the Chief Secretary gave us a very full account or statement of the health of the hon. Member for Camborne three or four days ago, why is it not possible to answer this question, about which information could have been got a week ago?
  MR. MADDEN: Inquiry has been made, and I regret that the Report has not yet been received.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: Will the hon. Gentleman telegraph for it?
  MR. MADDEN: It has already been telegraphed for.
  DR. KENNY: Is it a fact that a man named Diver, of Gweedore, recently discharged in a dying state from Derry Gaol, where he had been confined awaiting his trial, was attacked with spitting of blood very soon after his admission; whether he was thereupon admitted to hospital; whether he was discharged therefrom when his condition improved, but had to be again admitted almost immediately owing to a return of the hæmorrhage from his lungs; whether he can state how long altogether Diver was in hospital; and why, if the facts are as above mentioned, he was not at once discharged from prison, when the evidence of lung disease was so fully established as the above facts indicate?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether complaints have reached him as to the condition of the water supply to the City of Derry; whether the Derry Gaol is supplied with the same quality; whether the collecting basin was visited over 10 years ago by the members of the Corporation owing to the number of complaints made at the time; whether Mr. Foster, one of the body, expressed himself in these words—"That the top-dressing in the collecting basin was sufficient to cover 6 acres of grass land;" whether anything has been done to cleanse this since; and whether the Government will take steps to force the Derry Corporation to give the citizens a purer supply of water?
  MR. MADDEN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to postpone the question until a Report has been received.
  MR. O'HANLON: I will repeat it tomorrow.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the Chief Secretary say whether, in addition to the two Falcarragh prisoners who lately died on release from Derry Gaol, and the other two who became dangerously ill immediately after release, a fifth Falcarragh prisoner, named Cannon, is now seriously ill in Derry hospital, and what are the particulars of his case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am sorry that I am unable to give any reply to the question. I have telegraphed to Ireland but have as yet received no answer.
  MR. SEXTON: In view of the undoubted fact that two prisoners have died since their release from this gaol, and that three others have become seriously ill, and also in view of the medical certificate that one of the prisoners when discharged had typhoid fever while in gaol, will the right hon. Gentleman cause an independent medical inquiry to be made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am naturally desirous that there should be a full inquiry; but up to the present time nothing has come to my knowledge to induce me to believe that the matter is one which requires any exceptional treatment. The medical officer who has been sent there is exceedingly competent and the question can be discussed on the prison Vote.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that unless the uncorroborated Report of Dr. O'Farrell is corroborated by some independent authority the absence of such an independent Report will become a matter for serious consideration.

  CORK GAOL.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter addressed on the 16th instant to the Irish Prisons Board by the Mayor of Cork; whether he is aware that on the date mentioned a prisoner named James O'Brien, confined in Cork Gaol, expressed a wish to make a statement in private to the Mayor, Mr. M. J. Daly,
  106
  J.P., and Mr. C. J. Dunn, J.P., then members of the Committee of Visiting Justices, and visiting the prison as such; that the Deputy Governor thereupon interfered, and said that he could not permit any statement to be made to the Visiting Justices in private; and that the Justices had in consequence to retire without any statement being made; whether, under the prison rules, it is the right and the duty of Visiting Justices to hear the complaints of prisoners in private if asked to do so; and, what notice the Prisons Board propose to take of the Deputy Governor's conduct on the occasion in question?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board report that the matter referred to had already come before them, and they forthwith instructed the Deputy Governor of the prison that the prisoner is entitled, under the rules, to have a private interview with the Justices.
  MR. M. HEALY: May I ask for an answer to the last paragraph in the question? As I understand, it is admitted that the Deputy Governor of the Cork Gaol acted in an improper manner in preventing the Visiting Justices from having an interview with the prisoners. I wish, therefore, to know what notice the Prisons Board propose to take of the Deputy Governor's conduct.
  MR. MADDEN: The Deputy Governor appears to have acted in ignorance of the rule, and the Prisons Board have informed him that he acted in error.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has he been reprimanded?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not aware that he has been reprimanded personally.

  LABOURERS' DWELLINGS.
  MR. RICHARD POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Corporation of Waterford applied to the Board of Works for a loan for the erection of labourers' dwellings, and that the project was sanctioned by the Local Government Board after due inquiry; and, whether the Board of Works has submitted the application to the Treasury; and, if so, will the money be advanced at once, so that the Corporation may be able to take advantage of the fine weather to commence the works, and to give much needed employment, and supply a serious want?
  MR. JACKSON: The application for a loan has not been forwarded by the Board of Works to the Treasury, the Corporation of Waterford being in arrear with payments due on other loans. But I will ask for a complete Report on the subject.

  EGYPT—FURTHER OPERATIONS IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true, as reported in the Times, of 19th August that the Governor General of Suakin has again commenced an aggressive warfare in the country beyond his limits; has sent the Haden do was to try and drive the Dervishes from Sinkat, and provided them with arms and ammunition; but that they returned with no greater result than the capture of 400 sheep and a little grain, which they consumed; and whether Her Majesty's Government, to obviate a recurrence of last year's events, will interfere to prevent a renewal of this class of raids, and insist on the observance of the policy they prescribed, to hold Suakin and the ground necessary to prevent approach to the works, but on no account to go beyond?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The facts of the case are that the Egyptian Government permitted a tribe near Suakin, which had suffered much from the exactions and outrages of the (so-called) Dervishes, to drive them back and recover some of their cattle. They were also assisted by a supply of arms and ammunition. The result was much more successful than is represented in the Report referred to. Her Majesty's Government saw no cause to interfere with the discretion of the Egyptian Government in the matter; the policy pursued being in accordance with the recommendations made in despatches which have been presented to Parliament.

  IRELAND—SKIBBEREEN CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is contemplated to remove the Custom House from Skibbereen to Bantry; is he aware that the merchants and traders
  108
  of Skibbereen have protested against the change; and, in view of the increasing importance of the fishing and other trades at Skibbereen, will the wishes of the traders be consulted before making this change?
  MR. JACKSON: It is in contemplation to transfer the Customs Offices for the port of Skibbereen (which embraces the whole length of coast-line between the town of Kenmare (westward) and Galley Head (eastward), from the town of Skibbereen to the more centrally situated part of the port, Bantry, which is in communication with Skibbereen by railway. This arrangement will, it is believed, tend to improve the facilities of the port generally for the transaction of Customs business, and will not interfere with the facilities required by merchants at Skibbereen. A Memorial on the subject from the Skibbereen Town Commissioners has reached the Board of Customs, who, before finally deciding on the change, will give full consideration to the representations contained in that Memorial.

  THE CASE OF MR. MICHAEL WALSH.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether, on the occasion of the prosecution of Mr. Michael Walsh, at the last Fermoy Petty Sessions, reported in the Cork Examiner of the 14th instant, when the defendant was bound to be of good behaviour, the evidence of the prosecutor, Constable Lane, Royal Irish Constabulary, was taken down in writing; and, if so, whether he can state the contents of the deposition so far as relates to the amount of violence used by the constable?
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that the sworn evidence of Constable Lane was that he first tapped Walsh on the shoulder and demanded his name, and that it was only when Walsh would not give his name that he caught him by the collar and stated he would bring him to the Police Barrack. The evidence of the constable was not taken down in writing.
  MR. M. HEALY: Is it not the law that the evidence should be taken down in writing?
  MR. MADDEN: No, not in a cage of binding over a person to be of good behaviour.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary how long was Mr. Michael Walsh, the bail prisoner, in Cork Gaol before he was stripped of his clothes and had his hair and moustache cut off; by whose instructions and what authority was this done, and was it sanctioned by the Government or the Prisons Board; was Mr. Walsh informed that, under the rules, he was entitled to wear his own clothes and not to be shorn; what "consent" did he give to this treatment beyond submitting; is it alleged that it was necessary for cleanliness to take off his moustache and hair and dress him in prison garb; and will no apology or compensation be offered to Mr. Walsh?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that Michael Walsh had been about a quarter of an hour in Cork Gaol when his clothes were changed and his hair and moustache trimmed. It was done by a warder without special instructions from any one. No special information appears to have been given to him as to his being entitled to wear his own clothes and not to be shorn. The prison authorities do not allege that the action was necessary for cleanliness. According to the prisoner's own statement, his moustache was trimmed with his own consent and his hair was also trimmed, and he said he would wear the bail clothes until he wrote home for a change of linen, as he was told that he should change it every week.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will this outrage be apologised for or compensation granted for it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not gather that there was anything done in the nature of an outrage. No doubt the warder committed an error. I will inquire into the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I asked on Tuesday, and I ask again to-day, who is the person who is responsible? This is the second remarkable case which has occurred recently in Cork Gaol. The first was a case in which the Deputy Governor refused Walton the Visiting Justices to see the prisoners. Was this outrage also committed with the sanction of the Deputy Governor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The person who committed the error in this case was not the Deputy Governor but a warder.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Who is the person who is responsible? I have twice respectfully asked the question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And I have answered it respectfully. The warder committed an error; he had no order to do what he did. Therefore, the responsibility rests with the warder.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there was never any rule allowing the cutting off of the hair of an untried prisoner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the hon. Member is correct. I think the rule does not apply to bail prisoners.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When is my question going to be answered? We ask for the name of the person who is responsible.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have attempted to answer the question of the hon. and learned Member; it appears that the warder did this without any orders.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is the name of the warder?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable to say.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have put this question on two separate days, and I want to know why it is that the Irish Office pays no attention to the form in which a question appears on the Paper?
  MR. CHANNING: What steps have been taken to communicate any changes in the Prison Rules to the officials?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will obtain the information if the hon. Member will give notice of the Question. No change applies to this particular case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I must ask again for the name of the warder?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already informed the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not acquainted with it; but if the hon. Gentleman desires to know, I shall be glad to find out.

  BANTRY BAY.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the numbers of Her Majesty's ships resorting to Bantry Bay, he will include a small sum in the Estimates for marking the entrance to Bantry Harbour, for want of which several of Her Majesty's

  111
  ships and boats have from time to time suffered damage?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Bantry Harbour is not largely used by Her Majesty's ships, but in view of their occasional visits and of the fact that the district coastguard ship lies there, directions were given in January last for a buoy to be moored on the extremity of the shoal east of Horse Island; and this order has been carried out. This is the only artificial mark considered necessary for the navigation of the harbour.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true, as stated in the Cork papers, that it is the intention of the Government to repair the fortifications in Whiddy Island, in Bantry Bay, and to station troops there?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): No, Sir; there is no truth in the statement.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES IN INDIA.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of any bonâ fide attempt made in any of the Cantonments or elsewhere in India to carry out the recommendation of the Army Sanitary Commission, which, while condemning the system for regulating prostitution as wholly unsuccessful, suggested as the proper way of dealing with venereal disease—
  "The establishment of a properly organised system of hospital and dispensary relief for the use of all classes, and strictly voluntary in its character;"
  and, if so, whether, he will lay upon the Table of the House any Returns or information in respect of such attempt.
  SIR J. GORST: The recommendation of the Army Sanitary Commission was commended to the Government of India in 1882, but rather with reference to the large towns than to Cantonments; but the Secretary of State is not aware that any system of hospital or dispensary relief for the use of all classes has ever been established for the purpose of dealing with venereal disease exclusively.
  MR. J. STUART: Has the hon. Gentleman called the attention of Surgeon Major Barclay, and other com-
  112
  pilers of Indian statistics in respect of venereal diseases, to the errors in their method of calculating averages which have vitiated their results hitherto; and, if so, what reply has been made by or on behalf of these gentlemen?
  SIR J. GORST: The attention of the Government of India was, as I stated more than a year ago, called to the arithmetical error, pointed out by the hon. Member, and the justice of the criticism of the hon. Member does not seem to be disputed.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that, at the last meeting of the Legislative Council at Simla, on the presentation of a Report on the Cantonment Bill, the Commander in Chief stated—
  "That the Returns of the Surgeon General showed that the number of venereal cases in the Army had actually doubled, and were of a much more virulent type."
  Whether the Viceroy said—
  "If any room had existed for doubt as to the gravity of the case which confronted the Government, the statement of the Commander in Chief dispelled that doubt, and that he hoped public opinion would support the Government in its endeavours to reduce the evil as much as possible;"
  And, whether Her Majesty's Government, under the circumstances, intend to take any, and what, action in the matter?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has no reason to doubt that the Reports of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council at Simla are correct. The Cantonment Bill contains provisions for enabling the Government of India to deal with all contagious diseases within Cantonments, and regulations for that purpose will be made by the Government of India as soon as the Bill becomes law.

  HOLYWOOD PIER AND HARBOUR.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say, if anything has yet been done with reference to the state into which the undertakers have allowed the pier and harbour works at Holywood, County Down, to fall?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am informed by Messrs,

  113
  T. Dixon and Sons, of Belfast, who have purchased Holywood Pier, that, as soon as the transfer of sale has been completed, steps will be taken by them for its repair.

  CLACTON-ON-SEA.
  MR. ROUND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a Memorial from the residents at Clacton-on-Sea, with regard to the recent step taken by the War Office in closing a footpath between the Martello Tower and the sea; and if he will give a favourable answer to the request therein contained?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have received the Memorial, and I am making personal inquiry into the matter. It appears that the right of the War Department to prevent trespass across its ground is incontestable; but I have every wish to make such an arrangement as shall be agreeable to the inhabitants of Clacton-on-Sea, and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will confer with me as to the best steps to take.

  ZULULAND.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an armed body of police left Etshowe for northern Zululand on or about the 20th July; whether Mr. Saunders, an official, accompanied such expedition, and in what capacity, and under what instructions; whether the Native Chief Zibebu also accompanied such expedition, at whose request, and for what purpose; whether the expedition is, in fact, directed against the Tongos; whether these Tongos were raided by Zibebu in September last, and what Report has been made thereon by Colonel Coope; and whether the Special Commissioners, when sitting at Etshowe, pronounced any, and what, conclusion as to the status of these Tongos as subjects of the Queen?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Member probably refers to an escort of 15 police who are to accompany Mr. Saunders on a Mission with which he is charged under instructions of the Governor of Natal, by direction of the Secretary of State, to define the boundary between the territories of Zambili, Queen of Tongaland, and Zululand. The Queen Zambili has been invited to send
  114
  a representative to assist in the demarcation. There is no reason to suppose that Usibebu is with Mr. Saunders, of whose departure no information has yet been received. Colonel Coope, in September last, reported to the Governor of Natal that Usibebu had committed a wanton raid upon the Chiefs Usibondi and Umcamana; but on inquiry it appears that these Chiefs, under orders from Dinizulu, had turned out to "finish off" Usibebu, and that the latter had retaliated upon them. The status of these Chiefs as subjects of the Queen did not come before the Special Commission, so far as is known, but the evidence is not yet before the Secretary of State; he has, however, heard nothing to lead him to believe that the Commission came to any conclusion about them.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is true, as I believe it to be, that the native Chief Zibebu is with Mr. Saunders and this body of police, and will he give such directions as will prevent any interference by the British Authorities with the Tongos?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I shall be happy to make inquiries.

  THE CENTRAL PROVINCES OF INDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any legislative action is being taken by the Government of India to provide for the great necessity existing in the Central Provinces of India for legislation in the direction of the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1879 and the Jhansi Incumbered Estates Act of 1882, to oblige Civil Courts, in decreeing on contracts of mortgage or loans, to enforce the payment of only so much as is warranted by the principles of justice; whether he is aware that indebtedness is everywhere increasing in the Central Provinces to such an extent that, unless relief in the direction indicated is found, the inevitable result will be the transfer to the money-lending classes of a very largo portion of the land of these Provinces; and if no action has been taken, whether the Secretary of State will give instructions for a measure to be prepared and considered during the next Session of the Viceroy's Legislative Council?
  SIR J. GORST: This is a matter in which the initiative must be left to the

  115
  Government of India, and the Secretary of State has not yet heard of any legislative action being taken by them. Careful inquiries have, however, been made regarding the condition of the lower classes in the Central Provinces, The conclusions arrived at were that the agricultural classes were, generally speaking, very well off, but that a deplorable amount of indebtedness existed. A very large proportion of the cultivating classes has been thrown by extravagance into the money lender's hands, and is now practically at his mercy.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is it not true that Mr. Mackenzie's Report, 915 (s), to the Government of India, which has been communicated to the Secretary of State, states that indebtedness is everywhere increasing in the Central Provinces to such an extent that, unless relief in the direction of legislation is afforded, the land will pass into the hands of money lenders? Does not the Secretary of State consider that to be sufficiently grave to require some communication to be addressed to the Government of India on the subject?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot call to mind -the exact accuracy of the quotation given by the hon. Gentleman unless he will give notice, so that I may be able to verify it. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the statements of Mr. Mackenzie, contained in the Report referred to, and I have endeavoured to give the substance of that Report. The matter is engaging the attention of the Government of India, as has been frequently stated in this House. The initiative must be left to the Government of India.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Do not the words which I quoted appear in the very Report from which the hon. Gentleman took a portion of the answer he made to me?
  SIR J. GORST: That s exactly what I said; but I added that I could not verify the strict accuracy of the quotation without referring to the Report itself, and I have not got the Report here.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state to the House the amount of the Separate
  116
  Surplus Fund, and of the balance on current account, which have been applied to cover partially or wholly the frauds and defalcations at Canterbury, Epsom, and Chertsey Banks; whether he will grant as an unopposed Return an account of the amounts in detail which have been so used in cases of ascertained frauds and defalcations in connection with Trustee Banks; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of this House copies of counsel's opinion as to the disposal of the Separate Surplus Fund and its relation to the State?
  Mr. GOSCHEN: The Canterbury, Epsom, and Chertsey Savings Banks mentioned were closed in consequence of the frauds and defalcations which took place in them. The surplus balance on current account at the 20th of November preceding the date of closing was stated to be £455 at Canterbury, and £74 at Chertsey, while the current account of the Epsom Bank showed a deficiency balance of £93. In each instance the total amount on current account was insufficient to meet the liabilities to depositors, and sums of £3,500, £460, and £60, being the amounts at the credit of each bank, were issued from the Separate Surplus Fund to Canterbury, Chertsey, and Epsom respectively. With regard to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I must ask for time to consider whether the desired Return can be granted. Any opinions respecting the Separate Surplus Fund which may have been furnished to the Government by their Legal Advisers are, in accordance with the usual practice, treated as confidential, and cannot be made public.
  MR. HOWELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will, during the Recess, consider the advisability of amending the law relating to Trustee Savings Banks, their relation to the State, the duties and responsibilities of trustees and managers, and as to the fraudulent Returns made to this House for many years of the accounts rendered pursuant to the Act of 1863?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I certainly consider that it will be my duty to consider very carefully the various points referred to by the hon. Member, and which are raised by the Report of the Committee on Trustee Banks, as well as by the recent inquiry at Macclesfield.

  SEIZURE OF FISHING NETS.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the seizure of five fishing nets belonging to Martin Kennedy and Lachlan Curry, fishermen, in Loch-in-daal, on the night July 23rd-24th, by Major Wise, a lessee of certain fishings in Islay; whether it is true, as stated, that the seizure of nets referred to took place half a mile beyond the protected line, and was consequently illegal; whether it is true that a fortnight after the seizure of the nets Major Wise had not lodged any complaint with the Criminal Authorities, but retained the nets, and refused to deliver them to their owners; and if, on inquiry, it appears that the appropriation and retention of the nets was illegal, in view of the frequency of similar treatment of fishermen by fishing tenants in the Highlands, he will instruct the Procurator Fiscal to institute proceedings in this case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): My attention has been called to this case. The information before me as to the situation of the nets is somewhat conflicting, and does not enable me to say with certainty whether they were set within or beyond the limits of the estuary of the River Sorn. Major Wise has not lodged any complaint with the Criminal Authorities, and I believe he retained the nets. Whatever may have been the situation of the nets, I am not aware of any legal grounds on which the seizure and retention of the nets can be justified; but it seems to me that, if a grievance exists, the proper remedy is civil and not criminal.

  TYPHOID FEVER IN THE WEST-END OF LONDON
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the supposed outbreak of typhoid fever in the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, he will call on the Sanitary Inspectors of the parish to report on those houses which still have open cesspools, and advise as to their immediate removal?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, ): I have no authority to give any directions to the Sanitary Inspectors of the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square. They are in no way subject to the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. I will, however, communicate with the Vestry of the parish with reference to the question.

  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that at School Board Elections voters frequently indicate the number of votes they intend to give to a candidate by placing a corresponding number of crosses after his name; whether, in many instances, Returning Officers count the crosses when the intention of the voter is plain, and admit such voting papers; and, whether the rejection of voting papers in which the number of votes given to each candidate is indicated by crosses is in accordance with existing Laws and Orders of Council, especially the Order of 3rd October, 1873?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I have no information with regard to the first two paragraphs of the question; but the Department have been advised that the Returning Officer may confine the voter, in filling up the ballot paper, to the use of numbers written in full or in figures. In the absence of any such instructions being given, it is understood that Returning Officers allow the use of both figures and crosses; but the Education Department have no means of reviewing their action in such a matter.

  LABUAN.
  DR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there have been any, and, if so, what proposals made to or by the Colonial Office for the cession of the Island of Labuan to the Central Borneo Company or any other Company, or whether there are any negotiations pending for such cession?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Owing to the insufficiency of the revenue of Labuan to maintain an efficient Colonial Administration, Her Majesty's Government have proposed that the Chartered

  119
  British North Borneo Company shall take over the administration of the island, which would remain a British colony, and would not be ceded to the company. The terms and conditions of the proposed arrangement have not been settled.

  FATAL FIRE AT EXMOUTH.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the deplorable fire at Exmouth on Monday last, by which father, mother, and three children were burnt to death owing to the inefficiency of the fire brigade, fire escapes, and fire engines; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with the view of punishing those who are responsible for the mismanagement?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Chief Constable that the Coroner's Court which is inquiring into the fire at Exmouth stands adjourned till the 27th inst. Pending this inquiry, I am not in a position to say whether the deaths of the persons burnt were or were not caused through the inefficiency of the fire brigade escapes and engines.

  DISTRESS FOR TITHES IN WALES.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen and tested the accuracy of the report circulated by the Central News Agency that within the last few days some bailiffs, in endeavouring to execute a distress for tithe in Pembrokeshire, were mobbed and hunted by two dogs and thus pursued until they promised never again to attempt the execution of any such process; whether the Government will use every effort to bring the ringleaders to justice and punishment; and, whether the Government will take the necessary steps to protect during the coming months those who have legal process to enforce in the disturbed districts in Wales?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have seen the report in question, and I am informed by the Chief Constable that it is the fact that some bailiffs were by menace compelled to leave the locality where they were executing a writ issued
  120
  upon a judgment of the Superior Court, and to sign a paper that they would not return there or ever execute a warrant pertaining to tithe. It has not been reported to the Chief Constable that they were hunted with dogs or subjected to violence. The bailiffs state that they cannot identify their assailants; but diligent inquiry is being made, and no effort will be spared to bring the offenders to justice. It is the duty of the Local Authorities to preserve the peace and to see that the execution of the law is not interfered with, and the Government will assuredly do all in its power to assist the Local Authorities in the performance of that duty.

  IRELAND—CASE OF TIMOTHY SHINE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the sworn information made by Timothy Shine at New market Petty Sessions against Constable Connolly and Jeremiah Murphy, charging them with conspiracy to murder, whether he has sanctioned the Inspector General's decision to allow Constable Connolly to continue discharging the duties of a police officer pending the trial, or whether he will now have him suspended from the performance of such duties while such a serious charge is hanging over him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the sworn information referred to does not charge either Constables Connolly or Jeremiah Murphy with conspiracy to murder. The Inspector General of Constabulary sees no reason whatever to suspend the constable.

  MR. HANRATTY.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that one of the local Justices of Crossmaglen, Mr. Hanratty, has lately evicted some of his tenants and taken off all the crops; and whether he is aware that Mr. Hanratty'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?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears, as far as I can learn, that Mr. Han-

  121
  ratty has not evicted any of his tenants lately, and that he has no bailiff.
  MR. O'HANLON: Has he evicted any tenant within the last 12 months? The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is not at all satisfactory. I think I have a right to a direct answer.
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. O'HANLON: Mr. Speaker, will you be good enough to get a reply for me?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asked me two questions—whether this gentleman has lately evicted any of his tenants, and whether his bailiff is summons server for the district? My answer is that Mr. Hanratty has not evicted any of his tenants lately, and that he has no bailiff.
  MR. O'HANLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman 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; will Mr. Hanratty act as a Justice on the occasion, in view of the fact that he had a dispute with Morris lately; and can Mr. Morris be twice tried for the alleged offence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears that Thomas Morris was summoned last month by the Local Fishery Authorities for illegally fishing with an "otter." The case was dismissed not in the sense indicated in the Question, but without prejudice on the technical point as to the description of the "otter." An amended summons has been issued, and the case will be heard in September. Mr. Hanratty is a local Justice. There is no information as to whether he will take part in the case or not. He does not appear to have had any dispute with Mr. Morris lately. As regards the last paragraph, the effect of dismissing a case without prejudice is to enable the prosecution to re-open the proceedings if so advised.
  MR. O'HANLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct Mr. Hanratty that he has no right to sit on the Bench in such a case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; that is no part of my functions, nor do I gather that there is any reason why this gentleman should not sit.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation of the statements made by the correspondent of the Times at Constantinople, that orders have been sent to disarm both the Armenians and the Kurds; and, if so, whether, having regard to the impracticability of disarming the nomadic Kurds, Her Majesty's Government will make representation to the Turkish Government, pointing out the danger which such a policy must occasion to the Armenians?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No confirmation of the statement referred to by the hon. Member has reached Her Majesty's Government.

  TELEGRAPHIC MONEY ORDERS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is true that he has completed the details for a scheme for telegraphic money orders; and, if so, whether he can state when it is likely the scheme will be introduced?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,): In reply to the hon. Member's question, the Postmaster General asks me to announce that the scheme for telegraphic money orders will be introduced, by way of experiment, at certain offices on Monday, the 2nd September.

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any further information as to the raising of H.M.S. Sultan?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am glad to-be able to inform the House that the following telegram, dated the 20th instant, has been received from the Admiral Superintendent at Malta—
  "Sultan.—Kingston valve forward discovered open, now plugged. Water rapidly decreasing. Ship afloat. Hope to bring her in to-morrow."

  SCHOOL FEES.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the Minute of the Scotch Education Department

  123
  with respect to the distribution of the probate grant in aid of school fees?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Minute will be laid on the Table as soon as the Local Government Bill receives the Royal Assent.

  IRELAND—THE LAND ACT OF 1870.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: T beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter, said to have been written to a correspondent by the hon. Member for Dover, "on behalf of the Chief Secretary for Ireland," and published in the Times of the 19th instant, in which it is stated that since the Land Act of 1870 it has not been lawful for any Irish tenant to enter into a contract not to claim compensation for improvements; and, whether this is a correct statement of the law?
  MR. MADDEN: My attention has been called to the letter referred to, an extract only from which was published in the Times. I have ascertained that the correspondence referred to the case of one tenant only, whose rent was alleged to have been raised from £15 to £40. As applied to such a case, the statement was perfectly accurate, inasmuch as, as I understand, the valuation of the holding was less than £50.
  MR. M. HEALY: Will care be taken in future to ascertain that, before letters of this kind are published, the facts to which they relate are correct?
  [No answer was given.]

  PORTUGUESE MISSION TO LAKE NYASSA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that a Royal Decree has been issued at Lisbon authorising the establishment of a Portuguese mission at Mponda, at the southern end of Lake Nyassa, having amongst its objects the colonisation of that district; whether this decree claims territorial sovereignty by Portugal over that district; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will decline to recognise that claim?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have no information of any Royal Decree authorising the establishment of a Portuguese Mission at Mponda.

  BEHRING'S SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true, as reported in a Reuter's telegram from Victoria (British Columbia) to the Pall Mall Gazette, that a United States cutter has seized the British sealers Pathfinder and Minnie in the Behring's Sea, and that other Dominion vessels engaged in the seal fisheries have been boarded and searched; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend, prior to the Recess, stating what measures are being adopted, and what diplomatic progress is being made, for the purpose of arranging mutually with the United States and the Dominion a system of regulations under which seizures may in the future be avoided in Alaskan waters over which the Americans claim exclusive jurisdiction?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Government of the United States upon this subject.

  THE REGISTRATION ACTS.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he can now supplement his answer of 20th May on the subject of the hardship inflicted upon Militiamen under the present Registration Acts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I think the hon. Member knows that I am anxious that the Bill dealing with this subject should pass, and that the grievance should be removed. I still hope that the Bill may be passed, notwithstanding the very short time before us.

  THE TITHES BILL.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government can give the assurance that the Tithes Bill, now withdrawn, will be introduced and pressed forward early next Session?
  MR. J. MORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that the following statement occurs in nine Memorials sent by the clergy of nine Welsh counties to the Prime Minister:—
  "That a transfer of the liability from the tenant to the landowner would doubtless afford

  125
  much present relief; but that, as not a few of the landowners are themselves hostile to tithes, your Memorialists venture to Submit that the substitution of landowners for tenants can only be regarded as a temporary expedient, which may at no distant day open the door to a fresh and probably more disastrous agitation;"
  and whether he will decline to pledge the Government to the re-introduction of the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill until the policy of appointing a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses of Parliament to consider the value of tithe rent-charge, with a view to its possible redemption, is finally decided upon?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My attention has been drawn to Memorials of the character referred to by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am unable to give any pledge beyond those I have already given as to the course of legislation next Session. I have stated that, without committing themselves absolutely, the Government regard favourably the suggestion for the appointment next Session of a Committee of both Houses to inquire into the tithe rent-charge question.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE DEAF, BLIND, AND DUMB.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb, &c, of the United Kingdom; and, if he will consider during the Recess the best means by which practical effect may be given to the recommendations of the Commissioners, unanimously agreed upon, after an investigation extending over more than three years?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Personally, I have not yet had time to read the important Report of the Royal Commission on the Blind, the Deaf, and the Dumb; but I am acquainted generally with the recommendations of the Commission, which will be carefully considered during the Recess.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that the School Board Chronicle and other newspapers are strongly opposed to the Technical Instruction Bill; whether he
  126
  has seen communications in the Press from the Chairman of the Nottingham School Board, and from other education authorities, to the same effect; whether, having regard to these facts, he has any reason to modify the views expressed on Tuesday; and, whether he will now consent to adjourn further progress with the Bill till next Session?
  MR. WOODALL: Is it not a fact that the Technical Instruction Bill, with the proposed Amendments of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Mather) was supported by all the members of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction who have seats in the House of Commons, as well as by Sir Philip Magnus, the director of the City and Guilds of London for Technical Instruction; and whether it has not been intimated to the Vice President of the Council that, while regretting the failure of the Government to provide for technical and manual training in elementary schools, the members of the late Commission regard the Bill as indicating a recognition of some of the more important of their recommendations?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Yes; the statement contained in the question of the hon. Member is correct.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) has Amendments on the Paper, and does he know of any other paper besides the School Board Chronicle that is opposing the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham has placed Amendments on the Paper. Hon. Members must be aware that newspapers invariably take opposite sides on all debated questions. If we are to wait, before proceeding with legislation on any specific subject, until there is an unanimous opinion in the Press with respect to it, I fear we shall have to suspend legislation altogether. I have not seen the communication from the Chairman of the Nottingham School Board, nor the communications from other educational authorities, to the effect described by the hon. Member. I have no doubt, however, that there are Chairmen of School Boards who differ from the Chairman of the Nottingham School Board. What has

  127
  been already said upon the subject supplies, I think, sufficient justification for the course which the Government think it their duty to pursue. Those who have studied the question closely are almost unanimously of opinion that the Bill ought to be proceeded with.
  MR. BROADHURST: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the supporters of the Bill on the Opposition side of the House have nearly all bolted?
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to know whether we are to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that he has not read or considered any of the arguments advanced in the School Board Chronicle and other papers directly representing the School Board?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE ADMIRALTY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  MR. CROSS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether tenders have been or will be invited for the building of any of the ships included in the new Admiralty shipbuilding programme from any firm or firms of shipbuilders on the Mersey; and, if not, whether there is any reason for not inviting tenders from such builders.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Tenders have been invited from one of the shipbuilding firms on the Mersey for those classes of ships which have been already put out to contract by the Admiralty, and tenders will be invited from the same firm for the battleships, for which contracts have still to be made.

  EXAMINATION IN SCIENCE AND ART.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is in a position to state the number and cost of Inspectors and Superintendents of Examination in Science and Arts in May, 1889, in England, Ireland, and Scotland?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: A complete Return cannot yet be given, as the claims of all the local superintendents, who are paid in part by the locality and in part by the Department, have not yet been received.

  ARMY RETIRING PENSIONS.
  GENERAL FRASER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the statement he made regarding the changes in the lists of the General officers in the Army, what is to be the retiring pensions of Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals, and Generals; what is to be the amount of their unemployed pay; supposing a* General Officer to be unemployed for five years, what is to be done with him; and what is to be the age for retirement in future of Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals, and Generals?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There will be no change as regards retired pay, half-pay, or age for compulsory retirement; but retirement will be optional at any time on the retired pay of the next lower grade. Compulsory retirement after five years non-employment will continue until the numbers are reduced to those fixed in the warrant by a gradual process of absorption.

  THE MAYBRICK CASE.
  SIR J. PULESTON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information with respect to the May brick case? [Cries of "No!"]
  [No answer was given.]
  Subsequently Sir. J. PULESTON, amid loud cries of "No," repeated his question, with a similar result.]
  At a later period,
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid: I wish to ask the Home Secretary when he expects to be in a position to announce to the public and the condemned woman—[Loud cries of "No!"]—any decision at which he has arrived in the Maybrick case? [Renewed cries of "No!"]
  MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the advice which I conceive it to be my duty to tender to Her Majesty in the case referred to by the hon. Member is not a matter for question in this House.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: As I understand that after 12 o'clock to-night English Votes in Supply will be taken, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to agree that two

  129
  Votes of great importance shall not be taken after 12 o'clock—namely, the Vote for English Law Charges and the Vote for English Prisons.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Although the Party in this quarter of the House at one time thought that it would be necessary to debate some questions on the Vote for English Law Charges, we have, after consultation, determined not to do so, having regard to the general convenience of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will undertake, in return, not to proceed with the Official Secrets Bill after 1 o'clock in the morning?
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can name the night on which the first two Votes in Class V. will be taken, particularly the Consular Vote?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be taken this evening?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not the intention of the Government, if the House should pass the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name, to proceed after 12 o'clock with .any Irish Votes. If those Votes are under discussion from, say, half-past 4 until 12, we could hardly ask hon. Members who are specially interested in them to stay in their places after that. With reference to the English Prisons Vote I have to say that if it is the opinion of any considerable section of the House that it is undesirable that we should proceed with Vote to-night we will not do so. But I must point out that Votes cannot be indefinitely delayed if the Session is not to be protracted, and I apprehend that a desire prevails in all parts of the House that Supply should be closed this week if possible. It is, I think, the general wish of the House that business should be concluded next week, and that there should be no delay with the prorogation, which could not take place next week if there were further postponement of Votes in Supply. The hon. Gentleman has requested us to consider Class V. We will endeavour to meet his wishes as far as possible, but we are unable always to communicate beforehand what particular business will be taken. We shall endeavour to take these Votes this evening. We will not take the Official Secrets Bill to-night
  130
  if it is not reached before 12 o'clock. With regard to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, we should like to take it this evening, but it is desirable to make progress with the Votes which are reached after 12 o'clock. If, however, there is no objection, we shall be glad to take it. The hon. Member will see that there will be another stage, when he will have an opportunity of making any statement which he may desire to make.
  SIR R. FOWLER: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea when the Indian Budget will be taken?
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked when the Technical Instruction Bill would really be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir. We must first see our way to the conclusion of Supply. So soon as we can see our way to winding up Supply, then I shall be most willing to consult the wishes of hon. Members.

  TITHES.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, pending the appointment and Report of the Royal Commission on the tithe question, he will ask the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to allow reductions on tithes due to them in the same proportion as they are allowed on similar lands in the same parishes.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It would be entirely beyond my duty or that of any Member of the Government to tender any advice to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with respect to reducing their tithes.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM STANDING ORDER).
  Ordered—
  "That the proceedings of the Committee of Supply, if the Committee be sitting at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House.'"—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

MOTION.

  DUBLIN HOSPITAL BOARD BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill for the establishment of a Dublin Hospital Board, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 389.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPERANNUATION BILL. (No. 385.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I desire to say that the First Lord and myself have received so many communications from various parts of the House, to the effect that it would be undesirable to proceed with the Superanuation Bill during the short time which remains of the present Session, that I do not propose to go on with it. I will, however, ask the House to give me their attention for a few minutes while I explain the position in which the matter will remain after the withdrawal of the Bill and after the issue of the Treasury Minute, which I hope is in the hands of Members. ["No."] The Minute can be obtained in the Vote Office. The Treasury Minute and the Superanuation Bill constitute together one whole, and embody the reforms in the Civil Service which the Government propose in consequence of the valuable Report of the Royal Commission which inquired into Civil Service Establishments. In the two together we deal, one way or the other, with every recommendation which has been made by the Royal Commission, with one exception; that exception is the formation of a superannuation fund by the deduction of 5 per cent from salaries in the case of future entrants. The Government consider that this is so large a proposal that they ought not to commit themselves to it without further consideration. They will, however, be prepared to announce a decision on the subject early next Session. Now, with regard to the Superannuation Bill, there are in it many provisions to which the Government will be able to give effect within the next six months even without legislation. The first clause of the Bill repeals the power to add a certain number of years in the calculation of pension in the case of professional men who enter the service late in life. This is a subject in which the House has taken a great interest, and from both sides of the House there have been expressions of opinion that this mode of raising the non-effective charge is one which ought to be viewed
  132
  with suspicion. The repeal of this power was recommended unanimously by the Royal Commission, and it would require a strong case to induce the Government during the next six months to add professional years on any appointment. The Government will exercise the greatest caution with regard to any proposal in that direction coming from any quarter. The next clause deals with special allowances on abolition of office. On that matter the Commission were again unanimous, and the House will remember that a Resolution was carried against the Government limiting their power with regard to special allowances. I have, indeed, received a great many protests from Members of the Civil Service on that point, suggesting that the cessation of what were known as abolition terms would be against their vested interests. But I demur to the theory that any Civil servant has a vested interest in an additional allowance on abolition of office. The Government, therefore, will not during the next six months, except in very special circumstances, grant any allowance, of that class. The third clause deals with the abolition of special pensions. That is not a recommendation of the Royal Commission, but the matter is one which has been very carefully considered by the Government; and looking at the special pensions which have been granted during the last 10 years, I come to the conclusion that the system is one which lends itself to considerable abuse. If in future there are special rewards to be given for special services, I hope they will be given only by means of a direct appeal to Parliament, so that the rewards proposed may be brought into immediate juxtaposition with the services rendered. The next clause relates to the production of medical certificates. The rule on that subject has already been tightened, and the tighter rule will be strictly adhered to. These are the main provisions of the Bill to which the Government can give effect even if the Bill is withdrawn. There is, however, one important reform contained in the Bill to which the Government cannot so well give effect without legislation, although they have certain powers with regard to the age of retirement in the Civil Service. I refer to the clause which provides that.

  133
  Civil servants should, as a general rule, retire at the age of 65, with a certain elasticity in cases approved by the Heads of Departments and the Treasury. It is proposed that in certain cases two more terms of two years each should be added, thus bringing the age up to 69 years. The House will bear in mind that we are here acting on the Report, though not to the full extent, of the Commissioners' recommendation. The Commissioners say—
  "We agree with the Commissioners of 1857 that it is absolutely essential to fix an age for compulsory retirement, and we suggest 66 as the age. There should be no exception to this rule, except in the case of certain scheduled offices, in which the officer, if asked by the Government to do so, might be allowed to extend his services for a further period never exceeding five years. It should be clearly understood that at the age of 60 a man may be required to retire by the Head of his Department upon such pension as by his length of service he is qualified to receive. He may, if he pleases, retire voluntarily at this age, and the State should have the corresponding power of retiring him if it be for the advantage of the Service."
  A limit of age has already been introduced in some Departments. In the Admiralty, and, I think, in the War Office, the age is 60; in the Inland Revenue 65. There have been protests against the general limit of age now proposed, and no doubt it is open to argument. There are doubtless many Civil servants whom at the age of 65 it is desirable to retain. On the other hand, it is certain that there are many of the age of 65 whom it is not to the public interest to keep quartered on the public purse. It will be for the House to decide whether the clause ought to be retained in its present form. It may give rise to considerable discontent in the Civil Service; but the Government have acted on the strong recommendation of the Royal Commission, and in the full belief that some such measure is necessary in the public interest, though it may be desirable to give it even more elasticity than has been given to it in the Bill. In addition to what I have said with regard to the Bill, I desire to point out that the Treasury Minute now laid on the Table does not absolutely and finally determine the questions with which it deals, because the proposals of the Treasury Minute have subsequently to be carried out by an Order in Council. The Treasury Minute
  134
  embodies a great many, although not all, of the recommendations of the Royal Commission not dealt with in the Bill; and where those recommendations have not been embodied alternative proposals have been worked out which will carry out the general principles recommended by the Royal Commission. I wish, however, to warn the Members of the Civil Service that this Minute, which, in some respects, will increase their emoluments, must not be regarded as creating any vested rights from the date of the Minute. If the Royal Commission have, on the one hand, recommended some increase in the emoluments of some Civil servants, on the other hand they recommend certain changes with regard to their superannuation and other allowances. Civil servants cannot claim to have at once all the advantages offered to them without certain conditions being attached to them, which they may not regard with equal favour. I regret that this matter should have been dealt with so late; but the House will feel that, owing to the extreme complexity of the questions at issue, the Government have been bound to consider very carefully the interests of the vast body of Civil servants with which they are about to deal. I trust that the Civil servants will be convinced that the Government recognise the great and valuable services which they have rendered to the State, and that, in issuing the Treasury Minute, the Government are in no way desirous of interfering with any legitimate advantages which Civil servants now enjoy. I beg to move that this Order be discharged.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Resolution does not cover the Bill.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Then I will ask leave to withdraw the Bill.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Perhaps, as the only Member of the Royal Commission, who is also a Member of the House of Commons, who is now in London, I may be allowed to say that, although I very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in a position to legislate upon this question this Session, on the whole I quite concur, and I am sure my Colleagues will, in the course he had decided to take. It is clear that the Minute and the Superannuation Bill

  135
  must be taken together, so to speak, as one Code. The course the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated is one which I am confident will commend itself alike to the House, the Civil servants, and the taxpayers. I have only to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance—although assurances at this period of the year are very unreliable—that the Government will at the earliest possible moment next Session propose legislation on this matter and set all these vexed questions at rest.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I understand that the Government pledge themselves not to give any extra pensions for compulsory to retirement on abolition of office pending the reintroduction of the Bill. But in fairness to their Civil servants, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will also pledge themselves not to make any compulsory retirements of this kind, except under particularly exceptional circumstances, until the Bill is reintroduced, and the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he proposes to disagree with the Report of the Committee, which is the first Order of the Day; whether he proposes to abandon a great portion of the Superannuation Bill; and whether he proposes to bring in a Bill founded on the present Report with respect to the superannuation of workmen?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; I thought the whole matter should stand over; that we could not well separate one part from another; but I will undertake that the workmen who are concerned shall not be damnified. We have committed ourselves to a principle, and we shall not retire from the principle next Session. I cannot give the absolute pledge my hon. Friend (Sir R. Lethbridge) asks. We cannot entirely fetter our action, and I would remind my hon. Friend that we shall only be in the position we have been in, I think, for more than a year. The House has pronounced strongly against granting abolition terms, and for some time past they have not been allowed. In this matter, therefore, there will be no change.
  MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will move that Order 13
  136
  be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do so.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps I may he allowed to say, on behalf of the Government, that it is our deliberate intention to legislate on this question at the earliest possible period next year.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SUPERANNUATION [ALLOWANCES, &c.
  Order for Consideration of Report thereupon read, and discharged.

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Ordered—
  That a Message be sent to the Lords, requesting Copies of the First and Second Reports from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1887–8.
  Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon Navy and Army Grants for 1887–8, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, to-morrow.
  Ordered—
  That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented upon the 25th day of February last, be referred to the Committee.

  EDUCATION GRANTS [CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND].
  Resolution reported—
  "That it is expedient to authorise annual Parliamentary Grants to be made, as from the 30th day of July, 1886, to schools in the counties of Caithness and Sutherland, upon the same conditions as are applicable to schools in the counties of Inverness, Argyll, Ross, and Orkney and Shetland."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 390.]

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

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.
  1. £1,470, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: This is a very small Office, yet it is an Office in regard to which there is ample room for economy. If I remember rightly, the Office has only about one bit of business per diem to discharge. It has two secretaries, one receiving £700 a year, and the other receiving £800 a year. These secretaries have between them only one clerk besides some copyists. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will take the trouble to ascertain the amount of work which these secretaries have to do during the year, and whether if there was only one he would be able to occupy his time? We know perfectly well what the work is. It is of the simplest possible description and of the most limited amount. To have two gentlemen, receiving £1,500 a year between them, acting as secretaries, is a perfect farce. I do not know what amount of investigation the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments may have given to establishments in Ireland; but I am perfectly certain this Office, in respect to the work of its staff, would not bear investigation at the hands of such a body. If they have reported upon it, it would be interesting to know what the Treasury intend to do. I rather think they have not reported upon the Office. If I am right in my supposition, will the Secretary to the Treasury cause some investigation to be made, so that reasonable economy may be effected?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I think the request of the hon. Gentleman is a reasonable one, and I will certainly make inquiries.
  vote agreed to.
  2. £111,530, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board, Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: Anyone who glances at the second and third pages of the Vote will seethe Department is very liberally provided for and exceedingly
  138
  well manned, and that, therefore, there is every reason to expect it will properly discharge its functions. I am willing to admit the Board has been very prompt and efficient in the matters I have had occasion to refer to it; but in some other matters I find reason to complain of its action. I lately asked a question about a dangerous nuisance which has been allowed to exist on the foreshore at Holywood, Belfast. Sewage has been allowed to accumulate on the foreshore, and we have medical evidence that in sunshiny weather it becomes offensive to a sickening degree and also very dangerous to health. Some years ago there was litigation in the matter. The Magistrates made an order, but the order was dismissed by the County Court Judge. There the matter rested until I lately put a question in the House. The question has had some effect, but not very much. The Belfast Board of Guardians took out a summons against the landlord, but the Holywood Magistrates dismissed it, on the ground that, in their judgment, the Belfast Board of Guardians was liable. The Local Government Board has been guilty of unaccountable inaction. The nuisance has continued throughout the summer season. The summer is now nearly at an end, and the matter is, therefore, not so urgent; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give his attention to the proceedings of the Belfast Board of Guardians on Tuesday last. It appears that there is no way of meeting the case except by an order of the Local Government Board making the cost a special charge and forming a special district in the contributory area. What I would ask is that this order should be issued, and that no time should be lost in forming the special district. Nothing practical, perhaps, can be done this year; but before another year comes round, effective steps should be taken by the Irish Local Government Board to discontinue this nuisance. Another matter to which I wish to allude is one which bears somewhat of a political aspect—namely, the action of the Belfast Board of Guardians in regard to issuing requisitions for the purpose of the franchise to occupiers in Belfast. The Representation of the People Act of 1885 specified a certain form which was to be issued by the Clerk of the

  139
  Union to all occupiers in the constituency, and in certain cases to the landlords—when the landlords were liable to the rates in tenements below £4 annual value. That form has been found sufficient for all the Boards of Guardians except that of Belfast, and even in Belfast I am not aware that before the Revising Barrister, or at the Board of Guardians itself, or in any shape or form, any objection has been taken to the form provided by the Act of 1885. The Belfast Guardians having used the forms provided by the Act every year since 1885, have this, year taken the unprecedented step of availing themselves of a section in the Poor Rate Assessment Act of 1869—a section embodied in the Representation of the People Act—to issue in Belfast, not to the occupiers, but to the landlords, a certain form allowed by the Act for an entirely different purpose. The Guardians are not entitled to use this fancy form of their own, which cannot be issued under the Poor Rate Assessment Act unless where the landlords are either liable to be rated or agree to pay the rates. No such agreements have been made in these cases, and the Guardians have no power to serve the landlords of tenements over the value of £4. I therefore submit that the Guardians under the Act of 1869 have no power to issue these forms. In the second place, they ask for information unauthorised by the Act of 1869, because that Act only authorises the Guardians to ask the landlords for a list of occupiers, but in this form the Guardians go beyond this, and ask not only the name of the present tenant but the date of the commencement of his tenancy. I say that is information for which they have no legal authority to ask. This is a political movement of the Belfast Guardians against myself as one of the Members for that city. I happen to differ in political opinion from the majority of the Belfast Guardians, and they consider themselves entitled to use the money of the ratepayers for the purpose of obtaining information for landlords, for which they are not entitled to ask by law or by the state of facts in Belfast; and then, that information being supplied to the Clerk of the Union, he compiles his long list upon that, and opposite the name of the voter he places
  140
  his official objection by reason of the information thus obtained, and which is unauthorised by law. The effect of that objection derived from this information illegally obtained is this: the person officially objected to has to attend the Court, and the official objector is not obliged to show any reason to the objection, but by reason of this tortuous and unjustifiable action the onus of proof is thrown upon the claimant. Why should not the law in regard to the franchise be the same in Belfast as it is in all other parts of the kingdom? I am not disposed to submit to this action of the Belfast Guardians, and to allow advantage to be taken of me by the use of public money, and I shall take every means in my power to compel the Government to take proper steps to put an end to this system. The legal adviser of the Local Government Board receives, by way of fees, &c. £2,300, and as it is his duty to advise on questions of law he ought to have done it in this case, and I shall, therefore, move to reduce this gentleman's salary by £300, which will be about the amount of the poor rates in Belfast illegally employed by the guardians out of political animus in obtaining for political purposes information unauthorised by law. And now I should like to bring before the right hon. Gentleman the case of the refusal of the Irish Local Government Board to allow the North Dublin Board of Guardians to manage their own financial affairs. I would ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it is not a fact that every Board of Guardians in Great Britain is allowed discretion as to where they shall transact their banking business? The case of the Local Government Board in this matter is very different to what it was 40 years ago, the banks then being very different to what they are now. Moreover, the old Board of Guardians had to administer only one Act, and under that Act they found it a very simple duty to estimate their Budget and prescribe the rates. But Irish Boards of Guardians now deal with a variety of Acts, relating not only to hunger, but to health, education, and other matters of public importance, and it is difficult for them at the beginning of the year, especially in a place like Dublin, to estimate what the probable expenditure will be. In proof of that,

  141
  I would remind hon. Gentlemen that an unforeseen expenditure of £8,000 has been incurred during the year on the compulsory slaughter of cattle under the order of the Privy Council. This kind of unforeseen expenditure occurs annually, especially in Dublin, and I maintain that it is unjust and unreasonable to expect the North Dublin Board of Guardians to be able at the beginning of the year to estimate with accuracy the amount of expenditure that may fall upon them before the year comes to an end. That, I believe, is the supposition on which the contention of the Local Government Board is founded. They say the Guardians ought to know at the beginning of the year what they will want in the course of the year. But I say that is impossible. What are the relations between the North Dublin Union and the Bank of Ireland—that bank having been the Treasurer of the Board since it was formed? The Union has always been in credit for about two-thirds of the year, and at the end of the year it has occasionally fallen out of credit. The Bank has allowed the Board 1 per cent on the credits, but when the Board has fallen out of credit and the Bank has allowed an over-draft it has charged the Board 5 and 6 per cent. Anybody can see that that is sharp treatment and that the Bank must have made a very good thing out of the Board. In October last the Bank wrote to the Board that their account was overdrawn £350—a very inconsiderate thing for the Bank to do after a connection of 40 years with the Board. At the beginning of January that information was repeated, and the Board was informed that the account would have to be kept perpetually in credit. The Guardians found themselves in a very difficult position. The year had been a very expensive one owing to unforeseen expenditure; the rates were not easily collected; the Guardians owed bankers and others some £4,000, and in order to pay this amount they had to wait until the rate for the new year could be levied. They passed a Resolution asking the Bank of Ireland to give them credit for £4,000 from the beginning of the year to the end of March, by which time the new rate would be levied. The Bank of Ireland refused to do it. Upon this, the Guardians applied to the Mun-
  142
  ster and Leinster Bank, who agreed not only to advance £4,000 for this year, but to do so every year on condition that the account was transferred, and they also agreed to give, on credits on the account, interest not of 1 per cent, but at the deposit rate, and to charge on over-draft the market rate of interest. That was a very tempting offer to the Board of Guardians. The Munster and Leinster Bank is a perfectly safe Bank, and provided the account were transferred to them they agreed to give these terms. Then, what did the Bank of Ireland do? Their first answer was a non possumus. They would not give credit at all, but when they found that the Munster and Leinster Bank was ready to give it they said, "We will give you credit for £2,000 to the end of March, provided that you undertake, when the Government pay you the money payable under the Probate and Succession Duty, to immediately lodge that amount." The Board agreed to do that for the moment, but the difficulty with them continued. I wish to call attention to the shameful condition of local government in the City of Dublin. The North Dublin Union is partly urban and partly rural. The rates are not collected by the Board of Guardians, but by an official collector appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. The Board of Guardians have, therefore, no control over the collection of the rates. Yet the Local Government Board compel them to keep their account at one Bank, where they have not the accommodation which they can obtain at other Banks. The Guardians, who cannot get the accommodation they require at the Bank of Ireland, wish to change to the Munster and Leinster Bank. But Boards of: Guardians cannot change without the consent of the Local Government Board, which is composed of three gentlemen appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. They have no representative capacity whatever. The Article of the General Order of 1882 provides that the Treasurer cannot be dismissed without the consent of the Local Government Board. I admit that would be a reasonable order were the Treasurer an individual who received a salary. But in the case of a Bank, and where it is a matter of obtaining accommodation, there is no reason why the Board of Guardians,

  143
  for ordinary commercial reasons, should not be allowed to change from one Bank to another. The Local Government Board have kept the Guardians bound hand and foot to the Bank of Ireland. They say that they do not consider the refusal of the Bank to accommodate the Union with credit is a sufficient reason for taking the account from their hands. Now, you cannot always expedite the collection of the rates, and in a poor country the Guardians must be allowed discretion as to the degree of force they bring to bear upon the ratepayers. To refuse the Board this power to change their Treasurer for the purpose of obtaining better accommodation is an insult to their intelligence and an injury to the ratepayers, on whom it inflicts a considerable money fine. My last question relates to the suspension of Boards of Guardians. I think the Local Government Board are rather disposed to take arbitrary action upon slight cause, especially in a case where the majority of the Guardians are Nationalists. I wish to know what Boards are now suspended. The Local Government Board has suspended the Dungarvan Board of Guardians because they gave a contract for bread to a person whose tender was not the lowest sent in. This action on the part of the Guardians involved a loss of £30 to the ratepayers, but in consequence of the suspension of the Board the ratepayers had had to pay £500 a year to two Vice-Guardians who are sent down by the Local Government Board. They are military men, these Vice-Guardians, and they spend a considerable tins e in training the Militia. I submit that the time has arrived when the Dungarvan Board of Guardians should be allowed to resume their elective functions. There will be considerable irritation if the Estimates for the coming year are determined and controlled by gentlemen appointed by the Local Government Board and not by the Representatives of the ratepayers.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward two or three points of some interest and importance. The first relates to a nuisance in the neighbourhood of Belfast. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Local Government Board will not neglect to use such
  144
  powers as they have in the matter if on inquiry they find that they can do so with propriety. As to the action of the Belfast Board of Guardians in dealing with certain electoral matters, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that the Board was actuated in the course they pursued by animus against the political party to which the majority of the Guardians happened to belong. If the action of the Board of Guardians has been illegal, the Guardians who are responsible may be punished by being surcharged; but if the action of the Guardians has been legal the Local Government Board can hardly interfere. The right hon. Gentleman next pointed out that a very great financial burden had been thrown on the North and South Dublin Union by the cost of the slaughter of cattle under a compulsory order. I regret that so large a portion of the cost of these compulsory slaughter orders should fall upon the locality where the cattle are slaughtered, but any change in the practice which governs those cases must be by legislation. It is doubtful whether it would be desirable to deal with Ireland separately from England and Scotland in making any such change. I have done all I legitimately can to make the payment easy for the Guardians, and will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman complains because the Local Government Board has not allowed the North Dublin Board of Guardians to change their Treasurer. The Local Government Board has not acted in that particular case in any arbitrary or abnormal manner, but according to well-established precedent. In some cases Boards of Guardians are allowed to transfer their account from one bank to another, but the general principle is that no transfer of accounts shall be made unless some solid reason can be shown for it. The competition among banks all over Ireland is so very keen that in some parts of the country it would not conduce to the ultimate solvency of Boards of Guardians if they were allowed arbitrarily to transfer their accounts from one bank to another. I am disposed to allow very considerable weight to the argument that it is very hard to prevent a transfer where the new treasurer is prepared to offer very much better terms than the old one. I do not recollect whether

  145
  in the present case much better terms have been offered.
  MR. SEXTON: Considerably better terms have been offered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not know that. I will, however, cause inquiry to be made. I am quite prepared to say that in those cases where the danger to which I have alluded of financial embarrassment does not seem likely to occur, if the new Treasurer offers more liberal terms than the old one, the Local Government Board ought to use very great discretion in exercising the powers vested in them by law to prevent a change. The number of Boards of Guardians who have been suspended is four. With regard to the Dungarvan Board the right hon. Gentleman rather led the Committee to infer that that Board has been supended because they accepted a higher and rejected a lower tender for bread. There are, however, other significant circumstances not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. There were two contractors—a Mr. Casey, whose tender was 5¼d.per 4lb., and a Mrs. Armstrong, whose tender was 4¾d. The Guardians determined to take the bread at the higher price. I agree that, under certain circumstances, it may be proper to accept a higher tender, but that would only be when the higher priced bread was the better. So far from that being so in the present instance, while Mrs. Armstrong supplied excellent bread to the workhouse Mr. Casey's bread has on several occasions, in and after 1886, been complained of by the Medical Officer as insufficiently baked; on other days it had been rejected as unfit for use and bad, and on one occasion is was described as being more fit for painters' putty than human consumption. The course which the Guardians subsequently took in accepting the tender of the dishonest and neglecting that of the honest contractor was not a little remarkable, and it was calculated to inflict great hardship on the inhabitants of the workhouse. I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the Local Government Board has not acted unreasonably in suspending the Board of Guardians.
  MR. SEXTON: That is not my question. It was whether, as the Board had been suspended nearly a year, that punishment has not been sufficient.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never desire unduly to prolong those suspensions which give a good deal of trouble. I will cause inquiry to be made, and as soon as the public interest will allow the ratepayers will again have the right to elect Guardians.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I am glad to hear the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Dungarvan, for though disfranchisement might continue for two or three months, I do not consider it should last for a year and a half. With regard to the same Union, I see by the newspapers that the Vice Guardians actually accepted a tender which was seat in a day after the time fixed for the receipt of tenders; so that these Guardians do not do their duty any better than the elective Guardians. And with regard to the ex officio members of the Board of Guardians, in the Union to which I belong, out of 50 meetings of the Board held in one year, I find that five only attended twice and five once; eight never put in an appearance. These are the gentlemen who are censorious, and who say we do not know ho w to manage our affairs. I think it right to say that there is one ex officio Guardian in my Union who has regularly attended to his duty. With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason of his refusal to bring in a Bill which would lead to the work of registration being far more efficiently done than at present. I wish again to call attention to the removal of the poor from this country to Ireland. The Union with which I am connected in Water-ford receives week after week warrants from different parts of England for sending over paupers who have passed most of their lives in this country, which they have enriched by their labour. This grievance, which is admittedly a grievance, still remains. A rather large charge is made for the auditors. As a rule the officials appointed by the Local Government Board are out of joint with the people of Ireland in political views. These auditors have a control over the accounts of the Unions, which are obliged to submit to the surcharges without having any redress. I think the auditors might be better employed in looking after the expenditure of the county rates, which are paid altogether

  147
  by the occupiers, and to which the landlords do not contribute, although they spend the money. We, the occupiers, are paying at present 11½d. in the £ in respect of a railway which was constructed without consulting us. A large sum is demanded under this Vote for workhouse schools and workhouse teachers. The Irish people are sometimes upbraided for not desiring to promote education. The Union of Water-ford will, however, be prepared to contribute to the payment of these teachers if they have a proper voice in the education of the people of the country. If a duly constituted Board of Education be appointed, in which the people had confidence, it will be found that most of the unions which at present refuse to pay these teachers will become contributors and assist in paying them proper salaries. Considering the way in which Local Government has been withheld from the Irish people, the blunders made by the Boards are remarkably few. It is said to be a significant fact that mismanagement is most conspicuous where the Boards are composed mainly of Nationalists. Yet the Nationalist Boards have carried out the complicated provisions of the Labourers' Act, whereas in unions where the Nationalist members are not in a majority the Act has remained a dead letter. In connection with labourers' dwellings, I would suggest that the Inspectors, who receive large salaries, should be asked to suggest the most suitable form of cottage to con struct for labourers.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have to express my satisfaction at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the charges in connection with the Cattle Diseases Act, but at the same time I must complain of the way in which slaughtering orders have been issued. The South Dublin Union refused to carry out the order, and then the Privy Council intervened and made an imperative order that the Board should carry out the slaughtering order. This sent up the price of cattle in a remarkable degree. It is a hard thing one district should suffer when cattle have to be slaughtered in such a wholesale way for fear of the spread of disease, and I am gratified the Government have determined that in future the country at large shall bear the burden of it. I am inclined to think it should be
  148
  an Imperial rate thrown over the three kingdoms. I have before called attention to the Act of last year to give relief to local burdens out of the probate grant, and I have expressed my amazement at the manner in which the money was allocated, and pointed out that the Act was rushed through on Christmas Eve in the absence of Irish Members. I also suggested that it would be a graceful act on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he were to apply part of the money in reduction of the interest on labourers' cottages in the same way as the charges under the Public Works Loan Bill. It is a remarkable fact that throughout Ulster, with the single exception of Nationalist Cavan, not one Board have put up a cottage for their labouring people. Unhappy Connaught has taken action, and even disturbed and lawless Munster has done more than two other provinces put together. The reason is that Ulster is governed entirely by ex officio Boards, with the exception of Cavan. It would greatly conduce to the improvement of labourers' dwellings if the Government were to carry out the suggestion I have made. I really think the Government ought to repeal the Act and consult with the Irish Members as to some better means for the distribution of the money. I would remind the Government that the Bill relating to Scotland was made annual, whereas that relating to Ireland was made perpetual. The allocation of the money according to salaries and superannuation allowances is absurd, and I should like to know who is the genius at the Local Government Board from whom it emanated. As to the suspension of Boards of Guardians, before the right hon. Gentleman came into office it was a very rare thing to suspend Boards of Guardians. I do not say that Boards of Guardians are perfect by any means; but if you want to improve them, I would suggest that you should reduce the qualification of a Guardian, and in that way you would get men more popular with the electors, and you would give the labourers a chance of getting a Representative. From the point of view of freedom, it would be better to let the Local Boards blunder on and spend money, to some extent foolishly, than to send down colonels and majors and

  149
  generals to annoy them in the management of their affairs. Besides, this is a very expensive method of Government. In addition to their half-pay, these men receive big sums for acting as Vice Guardians. I protest against the class of men selected, and I say that if Vice Guardians are necessary at all, a body of men could easily be found who would be more suitable to perform the duties assigned to them than those selected by the Local Government Board. If you were to investigate the private affairs of those men you would find the Bankruptcy Court and Stubbs's Black List figuring prominently in their history. I would suggest that in the future, if the Government are serious in their expressed desire for local administration, they should, if they insist upon dissolving Boards of Guardians, allow other Boards to be elected in their places instead of appointing Vice-Guardians. Why do not the ex officio Guardians in these cases step in and do their duty? Property, we are told, has its duties as well as its rights. I, myself, should be very sorry indeed to see the Conservative element removed from any Board in Ireland, and I am glad when I see the ex officio members attending to their duties. I may say that I should be glad if the Conservative Party had a larger representation than they have on the Dublin Corporation, and I should like to see this brought about by plurality of voting or something of that kind. At present, the moment the ex officios on Boards of Guardians lose their majority and their power of electing the Chairman—and, in point of fact, in getting the plunder—they abdicate their functions. Because they cannot be masters, they will not work as the equals of the unfortunate elected Guardians. When men, who have had no training in the management of local affairs, step in for the first time and have the responsibility and burden of conducting the work of a Board cast entirely upon them, is it any wonder that they should make mistakes? This was the case in the Dungarvan Union. The Tory Party had had a majority ever since the Poor Law Act was passed. Suddenly the elected Guardians found themselves placed in a position of authority. They make some mistake, and—presto!—down comes an Inspector of the Local Government
  150
  Board and dissolves the Board, which the ex officio party had boycotted. When has a Local Board been dissolved in England? Never within my recollection. I will give one instance of the partial action of the Local Government Board in Ireland. For seven years we were complaining of the fact that a Board of Guardians would not appoint a Catholic priest to attend to the poor, and the priest of the district was obliged to discharge the entire duties without a salary. I brought the subject before a Liberal Government in the year 1882, and was informed by the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland—then the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter)—that the Local Government Board were powerless in regard to it. I brought it before his successors time after time, but nothing was done. After the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) came into office, he sent down a Sealed Order, I think, and insisted upon the Guardians paying the salary. Why was not that Board dissolved seven years ago? Why were the paupers of the Union left in a state of spiritual destitution for those seven years, and why did not the Local Government Board take the action in 1882 which they took in 1889? They have dissolved Boards of Guardians in Donegal, New Ross, and half a dozen other places; and I read the other day one of the most high-handed letters which I think even the Irish Local Government Board ever wrote. It was addressed to the Cork Board of Guardians. It was a most audacious and impertinent communication. It was the kind of letter which Lord Clanricarde used to write to his late agent. The Board were told that because they had adjourned as a protest against the arrest of Dr. Tanner they had misconducted themselves in the most outrageous way, and that they must not do such a thing again. The Board is a most important one, with 130 members, and the Tories are in a majority when they attend, which, however, they only do when a salary has to be voted or the Chairman has to be elected. It is, therefore, only a Nationalist Board of Guardians for executive purposes. I see in that letter the fine Roman hand of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour). His policy is to destroy Irish Local Government, and, with the object of doing so,

  151
  he tries to show that it has broken down. He generally has an ulterior motive in what he says and does. You, Mr. Courtney, have frequently to call him to order, because he is so fond of descanting upon, not what is really before the Committee, but some ulterior matter. My contention is that if a Board of Guardians is dissolved, the proper course is to allow fresh Guardians to be elected. Before I sit down, allow me to draw attention to some very remarkable figures in connection with the administration of the Labourers' Act by the Local Government Board. I find that the number of cottages actually built in Connaught up to the present time is 46. In Leinster the number actually built is 1,783; in Munster it is 3,524, and in Ulster it reaches the magnificent total of one. That cottage is in the County of Cavan, which is represented in this House by two Nationalists. Under these circumstances, I say that the Local Government Board ought to put pressure on the Guardians to induce them to get cottages erected. There is power under the Labourers' Act giving the labourer a kind of appeal to the Local Government Board when the Guardians refuse to carry out the measure. I myself have advised labourers in two or three cases to appeal to the Local Government Board. Whether they did so or not I do not know, but, at all events, nothing came of it if they did. I say, however, that under the Act there are means of getting cottages erected for the Orange peasantry and yeomanry in the North of Ireland, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to get the Act put into force.
  SIR. C. LEWIS: I have been endeavouring the whole of this Session and last Session to get an opportunity of drawing attention to the very facts which the hon. and learned Member has so much emphasised in his speech. I have to complain, on behalf of my constituents, that the Labourers' Dwellings Act is an entire dead letter. The Act has not fair play on account of the expense and the cumbrousness of the process by which it is in force. The initial expense is very great, and there is the greatest objection on the part of Boards of Guardians not only in Ulster, but in other parts of Ireland also, against putting the Act into operation. In regard to the consti-
  152
  tuency I represent, it is not my duty to decry or defame their social arrangements or their dwellings, but their case is by no means different from cases in. other parts of Ireland, and there is urgent need for the passing of some Act by the Legislature for providing an inexpensive machinery to carry out the reforms required. I have been gravely disappointed with the answers I have received from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) on the several occasions on which I have put questions to him on this subject. We have his sympathy I am sure, but I think the non possumus tone he always adopts has not been satisfactory to my constituents. Unquestionably the root difficulty, after all, is that the Boards of Guardians as a body to put the Act into operation is, in most instances, perfectly useless. Those Boards are comprised of elective and non-elective Members, the former belonging mainly to the farming class and the latter to the landlord class, and the farmers are even more out of sympathy with the labourers than are the landlords. The consequence is, that the working of the Act is blocked. While Parliament has in recent years loaded the Irish farmers with gifts, the labourers have been left entirely in the lurch. But in the near future the labourers will, I believe, combine against the farmers, as the farmers have combined against the landlords, and in their agitation against the farmers the labourers will probably improve on the methods they have learnt from their masters. On behalf of the unfortunate labourers, who have no advocates, at all events in Ireland, to speak for them, I do most humbly represent to my right hon. Friend that this question cannot be delayed. It is a question on which I am receiving the most piteous complaints from my constituents, and it is positively disgraceful not in one part of Ireland only, but in many parts.
  MR. FLYNN: The affecting regard which the hon. Baronet has displayed for the labourers must be rather a surprise to the House. There was a Motion on the Paper on the subject in the name of the hon. Baronet some time back; but as to the means he took of bringing it forward, most Members are entirely innocent. I think I should not be incorrect in describing his speech as a speech to

  153
  the labourers among his constituents without reference to the rest of the question. If difficulties in the way of the enforcement of the Act exist in Ulster they exist in other parts of Ireland to an equal extent; but, in my own constituency, the Nationalist Boards of Guardians have erected 600 labourers' cottages, and I do not look forward, at any rate in the near future, to a general advance of the insurrectionary body of labourers upon the farmers. I have no doubt that when the time comes we shall see the hon. Baronet at the head of a surging crowd of labourers leading an attack upon the farmers. The hon. Baronet has used language almost identical with that for which the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin underwent two months imprisonment. With reference to the main question, we wish to protest on this Vote against the continuance of a bureaucratic system of cast-iron rigidity, a system over which popular opinion in Ireland has no control whatever, and which seems to pride itself upon sitting itself up on every possible occasion against popular opinion. I think there can be no answer to the able argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) in reference to the dissolution of Boards of Guardians. I can quite conceive, however, that the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. A. J. Balfour) thinks it his duty to throw discredit generally on the local administration of affairs in Ireland. A great many extraordinary things sometimes take place in Local Boards in England. But we have not heard that the Local Government Board jumps down on them and dissolves the Board, and sends two or three highly-paid officials to administer the affairs of the union; and why have we not heard that? Because the Local Government Board in England have some respect for local opinion, and know that the people are very tenacious of their rights and privileges. It is quite otherwise in Ireland. Take, for instance, the case of the Cork Union. A very short time since the Irish Local Government sent a most audacious communication to the Cork Board threatening it with suspension and with the appointment of paid Guardians. Personally, I should have rejoiced if the Local Government Board had carried
  154
  out their threat. I should not have paid my poor's rate. I should have subscribed the amount of it to some charitable society for the relief of the poor, and, I believe, in taking this action I should have been supported by at least five-sixths of the ratepayers, and then I should like to know where would your paid officials have been? Why, of course, you would have had to fall back upon distraint, but it would have taken you at least 12 months to distrain for one month's poor rates, and I believe that the people of the district would have gladly subscribed to any fund for defraying the costs incurred in resisting the demands of these paid Guardians. Why was this threat made against the Cork Board? Simply because at one of their meetings, after the correspondence had been real, and after nearly all the ordinary business had been disposed of, a Nationalist member proposed a resolution sympathising with Dr. Tanner in his imprisonment. The resolution was passed, and nothing else was done, but a Tory Guardian happened to hear of the matter. He wrote to the Local Government Board on the subject, and because of this utterly insignificant incident the affairs of the Union were threatened to be thrown into disorder and paid Guardians appointed at a very heavy expense to the Union, while there would have been a general state of revolution and agitation against what was going on. At present I believe the Cork Union is as well conducted as most of the Unions in England, and I believe the Guardians, both Nationalist and Tory, endeavour to carry out the work in an amicable spirit, and with a due regard to economy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, though he does usually disregard expressions of opinion coming from these Benches, is not yet sufficiently foolhardy to permit the Board, of which he is the President, to persist in this course, and I do trust that he will allow even the faint echo of my voice to be conveyed to the Local Government Board in reference to this system of arbitrarily and unnecessarily dismissing local bodies in Ireland, and appointing paid officials at high salaries. And now I should like to say a few words with regard to the auditors. I believe that at present there are no fewer than 10 auditors, and they make very frequent

  155
  surcharges in the course of their audits. This may be attributable to a desire on their part to show the country that they are doing work. I have no doubt that if we had a smaller number of auditors we should have fewer surcharges, and the Vote for them might be very greatly reduced. I hope that the short discussion we have had will not be unproductive of good, and that it will prove to the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish people are examining more and more closely this autocratic system by which two or three officials in Dublin, appointed nobody knows how, interfere with local bodies which are honestly, fairly, and conscientiously discharging their legitimate duties and giving satisfaction to the public at large. It is time that this impertinent officialism of these nominated bodies and highly paid officers was put a stop to, and I hope that this Debate will have the result of ending it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I desire to say that I entirely agree with everything that has been said by my colleagues on the subject of the letter addressed to the Cork Board of Guardians. It was an audacious and injudicious letter, and calculated to produce results the very reverse of what were intended. I can conceive nothing more impudent than the manner in which these gentlemen addressed one of the largest and most popular Poor Law bodies in Ireland. But the immediate object of my rising is to call attention to another matter in which the Cork Board have, I think, serious reason to complain of the blundering and mismanagement of the Local Government Board. I refer to the action of the latter body in regard to the Queenstown intercepting hospital, and I do not think this is a matter which has previously been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I venture to say that if any other Irish body had blundered and mismanaged its business in the way in which the Local Government Board have done in this case, the right hon. Gentleman would have dissolved it long since. But, unfortunately, we have no power to dissolve the Local Government Board. Two old Sanitary Acts, which have been repealed, give Boards of Guardians bordering on ports certain sanitary jurisdiction over ships arriving in those ports. An Act passed in the
  156
  year 1873, also since repealed, enabled the Irish Local Government Board to appoint some one riparian Union to have complete jurisdiction over the port, not with standing there might be several other Unions abutting on the port. The Public Health Act, 1874, also since repealed, enabled the selected Union to build a hospital for the reception of persons, afflicted with contagious disease, who might arrive in the port. In pursuance of that power, the Cork Board of Guardians, which was appointed the Sanitary Authority for that port, proceeded to build an intercepting hospital at Queenstown. The Act of 1873 further provided that any special expenditure incurred in this way should be borne jointly by all the Unions which abutted on the port, and everyone will admit that that was a fair and equitable provision. Consequently, the cost of this intercepting hospital was intended to be borne, not by the Cork Union alone, but by all the three Unions abutting on the port. Well, Sir, the Local Government Board, when the Act of 1873 was passed, declared the Cork Board of Guardians to be the Port Nuisance Authority, and ordered that all expenses which might be incurred should be contributed jointly by such Unions as the Local Government Board might fix upon. The Cork Board, acting under that authority, and believing that any expense they incurred would have to be borne, not solely by the Cork ratepayers, but by the various Unions, expended a sum of £2,000 in building an intercepting hospital, and when the hospital had been erected, the Local Government Board issued a Sealed Order declaring that no fewer than five Unions should contribute to the cost. That order has since been proved to be absolutely ultra vires. As a fact, only three Unions abut on the port of Cork; but the Local Government Board Order directed that, in addition to those three Unions, the Clonakilty and the Bandon Unions should contribute to the expense. The Cork Board, relying on the Sealed Order of the Local Government Board, and believing that that body knew what it was about, proceeded against the Clonakilty Union in order to recover their share of the expenses. Litigation was the result; it continued for a considerable time, and ultimately the Clonakilty Union suc-

  157
  ceeded in getting an order of the Court declaring that the Sealed Order which the Local Government Board had taken upon itself to issue was absolutely ultra vires. Now, Sir, owing to that blunder of the Local Government Board, the Cork Board of Guardians have had to pay about £400 in law costs, and I wish to ask what steps the Local Government Board propose to take in order to reimburse the unfortunate ratepayers of the Cork Union for that enormous expenditure incurred through no fault of their own, but through the blundering and incapacity of the Local Government Board itself. There is no reason why the ratepayers of the Cork Union should be saddled with this expense, seeing that the Local Government Board have since admitted their mistake and have issued a fresh Sealed Order excluding the Clonakilty and Bandon Unions from the list of contributory Unions.
  COLONEL NOLAN: My immediate purpose in rising was to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I am glad to see present. I wish to know when the next payment will be made to the Poor Law Union Boards out of the Probate Fund. Last year the payment was very much delayed as compared with the time that it was made in England, and I think it ought to be expedited this year. I now wish to say a few words with regard to the treatment of workhouse children in Ireland. I find fault not so much with the Irish Poor Law system as with the manner in which the children are managed, and I do not think that this complaint is attributable to the action of the Guardians, for I do not see how those gentlemen can give the children more attention than they now do. But my point is that the treatment which the children have does not fit them for their struggle in after life, and the result is that they very soon return to the workhouse, which they practically look upon as their home. What is desirable is that these children should get the best possible substitutes for home influence, and for the care of parents of which they are now deprived, and I do not think that the present workhouse system gives them that. These children may be divided into three classes. First, there are the children sent to reformatories for real crime; secondly, there are the children sent to
  158
  industrial schools for nominal crime; and thirdly, there are the children kept in workhouses on account of their destitution. The reformatory system, I admit, is a very good one, but the industrial school system is both foolish and illogical, because if anyone wishes to send a child to one of these schools, he first induces that child to commit some petty crime.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman must direct his remarks to matters connected with the Local Government Board. I do not think he is doing that now.
  COLONEL NOLAN: My desire is to impress on the Chief Secretary, as President of the Local Government Board, that some different system should be adopted in dealing with these children, and inasmuch as this Vote includes the salaries of Poor Law officials, I think I am entirely in order. What I wish to urge is that there should be some machinery which would enable Boards of Guardians to place their children in industrial schools, where they would be very much better brought up than they can possibly be in workhouses. The number of industrial schools in Ireland is, I admit, too limited; but I think that difficulty might be easily overcome. We all know that there are too many Unions in Ireland, and it has long been urged that some of these Unions should be amalgamated. By this means, I hold that the number of Unions might be reduced by 30 or 40. I do not blame the Government for not having taken steps to secure this amalgamation, because we know that public opinion, both in and out of this House, has not yet been concentrated upon that question, and we also know that some difficulty arises from the fact that it would be necessary to supersede a good many Poor Law officials, and these officials naturally object to supercession unless they get their salaries paid to them for nothing. Now, my suggestion would be that every eighth or tenth workhouse in the country should be used solely for the maintenance and training of the children from the other workhouses in Ireland, and I believe that if that were done you would have the means in your hands of making these children good and useful citizens. I do not want to have new schools erected; there is no necessity for that,

  159
  but I do think if certain workhouses could be set apart for these children, the little ones could be trained in the same way as juveniles are trained in industrial schools. I do not, of course, contend that no children at all should be admitted into the workhouse. Where they only go in temporarily with their parents for the purpose of getting lodging and food, it would be necessary to keep them in those Unions, but my proposal is to deal with the majority of the children who are now reared in workhouses from the age of three years and upwards, and whose tendency is at present to stay too long in those institutions. Possibly it would be better if some religious organisation would take charge of these institutions of which I have suggested the creation, and I have no doubt that there are a good many Protestants in Ireland who would be only too anxious to take care of the Protestant children. I take it that one of the greatest blots of our Poor Law system in Ireland is that we are rearing up in the workhouses a very large number of paupers, whereas by a little organisation and attention to detail we might produce a very great improvement in this respect. Let the Government bring in a Bill to that effect next year. I do not mean to increase the expenditure upon the Unions. The schoolmasters and mistresses could be transferred or some of them to the central schools, and there the children could also be taught such trades as shoe making and tailoring, which are now most inefficiently taught in the workhouses. I am not speaking of large Unions such as those of Dublin. I mean the smaller country Unions. Whatever project is entertained it should be in connection with the amalgamation of Unions, and having the buildings it would simply be a case of transfer.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I would press the advantage of developing the system of boarding out the children with persons of their own denomination. There can be no doubt of the advantage of this system for the improvement of the condition of the children. No human beings are in such an unfortunate position as these poor children. Nothing of the attractions and the social blessings of a home ever touches them. The only place in the nature of a home with which they become acquainted is that where
  160
  they happen to serve, and whenever misfortune happens to them, and they are knocked out of employment, they gravitate at once to the workhouse or the gaol. I have known many of them from the ages of 16 to 25 return helpless to the workhouse, but if they have gone through the boarding-out system they become self-reliant and get to love their foster parents, and some of the instincts of home are developed in them. But what I rose to mention is the matter, to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim has referred in an impassioned way but not beyond what it deserves, the total neglect in Ulster by Boards of Guardians of the Labourers' Act. My attention has been directly called to this subject as a member of one of the largest Boards in Ulster. I have endeavoured to urge upon my fellow Guardians the adoption of the Act in places where there is evidence of overcrowding, and have even gone the length of getting the feeble support of the sanitary officer of the district, but I must say the force of inertia, and the dead weight of unwillingness on the part of the elected Guardians, the men who employ labour, have prevented action being taken. Speaking from experience I can say that this opposition comes from men who in other matters take an active and intelligent part in the political affairs of the county. I do not say for a moment that it is made altogether a political or religious question, but I have no doubt that the neglect is largely owing to the differences—political and religious—between the farmers and the labourers, and in the district I am particularly referring to, the labourers have no political power. I represent a district where the labourers are but a small fraction, and, indeed, can scarcely be called a class, the farmers and their sons doing nearly all the agricultural work. I do not suppose the labourers make more than 3 per cent of my constituents. But I do say that throughout Ulster and in those Unions where the Guardians have the most sympathy with the labouring class, there is the greatest unwillingness to put the Act in force. I would suggest very briefly to the Chief Secretary what I think should be the leverage in the hands of the Local Government Board to make the measure work. The Sanitary Officers and the Medical Officers get in various ways

  161
  about £100,000 of this Vote, but do they do their duty in return for this? If these men were inspired by the Local Government Board with a desire to look after labourers' cottages, then they might force the Guardians to make use of the Act. I have taken the trouble to make inquiry, and I find that inspection is carried out in the most perfunctory way, and though it may be reported here and there that such a roof is not watertight, or that such a cottage is not habitable by reason of want of accommodation, really action is not taken except in flagrant cases, when proceedings are taken against owner or occupier to abate a nuisance. But I think out of this £100,000 this helpless misrepresented class might claim some assistance from the Local Government Board. I do not deny that the ex officio Guardians are as much to blame as the elected Guardians; but it is of the elected Guardians I most complain that they seem bent on making the Act inoperative. For the sake of a class which consists of the worst fed, worst housed, worst clothed, and worst paid in the three kingdoms, the right hon. Gentleman might do a great deal of good, he baa the means at hand in his Local Government Inspectors, and a word from him would put that means in operation.
  MR. BYRNE: I desire to bring under the notice and consideration of the Chief Secretary as head of the Local Government Board, the difficulties that stand in the way of Guardians obtaining loans for carrying out necessary improvements in workhouse buildings. In this connection I would refer him to the correspondence that took place last year between the Board and the Guardians of the Rathdrum Union, and I would impress upon him the desirability of some clear definition of how far works in relation to workhouse buildings come under the provisions of the Public Works Loans Act. In the matter of labourers' cottages, I think the Local Government Board is to blame for not facilitating the adoption of the Act. Undoubtedly there is no great disposition on the part of Guardians to avail themselves of the Act; but if the Board of Works prepared designs, which being lithographed, could be available all over Ireland for the use of Guardians, professional expenses in relation to the
  162
  Act would be reduced, and uniformity in providing cottages would be secured. One other point deserves attention in connection with this Vote, and that is the improper and dishonest manner in which votes for the election of Guardians are manufactured by the connivance of members of a family.
  MR. GILL: I think that one of the obstacles to the operation of the Labourers' Act is the part that is played by the Privy Council, which is constituted a sort of Court of Appeal. When a scheme for labourers is sought to be carried out, the first thing is the adoption of the scheme by the Board itself—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be travelling outside the Vote in criticising an Act of Parliament over which the Local Government Board have no control.
  MR. GILL: I must apologise for inability to make my point clear. I am going to show that the Local Government Board, who now exercise full right of supervision on this question of labourers' cottages, constitute a sufficient instrument for the purpose, and that the Privy Council is an obstacle in the work, and a considerable reform might be effected by the removal of the restrictions imposed by the Privy Council.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The control of the Local Government Board, but not the action of the Privy Council, can be discussed under this Vote.
  MR. GILL: It is competent for me to refer to those points in which the Local Government Board exercises their functions in an efficient manner, and do good work. The system of inspection in relation to any proposal for labourers' cottages is exhaustive and efficient, though, perhaps, it might be somewhat less cumbrous. After the adoption of a scheme by the Guardians, the Board send down an inspector and engineer, who visit the proposed sites for the cottages, and satisfy themselves as to this point. They then hold a sort of inquiry, and any person can raise any objection to the proposed erection of cottages, and, if necessary, the ground is visited again. But when the question of site and the requirements of the district are inquired into and determined by the Local Government Board, then comes in the power of the Privy Council as a Court of Appeal.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is at this point that the hon. Member travels outside matters concerned in this Vote. The powers of the Privy Council are determined by Statute, and the Local Government Board have no control over them.
  MR. GILL: I will not attempt to press the discussion of the action of the Privy Council, but I apprehend the right hon. Gentleman, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, has appreciated the drift of my remarks, and will see where it is possible for a practical reform to be effected. I can conceive no fitter opportunity for raising this question than in connection with this Vote, but having suggested it I do not wish to press the point. I will only say further that I hope the right hon. Gentleman when next he makes a speech in England will kindly take notice of the extent to which the Labourers' Act has been used in the Southern and Western parts of Ireland as compared with Ulster. In Munster some three or four thousand cottages have actually been erected, and in Leinster some 1,500. Considering the difficulties which have been thrown in the way of the Boards of Guardians by the Local Government Board in regard to the adminstration of the Act, I think great activity has been manifested by the poorer Boards of Guardians in carrying out the Act, but the one spot where the Act has not been carried into effect has been the province of Ulster, where all the wealth, all the intelligence, and all that is laudable in the public life of Ireland are supposed to exist. I trust that when next the right hon. Gentleman is comparing what are called the two nations of Ireland he will not neglect this comparison.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would ask the Committee whether, in view of the very important business that has yet to be discussed, it will not be convenient to bring these conversations to an end. I do not think it necessary to deal at any great length with the various speeches that have been made. However one province may compare with another in respect of the advantage taken of the Labourers' Dwellings Act; it is a matter in which neither initiative nor encouragement rests with the Local Government Board. Neither directly nor indirectly is it their function to encourage or dis-
  164
  courage recourse to the powers given to localities by the Act of Parliament, and no blame attaches to the Local Government Board in the matter. The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. M. Healy) called my attention to a matter of which, I confess, I was not cognisant when I came into the House, nor am I able to give him any information on the subject. All I know about the matter is derived from the hon. Member's speech. It appears that a legal error was made by the Local Government Board, and in consequence the Cork Union was put to certain law expenses, which he estimates at £400. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman has accurately represented the facts, which I have no doubt he has done, it was unfortunate that the error was made, but I do not think the Local Government Board have power to pay out of the funds at their disposal the costs which have been incurred by the Local Authorities. With regard to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), I entirely agree that there cannot be a more unfortunate method of dealing with pauper children than that of educating them in the workhouse. The matter came prominently before me when I was Secretary to the Local Government Board in England; and no doubt in Ireland the same evil consequences have ensued that have been experienced in England. As to the suggested remedy, that certain workhouses should be appropriated as District Schools, one difficulty would probably arise from the distribution of the disused workhouses, which might not always be found where they were wanted. I propose to appoint a small Committee to investigate the question of the amalgamation of Unions in Ireland and I have great hope that, aided by the advice which such a Committee will be able to furnish, the Government will be able to do something material in the direction of increased amalgamation.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it is proposed to take some definite step in the direction of closing some of the workhouses in Ireland. There are at present no less than 170 in Ireland, and no doubt many of them could be done away with. I hope the Government will take some definite

  165
  step to close more than they have done. There is only one workhouse in my constituency. It contains practically no inmates, and the only objections to closing it have been the petty objections of officialism. In Donegal the Local Government Board propose to close the most convenient workhouse in the county, and the consequence of their doing so will be to impose on the poor people the burden of travelling 60 or 70 miles to reach the nearest of the surviving workhouses. I think it would be a mistake to shut up a workhouse even in a thinly inhabited district in Ireland, with such a result as that. I would suggest to the Local Government Board that, whilst in many of the more prosperous parts of Ireland they could close workhouses with great effect, it would be very doubtful policy to make a clean sweep of those in Donegal. I do not believe that at all a good precedent has been created by the dissolution of Boards of Guardians in various parts of the country. More have been suppressed by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues during the last three years than ever before, and for the most trivial and petty offences. In one instance a Board was dissolved because it would not strike a rate to please the Local Government Board, when the district was so poor that it could not afford the rate. The Local Government Board had appointed paid Guardians, and the duty of paying them had fallen upon the ratepayers of the union, which is, as I have said, very poor, and which is pre-eminently one for amalgamation. If the Local Government Board had looked after their business as they ought to have done, they would have amalgamated the Unions years ago. I say that this sending down of paid Guardians is an absurd practice, a shameful practice, and a practice which inflicts grievous injury on a district. There is another matter which needs attention in connection with the Local Government Board and that is the question of Sanitary Inspection The Rural Sanitary Inspectors in Ireland are all a sham. They are usually local doctors who dare not report upon insanitary houses for fear of losing their practice. The fact is that the Local Government Board should appoint Sanitary Inspectors, not for parishes as at present, but for baronies or counties.
  166
  That is the only way in which to secure a really independent supervision of the condition of the houses in a district. As to the question of labourers' cottages, it is a very remarkable thing that so very few applications have been made throughout the entire Province of Ulster for the construction of labourers' cottages. The fault does not lie more with the ex officio than with the elected Guardians, but I believe that as long as the practical initiative rests with the Guardians the present stagnation will continue throughout the province. I only direct attention to the matter with the view of reminding those persons who are principally concerned that they have a remedy under the Act, though it is not a very good or effective remedy. They can appeal to the Board of Guardians, and I would suggest that in every case in which the local Guardians refuse to sanction these schemes the labourers should appeal to the Local Government Board.
  MR. JORDAN: I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has appointed a small Committee to consider the question of amalgamating Unions. It is a very important question, for we have a great deal too many Unions, and the conditions under which they were first formed have in many respects wholly changed. I hope that the decision of the Committee will not be founded upon the evidence of officials and contractors, who, I believe, were opposed to the amalgamation of Unions.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is it to be a Committee or a Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A small Departmental Committee.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Well, I hope the popular party will in some way be represented upon it. I should like to repeat the question I have already put to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, when this year's payment is to be made to the Poor Law Unions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the information here, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will reply to it.
  MR. MURPHY: Did I properly understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would initiate legislation to prevent the recurrence of heavy charges imposed on the Poor Law Board of Dublin for the compulsory slaughter of cattle?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said the whole question was one which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) said would occupy the attention of the Government during the recess.
  MR. MURPHY: I am glad to hear that, and I hope we shall have some legislation next Session which will put an end to this anomalous and unreasonable state of things. I wish, also, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is considering the question of the deportation of paupers into Ireland. There are no Returns later than 1880, but up to that date there was an average of between 4,000 and 5,000 people who had spent the greater part of their lives in England or Scotland sent over to the Unions in Ireland. As to the question of sanitary inspection in Ireland, the present officials seem to regard their allowances as inspectors and medical officers as a sort of perquisite, and I think they will continue to do so unless the Local Government Board call upon them to perform their duties. I should say it would be quite within the power and the duty of a Local Government Inspector, when he goes down to visit a Union, not to confine his attention to the workhouse, but to see whether the sanitary officials have performed their duties. In a great many towns the condition of the lanes and alleys and of the labourers' dwell-lings is simply a disgrace to any civilised community, and I think the Local Government Board ought to insist upon the Inspectors performing their duties.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I trust that the Local Government Board will do everything in their power to influence the Belfast Board of Guardians in the matter referred to by my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Sexton), and which affects the health of a large number of the people of Belfast. With regard to the new form of requisition, there is no doubt that, in the opinion of many of the ratepayers, what has been done has been done for political purposes. There is no precedent for the issue of such a form of requisition. The form has been prepared for the purpose of saving certain political Associations in West Belfast from expending money on collecting information. We have no fear that the result will be to affect the representation
  168
  of Belfast, but we do complain that such a discreditable practice should be allowed to take place in Belfast.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £23,962, to complete the sum for Public Works, Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: In connection with this Vote, there are many matters to which, if time permitted, we should direct the attention of the Committee. The administration of the Board of Works has formed the subject of discussion every year since I entered the House, but no matter what Party has been in power, I cannot say that our efforts at reform have been attended with any important consequences. Our objections to that administration remain as they were. Our coasts are strewn with the wrecks and ruins of piers and harbours, testifying to the neglect and incompetence of a Department which the Secretary of the Treasury has been put to much trouble to justify. I do not think it is incumbent on me at this stage of the Session and on the eve of some great measure of Local Government for Ireland, to go exhaustively into the defects of the Board, with which I think the House must be familiar. There is, however, one small matter to which I will take the opportunity to refer. There is in Dublin City a large space of public recreation ground known as St. Stephen's Green. It became the property of the citizens of Dublin a few years ago through the munificence of Sir Arthur Guinness (now Lord Guinness), and is an agreeable place of public resort in a district but inadequately provided with open spaces. In the centre of this park it has been the custom, as in Phœnix Park, to have a band for the performance of music in the summer evenings, and in June last the secretary of the workmen's club, a respectable and self supporting body of working men, wrote to the Board of Works asking for permission for the playing of the workmen's band in St. Stephen's Green on Sunday evenings. I know the band myself, and can testify to the excellence of its performances. To the application the Board of Works returned a curt, if not uncivil reply, refusing permission, and assigning no reason for doing so. Questions were put to the Secretary of the Treasury a short time ago, and he, in explanation

  169
  of the refusal, pointed out that the square was not large, and that the band might be a source of annoyance to the inmates of houses and the hospital in the square and the congregations of two churches. Now, I think I am not overestimating when I say the square has an area of 30 or 40 acres. As to the services in the churches, of course it is simply a matter of arrangement that these should not be interrupted, and in one of the churches I know that no service is held on Sunday evenings. As to the hospital and the houses, I can only say that, the inmates being subjected to the painful din of heavy traffic for six days in the week, it is absurd to suppose that there would be any annoyance in the mellow strains of a good band playing appropriate music on Sunday evening. I will not enter into a larger question with which the people of Dublin are much concerned. You want to close the public houses on Sunday, and, not attempting in any way to argue this, I will only say the people must go somewhere, they cannot be expected to pass Sunday in a state of still existence, and surely it is wise to allow such places as this park to become places of harmless and agreeable resort. I trust that the opportunity for consideration that has been given will allow of a more favourable answer being given to the request, which I, as representing the Dublin Corporation, make on behalf of the citizens.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Before the hon. Gentleman answers there is one point I would bring to his notice which has been made the subject of repeated protest, and that is the difficulty that is put in the way of tenants obtaining loans for improvements on their holdings. It is the custom of the Board to insist on the production of receipts for rent before any application for a loan is granted, although, as is very well known, there are arrears for which the landlords never do press the tenant. It is quite the ordinary practice and well understood, and does not really in any way affect the condition, that the Board shall satisfy themselves that the property is not overburdened with debts. Besides, the Board of Works loan takes precedence of other claims. It is against the interests of both landlord and tenant often that the regulation is enforced, and it is within my
  170
  knowledge that by private arrangement the landlord has provided the tenant with a receipt in order to enable him to obtain the loan. What is the use of enforcing a condition which is simply an obstacle in the way of a most useful piece of legislation?
  MR. JACKSON: I say at once quite frankly that I think the representations of the citizens of Dublin through their mouthpiece, the Lord Mayor, deserve the greatest consideration, and unless some very strong reason can be shown against it I certainly think that permission for the band to play at the place in question ought to be granted. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Donegal, I imagine that the reason why the regulation was made in the first instance was to afford security against arrears leading to the loss of the tenancy, but if the hon. Member will communicate to me particulars of any specific cases, I hope shortly to be in Dublin and will make these matters the subject of inquiry.
  MR. P. J. POWER: Can the Secretary to the Treasury give me any idea of what surplus remains on hand of the money allocated by Parliament in 1883 to works in connection with the fishing industries in Ireland? A small Commission appointed at the instance of my predecessor in the representation of Waterford, the late Mr. Blake, had the administration of the fund, and I believe a balance is left for—an unusual circumstance in such cases—considerable savings were effected from the estimates for work undertaken. My reason for asking the question is that I have had many applications in respect of this balance.
  MR. JACKSON: Speaking roundly I think it may be taken that there will be a surplus of about £20,000. The surplus is not, however, yet available, because some portion of the amount has not yet come in. Until those sums come in it would hardly be safe to undertake fresh works. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member more details if he requires them.
  MR. JORDAN: There is a small pier at Seafield on the coast of Clare which was recently repaired by the Board of Works. Complaints have been made that after the repairs débris has been left in the channel that causes a great deal of obstruction to vessels. Indeed, there are fewer facilities now for ap-

  171
  proaching the pier than there were before the pier was repaired. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will direct the attention of the Board of Works to this subject, which is the source of great complaint and causes much inconvenience to the fishermen.
  MR. JACKSON: I understand from the Board of Works that, it is the duty of the contractor for the repairs, to clear away the débris complained of. I do not think there is any doubt about that, but I will make further inquiry.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. £4,037, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland.
  5. £10,777, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
  6. £12,088, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.
  MR. BLANESome time ago the Boundary Commissioners in Ireland took evidence in relation to the extension of Municipal boundaries in various towns, but I have not since heard that they have made any Report. I gave evidence before the Commission, and in doing so strongly advocated the division of Municipal areas into wards, a question with which I understood the Commissioners had power to deal. Taking Armagh as a type, it is possible, owing to the non-division of the town into wards, for one citizen to nominate the whole of the Town Council. The result in Armagh was that one gentleman having nominated 21 Town Councillors, and they being returned, he received the appointment of Town Clerk. If a town were divided into wards abuses of this kind would not arise, for one citizen could only nominate councillors for that ward in which his own residence or property is situated. It is a reasonable proposition, I think, and I would urge the Government to press this upon the attention of the Commissioners for whom we are now voting this large sum.
  MR. FLYNN: We have to complain of the rather peculiar system of taking valuations, an automatic system founded upon no tangible or comprehensible reason, and against which there is no appeal. For instance, if alterations are made in any premises, the valuator comes round and makes a valuation, and
  172
  in the great majority of instances the variation in the value is in the direction of an increase. In a case that came under my personal knowledge, and which I only mention by way of illustration, a relative of mine made an alteration in his premises for business purposes, alterations of a structural character which as anybody could see really depreciated the value of the property. In this case an alteration was made, and it actually depreciated the letting value of the property, but the first intimation the owner had of any alteration of the assessment of the property was when he received the next tax papers, and then he found that the assessment for Income Tax, local rates, and poor rates had been increased. The discovery caused him considerable astonishment. He could not understand why he should be called upon to pay on a higher valuation when he had made alterations which had actually depreciated the letting value of his property. It was not a very serious matter certainly, but it was a question of principle which was involved, and in order to test the matter he refused to pay the local rates on the increased valuation. He arranged that a friendly summons should be served upon him, but when the case came on for hearing it was found that the Magistrates had no power to deal with the case. The increase, I may mention, was only from £5 to £10, but the principle was the same as if the increase had amounted to £500. The owner of this property, as a fact, found that the valuation officials were practically irresponsible. The truth is, that when new houses are valued in Ireland, there is a kind of "rule-of-thumb" system adopted, by which the valuation is placed at half the rack rent. It is a rough system, but it is also a very unsatisfactory system. I know that in certain parts of Ireland they are calling; for a re-valuation, and it is a cry with which I have a good deal of sympathy, but before such a re-valuation could be carried out, I think there should be some more scientific or exact principle laid down by which parties, who feel aggrieved at the re-valuation, may have a right of appeal to somebody beyond the valuator who makes it. To my own knowledge, there is property in the City of Cork which is greatly undervalued; indeed, the assessment is about

  173
  one-third of the letting value, and that property has not been interfered with for a considerable number of years, while in another part of the same city, owing to the annual or biennial visits of the valuator, the assessments have been increased, although the letting value of the property has decreased. Surely some better system could be devised than this rule-of-thumb principle, and surely it would be possible to lay down some scientific and tangible plan upon which the valuations or re-valuations should be made. I think, also, it would be desirable that the owner of the property should receive some notice of any intended visit on the part of the valuator. Now, the owner of the property to which I have referred had no knowledge whatever that the valuator had been to his premises. He did not know whether the visit was a nocturnal or a matutinal one. Probably the valuator surveyed the premises through a telescope at long range, and then disappeared without even letting the owner of the premises have the slightest suspicion that he had been investigating them. My object in making these remarks is to secure that in future the owner of the premises shall receive notice of a visit, and also that there shall be some principles laid down on which valuations shall be made instead of adopting, as at present, a rough and ready rule.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know what are the particulars of the case to which the hon. Member has referred. I have always understood that the valuations made in Ireland have given general satisfaction, and that, as a rule, there has been no revision of the valuation unless some alteration has been made in the premises. I take it that in this case, another alteration being made, an opportunity was offered for a revision of the valuation, and that would account for the increase in the assessment, and not the mere nature of the alterations made. If the hon. Member will be good enough to give me the details of the case to which he has referred, I will inquire into them, and I will, also consider whether or not it is desirable to give a power of appeal in these and similar cases. I shall also be happy to make inquiry into the points raised by the hon. Member for South Armagh.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I rise to support the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) in the complaint he has made with reference to the method of making valuations in Ireland. I do not think it is fair that one of the valuers should go down to make a valuation of property without sending some notification to the person interested in the property. The valuers really make their valuations in the dark. Perhaps they are told by some neighbour, unfriendly to the person whose property is to be valued, something that will give it an increased value; and they possibly do not consult the person who is affected. There is another important matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Secretary to the Treasury. I have received many complaints with reference to the granting of the certificates of valuation. The certificates are required for various purposes in Ireland; but the principal purpose is in connection with the Land Commission. The valuation of the land has to be stated in the originating notice to fix a fair rent, and when the people come to the Court to have their cases tried the only evidence as to valuation is the certificate from the Valuation Office signed by the Commissioner of Valuations in Ireland. It would be well that a person could get the certificate the day he applies for it. I do not see any reason why there should be unnecessary delay. I have known cases in which reasonable time was given to have certificates prepared and delivered, but in which they were not delivered until the cases were before the Court.
  MR. JACKSON: So far as the certificates are concerned, I am sure the Commissioner desires to meet the wishes of those interested in the matter as far as they possibly can. I will mention the matter to him.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS III.
  7. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £53,910, 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, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
  MR. MAC NEILL: Anyone looking at this Vote must be

  175
  Struck by the extravagant and monstrous proportions it assumes; indeed, the amount of it would be large even in a very extensive country, and when one has regard to the smallness of Ireland, the amount becomes simply monstrous. But in addition to the smallness of the country, it is a practically crimeless country. Time after time we hear of maiden Assizes. There is in Ireland crime of only one class chiefly, namely, crimes of a political complexion. Nine-tenths of the crime in Ireland springs directly or indirectly from the agrarian movement. In cases of that kind surely it is the duty of the Government and of the Crown Prosecutors, who are the paid agents of the Government, to maintain a scrupulously fair course, to conduct the prosecutions with an even keel—with justice, fairness, and impartiality. The Irish, prosecutions ought to be what prosecutions in England are, or at least used to be—namely, investigations to discover truth. But the Crown Prosecutors in Ireland exert themselves with all their force to procure convictions. Why is that? Because to the Crown Prosecutor convictions mean pay and promotion from the Government. In cases of a political complexion we are taught an object lesson of the cruelty of man to man. We see an opponent of the Government prosecuted by a man who is inspired by Party feeling and mercenary motives. In political hands the Irish Crown Prosecutor pursues his victim with the zeal of the sleuthhound and the low cunning of the fox. I wish to call attention to three cases in particular in which the Crown Prosecutors have endeavoured to secure a verdict against the accused when he was an opponent of the Government or to shield him when he was a friend of the Government. That is a serious and shocking charge to make if I could not prove it up to the hilt. The first case was tried in Dublin early this year; it was the case of Charles Freckleton, a friend of the Government, who was placed on his trial for murder. Freckle-ton was a bailiff and an emergency man on the estate of Captain Guinness. He went into a public house armed with a revolver, and deliberately shot the publican dead. Then he fired on two women, and one of them was in danger of losing her life for many weeks. The
  176
  man was placed on his trial in Green Street, but I charge that justice was manipulated in order to prevent the death penalty being inflicted. No challenging of jurors proceeded from the Crown. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) asked the Chief Secretary this question on the 11th April last—
  "Whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence in the case of Charles Freckleton, an emergency man and gamekeeper, tried in Dublin on Friday and Saturday of last week, for murder, from which it appears that Freckleton, in a public-house at Rathfarnham, in the County of Dublin, deliberately fired three shots at three different persons in succession, killing one man on the spot and wounding one young girl so seriously that for several weeks her life was despaired of; whether he has considered the observations of the presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Murphy "—
  a kind-hearted man, if ever there was one, a man who was determined to do justice in spite of the Crown—
  "In which he expressed the opinion that the crime of Freckleton was both unprovoked and without any justification whatever, and declared that there was no case in the books that would suggest that in a case of this kind the Judge should suggest that the jury should reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter; whether the jury found Freckleton guilty, not of murder but of manslaughter; whether it is a fact that, in the empannelling of this jury, the representatives of the Crown did not order any jurors to stand aside, while the prisoners challenged 20 jurors, all but four of whom were Catholics, with the result that all the 12 jurors sworn were Protestant landlords or persons connected with the landlord class; and if these allegations are well founded whether he intends to take any notice of the action of the Crown officials in this case?"
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary replied—
  "I understand that the prisoner, Charles Freckleton, was not an emergency man. He was brought over from Scotland to act as a gamekeeper for Mr. Guinness, of Zibradden, in the County of Dublin, in whose employment he was as such gamekeeper when the offence was committed. The presiding Judge made, in effect, the observations mentioned in the question, and he left it to the jury to determine whether the prisoner was guilty of murder or manslaughter, and they found a verdict of manslaughter. It is a fact that the representatives of the Crown did not ask any juror to stand aside while the prisoner challenged 20 jurors; but the religion of those challenged cannot be given. It is not known what was the religion of the 12 jurors sworn to try the prisoner, but their occupations were as follows:—1 retired officer; 1 bookseller; 1 jeweller; 1 carrier; 2 described as gentlemen; 1 manufacturer's agent; 2 bank clerks; 2 commercial clerks; and 1 farmer."

  177
  Now I will take the Committee to another case by way of contrast. Let us see how justice was meted out to the tenants of the Olphert estate. There was a crop of hard and shocking evictions in January. The peasantry resisted them. Two of the men who so resisted have now passed beyond the reach of praise or censure. Well, a whole batch of them was arrested and sent to Ennis-killen—to a district in which there was an overwhelming preponderance of Protestants. A special jury under the Crimes Act was empanelled to try them. There was a panel of 200 jurors out of a population of 84,879. There was no Catholic on the special jury panel. The Crown even challenged a number of these Protestant jurors in order to get 12 men who could be relied upon. They obtained convictions, I believe, in every case. I know they challenged, because the Solicitor General for Ireland, on official information on which I can always rely, assured me that that was the case. The Crown Counsel was a Mr. McLaughlin, who saw that the action was a political one, and who took occasion in the course of his opening remarks to compliment the Chief Secretary. The Irish Judges are far less strict to mark "out of order" iniquities than are the Presidents of this House, and it is an extreme case when a Judge interrupts a Crown Counsel in his opening remarks; but the Judge in this case did so, and told Mr. McLaughlin that his praise of the Chief Secretary was out of place and had nothing to do with the case before the Court—in which I think he was quite right. A conviction, as I say, was obtained. But a head constable named Macaneely was arrested for presenting a revolver at the head of one of the tenants on the same occasion as that upon which the events occurred which formed the subject of the trials to which I have referred. In his case, also, the venue was changed, but he was not sent to Enniskillen. He was sent for trial to Londonderry, and the same counsel who prosecuted the Donegal tenants for delending their homes prosecuted, or pretended to prosecute, Macaneely for excess of zeal in defending the emergency men. The Crown did not challenge a single juror in this case, but left that to Macaneely's counsel, who weeded out all the Papists. Is this "Government with an even keel?"
  178
  Can hon. Members feel surprise that we are not contented with the Chief Secretary's rule and do not regard that right hon. Gentleman as a Heaven-sent gift to afford us peace, prosperity, and even justice? I have another case arising out of the Olphert affair. The Committee will remember the thrill of horror that ran through the breasts of all the loyalists at Inspector Martin's death. Inspector Martin met his death at the hands of people who are supposed to be Mr. Olphert's enemies. Well, will the Committee believe that one of Mr. Olphert's tenants went scot free after committing, so far as we can see, a wilful and unprovoked murder? One of the many accusations we have brought against Mr. Olphert is this—that on his estate there is a most awful system of espionage. It seems that some of those starving creatures—tenants of Mr. Olphert—to whom a handful of meal would be quite as much as a Lord Mayor's feast to some of our friends opposite, got some small employment from a Help Society, for which a man named Beattie was agent. We believe that the moment Beattie paid these poor creatures he told Mr. Olphert, so that he might be down on them like a vulture for the few miserable shillings they received. Between Mr. Olphert and Beattie there existed a friendship—for in Ireland, where identity of interest binds people together, there exist strange friendships. A man named Irwin goes into Beattie's store, and shortly afterwards Irwin is found lying there, dead, Beattie with a smoking revolver in his hand. Of course, we do all things decently in Ireland. Beattie is brought before the Petty Sessions, and amongst the Magistrates on the Bench there is our old friend Mr. Olphert. There were three Magistrates there, one of whom was a removable; and two of these Magistrates, including the removable, said that the case should go on. Mr. Olphert, however, said it should not go on. He remembered the shillings of which this man had advised him and had enabled him to collect from his miserable tenantry. Beattie was sent for trial at the Summer Assizes at Lifford, but on that occasion there were only 17 Grand Jurors present—though the usual number was 23—and they threw out the bill, the foreman stating that there was not a sufficient number of Grand Jurors to find.

  179
  a bill. It is necessary that there should I be 12 Grand Jurors to find a true bill. Mr. Olphert again appeared on the scene—this time on the Grand Jury to do a good turn for his tenant. This was at the Summer Assizes; but at the Winter Assizes nothing was done in reference to this interesting gentleman, MR. Beattie. The Spring Assizes came round and Beattie was left alone. On the 10th of May I put this question to the Solicitor General for Ireland:—
  "Mr. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.) asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether a man named Beattie, an agent for the Kelp Company, was returned for trial to the Petty Sessions Bench at Falcarragh, to the Cork Summer Assizes, for the wilful murder of a man named Irwin, by shooting him with a revolver; whether Mr. Wybrant Olphert sat on the Bench, and decided to dismiss the charge, but was overruled by the other Magistrates; whether at the Summer Assizes at Lifford, the Grand Jury, who were only 17 in number, threw out the bill against Beattie, the foreman stating that there was not a sufficient number of Grand Jurors to find a bill; whether, having regard to the fact that a bill to become an indictment must be found to be a true bill by 12 Grand Jurors at least, will the Crown take any, and what, steps to insure a full attendance of the Grand Jury, which should consist of 23 members; was Mr. Wybrant Olphert a member of the Grand Jury by whom this bill was ignored; why was not a fresh bill sent up to the Grand Jury against the said Beattie at the Winter or Spring Assizes; and, do the Crown intend to take any further steps in investigating the circumstances of Irwin's death?
  The circumstances of the death of a man found weltering in his blood, with Beattie standing over him, holding a revolver with a steaming mouth. The reply of the Solicitor General, as given in Hansard, was in these terms:—
  "Mr. MADDEN: The facts are substantially as stated in the first, second, third, and fifth paragraphs of the question, with thi8 exception, that it is inaccurate to say that there was not a sufficient number of Grand Jorors to find the bill."
  Mr. Olphert, I openly assert, had canvassed the Grand Jury to shield his friend. The Solicitor General went on to say:—
  "In answer to the remainder of the question, I have to say that, after the bill was thrown out at the last Summer Assizes, the Attorney General"—
  a gentleman well-known for selecting jurors and unearthing old Acts of Parliament—
  180
  "The Attorney General called for a Special Report from the Crown Solicitor, and after going into the matter fully with him"—
  —Oh! I should have liked to have heard that consultation!—
  "Came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence against Beattie to justify the Crown in taking any further proceedings."
  Why did they bring the charge against Beattie in the first place, as there was not sufficient evidence—why did they put him in peril of his life? The fact of the matter is, that the murder was condoned on account of the man Beattie being a friend of Mr. Olpherts. Does not this disclose a pretty state of things in Ireland? Here are three object lessons in the way Ireland is governed. In another place, on the occasion of O'Connell's trial, a gentleman who occupied the position of Lord High Chancellor of England declared that trial by jury in Ireland was "a fraud, a delusion, and a snare." Forty years afterwards I say the same thing. Would it not, I ask, be better to stop trial by jury altogether and to send the hon. Baronet (Sir C. E. Lewis) round like a drum major to hang us all off-hand. Even the organ of the Conservative Party in Ireland—the Daily Express—when what I will call "Pigott's Act," was going through the House, declared that trial by jury in Ireland was a make-believe. It is no longer a make-believe, for we have pushed aside the drapery and have exposed it in all its enormity and imfamy as a part of Irish misgovernment. And now I will go to the inferior Courts. Do hon. Members know what the items are for expenses paid through the Crown Solicitors? I will read them, as they go to show the fox-like ingenuity of Dublin Castle. Under "G," on page 290 of the Estimates, we find these items:—
  "For various expenses paid through the Crown Solicitors, &c, namely:—

  Clerks of the Crown.

  Clerks of the Peace.

  Expenses of Crown Solicitors for Special Duty.

  Expenses of Crown Solicitors for Winter Assizes

  Expenses of Crown Solicitors' Assistants for Winter A sizes.

  Expenses of Sessional Crown Solicitors for Special Duty.

  Expenses of Juries at Assizes.

  Printing Briefs, with sanction of Attorney General.

  Defence of Prisoners in cases of Murder.

  181

  Extra Expenses of Traversers and their Witnesses in cases at Winter Assizes, and in cases of Charge of Venue under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act."

  I should have thought that list would have exhausted the ingenuity of the Castle. But, not so. There is one sweeping item that is threefold the amount of any one of the other items, namely, "Miscellaneous Charges, £3,000?" Why is this money spent? It is not spent on stationery or telegrams. They are provided for under different heads. What is to be done for us, or rather against us, by means of this £3,000? I put that to the Solicitor General for Ireland, and I shall insist upon having an answer before the Vote is taken. We have here an item in connection with the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, and I am not exaggerating when I say that every prosecution under that Act has not been for the prevention of crime, or to promote peace and order, or even for the punishment of the new made crimes under the Crimes Act, but has been undertaken for political purposes. I will give seven or eight examples to show that the Coercion Act has been put into active operation for ulterior reasons—first, in the service of the Times; secondly, to punish men who have acted against the Government here in London; thirdly, to destroy the reputation of those who have been helping to win elections in this country; and fourthly—and this is the most serious charge of all—to inflict punishment on the men who have exposed the character of the tribunals in Ireland. I have mentioned the Times, and I think the present Administration might take for their motto, "We go with the Times." Now, I think it is an axiom that will be generally accepted that punishment should follow the commission of a crime as quickly as possible. That arch-heretic, that wicked man, the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) made a speech on the 29th September, of which Lord Salisbury said if the Government did not order a prosecution, they would be accessories to murder. No action was taken at the time, and on October 22 the Special Commission opened. In the middle of November various libels upon the Commission appeared in United Ireland, and the hon. Member for North-East Cork was summoned
  182
  for contempt. He justified himself, and the Court, though finding he had technically committed a contempt, did not award any punishment. No; but other means of punishment were taken. My hon. Friend was delivered over to the "removables," and received sentence from MR. Roche and another, ostensibly for the speech delivered at Ballyknee four months previously, but really for the blow he had given the Commission and its masters. Take another illustration: In November last the hon. Member for West Kerry, who had been writing articles in his newspaper with reference to the Coercion Act for 12 or 15 months without interference on the part of the Government, was arrested and sentenced to six months' imprisonment because he was actively engaged in getting up evidence for the defence for the purpose of its being laid before the Special Commission. On the other hand, Captain Plunkett had been allowed 59 days leave in London to enable him to get up evidence on behalf of the Times. That is the way in which the Government have worked the Crimes Act against their political opponents. Then, again, it having come to the knowledge of the hon. Member for East Cork that a Government official had been guilty of an abominable crime, he was arrested under the Coercion Act, and, having refused to withdraw the charge for the sake of the man's wife and children, was sent to prison for a month to keep him out of the way, so as to enable a bogus prosecution to be instituted against the accused official. The learned counsel who represented the Crown upon that occasion was none other than MR. Ronan, one of the counsel for the Times, and who has since been honoured for his services by being made a Queen's Counsel. Again, the hon. Member for South Kerry, the hon. Member for South Galway, and the hon. Member for North Kildare have each been prosecuted this year for speeches which they made in the previous November, while the hon. Member for East Clare was prosecuted in February last for speeches delivered in the previous September and October, the charges having been left hanging over his head until it was found convenient to prevent him from bringing about a settlement between the landlord and the tenants on the Vandeleur

  183
  estate. The result of my hon. Friend's imprisonment is that his eyesight has been ruined. These are a few instances out of many that could be given to indicate how the Government use the Coercion Act simply in the interests of the landlords and of the Times, and for the gratification of mean and petty vindictiveness. The hon. Member for North Monaghan was an object lesson last night, and I think few Members will forget it. I was passing through the corridor, and I heard a gentleman—not a Member of this House—remark to an English Member, "What an indictment against the Government!" I am not the first to make the charge; but I do make it that Lord Ashbourne's Act is manipulated in the interest of a few landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for North- East Cork advised the tenants on Lord Monck's estate not to buy their holdings under Lord Ashbourne's Act at 17 years' purchase, and for that he was given three months' imprisonment. This was not the charge, but this was his actual offence. I say the Ashbourne Act is worked to enable landlords to grab the public money. Under this sub-head H—expenses for the defence of public officials—there are no more scandalous items even in the records of Dublin Castle, showing the worst in connection with the passage of the Act of Union. What do these items mean? They mean that Resident Magistrates are given a free hand to carry out their system of persecution of the Irish people, and you stand by with the public funds to defend them, and to indemnify them against the efforts of the people when those who suffer grievous wrong try to vindicate their just rights. I do not speak in any sense of irritation; I simply state the plain facts; and to anyone with any sense of truth and public virtue the statement carries one of the heaviest indictments made against any Government.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am anxious to bring before the Committee a matter to which I had occasion to refer in the House a short time ago, but before doing so I will say a few words on the relations between the Attorney General and the Resident Magistrates. I believe that much of the injustice that is perpetrated in Ireland is due far more to the authority directing the prosecutions than to the Resident
  184
  Magistrates themselves. They are in many cases, if not as a rule, ignorant of the law, while the Crown Solicitors before them are well informed on legal matters and often men of considerable ability. I believe I am right in saying that the consent of the Attorney General is required for all prosecutions. But it is obviously impossible for the Attorney General to go fully into the details of all the cases. Whether it is determined by inferior officials in Dublin or by local authorities what prosecutions shall proceed I know not; but I feel confident that it is upon the inferior authority that many prosecutions are ordered that never ought to take place. When the cases are before the Resident Magistrates, I think only those who have seen the proceedings can understand how completely the Magistrates are overshadowed by the Crown Prosecutor. The Resident Magistrates are ignorant of law, they are inferior in ability and position often to the Crown Prosecutor, who appears with all the prestige of the prosecution having been determined upon by the Attorney General, and the Resident Magistrates have not the courage to withstand the influence of the Crown Prosecutor. I have seen these things going on, and have almost pitied the Resident Magistrates for the subordinate position in which they are placed. Injustice is often done by the arbitrary and capricious selection of persons for prosecution. The prosecutions arising out of public meetings are not directed against those who take the most prominent part in them, but rather against persons present who have made themselves obnoxious to landlords by acting as leaders among their tenants. In the same way, in prosecutions for boycotting, tradesmen are selected with reference to some disputes going on between landlords and tenants. The same I individual is often prosecuted several times with the effect of ruining and, apparently, with the object of doing so. Last year I called attention to the persistent persecution in this way of Mr. John Roche, a respectable tradesman of Woodford, who has since told his story before the Special Commission in such a way as to establish his respectability, and to show that he was prosecuted simply because he was obnoxious to the great landlord of the district. I got no satisfactory answer last year, but I have

  185
  the satisfaction of knowing that the persecution of Mr. Roche has ceased, though he continues to do exactly as he did before. This leads me to the case with which I now have to deal. It was raised in questions addressed to the Chief Secretary not very long ago, and the answers of the right hon. Gentleman were so unsatisfactory that I then intimated my intention of referring to the subject on the Estimates. Since then I have endeavoured to fully inform myself as to the facts, and I have obtained the depositions in respect to the charges on which this gentleman to whom I am about to allude was connected. Mr. Fitzgibbon is one of the leading tradesmen of Castlerea, one of the most respectable and respected men in the town. A landlord of the district with whom I have some acquaintance has informed me that Mr. Fitzgibbon bears the highest character for probity, that nothing can be said against him in his private capacity, though he added he was a "dangerous politician." Mr. Fitzgibbon, three or four years ago, sympathising with the tenants of the neighbourhood, became a prominent member of the National League, and assisted the tenants in their combination against the landlord. No doubt Mr. Fitzgibbon had a great deal to do with these combinations. No one, however, is more anxious than he is to induce landlord and tenant to come to reasonable terms, and, mainly through his endeavours, agreements have been arrived at and settlements come to. For months past there have been no disputes, and the district has settled down. In one case a landlord asked Mr. Fitzgibbon to name the terms of settlement, and I mention this as indicating the opinion in which Mr. Fitzgibbon is held. In consequence, he has been specially marked by the authorities for prosecution. Three times he has been sent to prison with hard labour, and the first was in April of last year, when he was prosecuted for making a speech in which he was said to have incited persons not to supply the police. He was convicted on the evidence of policemen who had not made a report of his speech at the time, and who spoke of his speech from memory two months afterwards. Upon the evidence of those two policemen, given upon their memory of what had taken place two months previously, Mr.
  186
  Fitzgibbon was sentenced to a month's hard labour; and, although he asked that the sentence should be increased to six months, in order to allow of appeal, the Resident Magistrates refused the application. On coming out of prison Mr. Fitzgibbon was immediately prosecuted for an offence which had occurred before the first prosecution—namely, for inciting the tenants of the district to combine against the payment of rent. The case lasted 18 days, and eventually a case was stated for the Superior Courts. His conviction, however, was sustained, and he was sent to prison on a sentence of four months' hard labour. Will the House believe that the Crown had the incredible meanness to charge Mr. Fitzgibbon with the costs of this case before the Superior Court, amounting in all to £130? Well, no sooner had Mr. Fitzgibbon come out of prison a second time than he was once more prosecuted, this time for an offence which had occurred 11 months previously. The offence was that of inciting to boycott. There was a farm from which some person had been unjustly evicted, and there was a meeting of the Land League, at which it was determined that this farm should be boycotted. Mr. Wynn was present at that meeting, and made a complaint of the tenant then in possession. Some time afterwards the then tenant gave the farm up, and Mr. Wynn, a member of the Land League, took the farm behind the backs of his friends. Mr. Wynn was questioned about this transaction, and he denied the fact, although it afterwards turned out to be true. The police took Mr. Wynn to Fitzgibbon's, and, being refused supplies by the latter, they prosecuted him in respect of the previous meeting of the Land League. It seems to me that to rake up an occurrence of that kind, which took place seven months before the second prosecution, was monstrous, and would not be tolerated in England, or in any country where trial by jury is in force. When Mr. Fitzgibbon came out of prison at last he was followed constantly by the police. While in prison Mr. Fitzgibbon's business was managed by his brother-in-law, who came from a distance. This gentleman happened to be present at a Land League meeting, and was pounced upon by the police. He was called upon to give bail for good

  187
  behaviour, and, in default, he was sent to prison. Looking at this case as a whole I think there was a determination shown on the part of the authorities to ruin, persecute, and destroy this man. It was not a case of prosecution, but of persecution. I could give other illustrations of what has taken place, but I will not weary the House. I venture to think that what I have brought forward is worthy of the attention and serious consideration of the House as examples of what is taking place at the present moment under the administration of the Coercion Act.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has called attention to the case of Mr. Fitzgibbon, which he has introduced for the purpose of showing that that person was persistently prosecuted with a view to his ruin. He has also stated that similar things are taking place in other parts of Ireland of a kind that could not possibly take place in England. The best answer I can give to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is to call attention to the successive acts of the man whose case he has cited as a typical one, and to ask the Committee to draw their own conclusions as to whether the proceedings which were instituted against this man were prompted by a desire to ruin and destroy him, or whether it was not really the case of a man who, from whatever motives, had entered upon a course of open, persistent defiance of the law which would not be tolerated in England or in any other civilised country. If hon. Gentlemen argue on the assumption that boycotting and the Plan of Campaign are not crimes but eccentricities, then the prosecutions of this man upon the part of the Government might appear capricious; but if, as the highest Courts in Ireland have laid down, boycotting conspiracies are criminal conspiracies, and the Plan of Campaign is a conspiracy punishable by the common law of the land as being dangerous to the community, then I ask what course could the Executive take other than that of asserting the law, even though the motives actuating the individual might be as excellent as those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in this case. The first case against Mr. Fitzgibbon was on
  188
  the 1st of May, 1888, when he was summoned to answer a charge of having incited by a speech in Roscommon to boycott the police. The police were in consequence boycotted, and refused all supplies of provisions, and for that little eccentricity on the part of Mr. Fitzgibbon he was convicted and sentenced to a month's imprisonment. In the district in which Mr. Fitzgibbon himself resided boycotting and intimidation of the grossest character continued to exist. The next prosecution against Mr. Fitzgibbon was for inciting the tenants not to pay their rent. That prosecution followed from an inquiry under the first section of the Crimes Act, which had the happy result of eliciting evidence which had led to the practical suppression of boycotting and intimidation in the neighbourhood. The case was, however, adjourned from time to time in consequence of the difficulty in getting witnesses who had given evidence at the preliminary inquiry to repeat their evidence in open Court. Finally, on August 14, 1888, the Court sentenced Mr. Fitzgibbon to four months' imprisonment. The Magistrates stated a case, which was argued before the Court of Exchequer on November 23, 1888; but it was a remarkable fact that there was no appeal upon the merits. The defendant elected to appeal on a bad point of law.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He could not have appealed on the merits also.
  MR. MADDEN: Yes; but if he had a case on the merits, would he have taken an appeal on a bad law point? He took a bad law point and the appeal was decided against him.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Chief Baron himself said it was a very "narrow shave."
  MR. MADDEN: I must say that I consider a point of law upon which an appellant risks his liberty for four month s and which is decided against him a bad law point, and if he felt that he had a good case on the merits he should have appealed to the County Court Judge. Not only did the Exchequer Court decide against Mr. Fitzgibbon, but the Lord Chief Baron went out of his way to compliment the Resident Magistrates upon the remarkable accuracy of their decisions upon all the points which arose in the course of a most complicated case. The third case against

  189
  Mr. Fitzgibbon was for having taken part in a conspiracy to compel one Wynne to give up a farm which was on an estate where the Plan of Campaign had been established. The offence, it will be observed, was committed under circumstances of aggravation, the Plan of Campaign having been established on the estate. Wynne was summoned on June 17, 1888, to appear before the League, and Mr. Fitzgibbon called upon him to give up the farm, saying that it would be made "hot" for him if he did not do so. Wynne refused to part with the farm, and it was made "hot" for him. He was rigorously boycotted and refused provisions in Castlereagh. When Mrs. Wynne endeavoured to obtain goods at Mr. Fitzgibbon's shop he refused to supply her, and forced a policeman who accompanied her out of the house. He then took Mrs. Wynne by the shoulder and put her out of the shop also. [Opposition cheers from below the Gangway.] Hon. Members cheer. Would they cheer such conduct if it had been manifested in any other circumstances?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Was not Wynne a member of the Land League himself, and had he not joined in supporting every resolution passed by the League?
  MR. MADDEN: I must say that I fail to see the relevancy of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, unless, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman holds a doctrine which I cannot accept, namely—that to turn the wife of a member of the National League out of a shop is defensible conduct. Now, this is a remarkable case, and has been selected by the right hon. Gentleman as a test case. There was an appeal which was heard by the County Court Judge, one whom the right hon. Gentleman, in a book just published by him, has truly described as an able and experienced Judge. Well, the conviction was affirmed on appeal. He has been made a first class misdemeanant, and his sentence was diminished by two months; but, at the same time, he did receive a substantial sentence. As I have just said, this is the case which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to bring forward as an indictment against the administration of the criminal law in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has devoted a great portion of his time
  190
  to this matter, and has carefully picked out one particular instance, and it is for the Committee to say how far he has succeeded in making out his proposition. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by discussing cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill), in which he admits that crimes were committed, but attributes the prosecution of those crimes to petty spite on the part of the Government.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Intervening transactions arose which made it convenient for the Government to gratify its petty personal spite. My charge is that offences by individuals under the Crimes Act, having been left unnoticed for three or four months, when other circumstances arose which rendered it convenient to prosecute those individuals the Government meanly took advantage of the old offences upon which to base their prosecution.
  MR. MADDEN: That is what I said. I decline to take up the time of the Committee with discussing the imputation of motives of a prosecution when it is admitted that a crime has been committed. The hon. and learned Member referred to the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, who, he said, was proceeded against for interfering with applications under the Ashbourne Act.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I said the hon. Member was arrested under a warrant in reference to that very charge, but the Government would not proceed with it, as they had got a double-barrelled charge.
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Government were using the Crimes Act to facilitate purchases under the Ashbourne Act. Now, the fact is that this portion of the charge was withdrawn by the prosecution, and the hon. Member was charged and sentenced for taking part in the Plan of Campaign. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the case of Captain Guinness's bailiff. Now, in that ease there was nothing of a political, sectarian, or agrarian nature. It only came to this. The able and experienced Judge no doubt charged for a conviction for murder. There was not an acquittal, but a conviction on the minor charge of manslaughter. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman with

  191
  his experience cannot say that there is anything extraordinary in that. No doubt the skilful defence of the prisoner's counsel induced the jury to bring in the verdict for the lesser crime. Then there is the case of the man Irwin, who was shot. There is absolutely no evidence of murder beyond the fact that the man met his death in Bestley's house. There again there was nothing of a sectarian or political or agrarian character in the case, and not only the Bench of Magistrates on which Mr. Olphert sat, but the Grand Jury were unable to find a true Bill. The Attorney General called for a special Report of the case, for the Crown Solicitor was unable to find any evidence which would justify him in sending the case again before a Grand Jury.
  MR. MAC NEILL: What about Sergeant Mac neill?
  MR. MADDEN: I regret to say I am unable to deal with that case without notice. I cannot carry all the details of these cases in my head. If I had had notice I would willingly have made every inquiry into the case. I now ask what foundation is laid by the cases brought under the notice of the Committee for a grave impeachment of the administration of the law in Ireland? And if these cases are not a foundation for such an impeachment, why has the time of the Committee been taken up in discussing them?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken is always courteous and endeavours to state his case fairly; but I desire to put to him one or two questions in regard to matters which have been referred to in the course of the Debate. I will take, first, the case of John Fitzgibbon, in reference to the facts of which I do know something. John Fitzgibbon was prosecuted for the crime of "inciting to conspiracy," and this was a phrase which was not known to the law until the Coercion Act was passed. He was given no opportunity for appeal. He was sentenced to a month's imprisonment, and I subsequently asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to inform the House what terrible thing it was he said, but the Solicitor General very cautiously, and no doubt wisely, declined to give that information. The charge of inciting to conspiracy arose in connection with the proceedings on Lord De-Freyne's estate. That was not the only charge brought
  192
  against John Fitzgibbon. The second was that he had taken part in a criminal conspiracy, and for that he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. It has been suggested that he acted unwisely in appealing against this sentence on two bad points of law. But what were these points of law? It was admitted that the prosecution in this case was preceded by a Star Chamber inquiry, and the Act provided that in all these cases the person accused of crime respecting which the inquiry had been held under that section should be supplied with copies of the depositions taken. But Johns Fitzgibbon was denied these depositions, and this refusal formed one of the legal points which was raised in the Court of Appeal. The question was whether or not he was entitled to the depositions, and his appeal was defeated on the ground that the Petty Sessions Act was incorporated with the Coercion Act; that the word "trial" was used, and that the proceedings in Petty Sessions were only a hearing, and, that, therefore, this special provision did not apply in this case. Surely it was the intention of Parliament when this Act was passed that if there was a Star Chamber inquiry the accused should be entitled to the depositions which were taken. That was, undoubtedly, the plain intention of Parliament; but the Court decided against the appellant on a purely technical point, and he not only had to undergo his term of imprisonment, but he was fined £131 in addition, in the shape of the costs incurred in the appeal. I think it is a monstrous thing that the Government, instead of being satisfied with the terms of imprisonment to which Mr. Fitzgibbon was sentenced, should also press for the payment of the costs in connection with the appeals. Now what was the second point of law? It was that in order to prove the case against the defendant it was necessary to produce a copy of United Ireland published in the year 1886, which contained the promulgation of the Plan of Campaign. Under Section 10 Sub-section 4 it was necessary that the prosecution should take place within six months of the conspiracy, and as this prosecution occurred in 1888, whereas the Plan of Campaign was promulgated in United Ireland in 1886, and as it was necessary, in order to prove the cases against the defendant, that the promulgation in 1886

  193
  should be proved, it was argued that the case did not come within the section. I think that that was a very good point, and that a barrister who failed to raise it on an appeal would not in the future get a brief which was worth a glass of whisky. Well, the result of the appeal was that we settled the law for the right hon. Gentleman, and for doing that we are fined £131 in the shape of costs; and we have also since learned that the case was decided against us by "the very narrowest shave." I admit that in appealing on points of law we imperilled the liberty of the defendant; but I think it is better to appeal on two difficult law points than on other grounds which we know from past experience to be hopeless. Now remember that this conspiracy was in connection with the proceedings on Lord De-Freyne's estate, and it is a remarkable thing that, Fitzgibbon having acted as paymaster under the Plan of Campaign, the receipts given by him to the tenants were afterwards accepted by Lord De-Freyne's agent as cash. Now what was the third case brought against Mr. Fitzgibbon? He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour for refusing to supply a woman named Wynn with what were stated to be the necessaries of life. But what were the facts? The woman's husband was formerly a prominent member of the Land League, but he left that organization and went over to the police. He took an evicted farm, and it seems that he had some difficulty in purchasing goods from his neighbours. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said a good deal about the woman having been deprived of the necessaries of life, but what were the facts? This woman, accompanied by a policeman, went into Fitzgibbon's drapery shop, and asked for—what? She asked for an ostrich feather! The land grabbers evidently want their wives to be dressed in ostrich feathers; they swear that these are "necessaries of life," and they get policeman to prove the allegation. Now, John Fitzgibbon, seeing that this was an attempt to "bull-dose" him, put the policemen out of the shop by the shoulders, and also put the woman outside. The Government thereupon prosecuted him and got him sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and not only was this man
  194
  imprisoned over and over again because he took the side of his fellow-countrymen, but that did not satisfy the Government. They thought to secure his ruin. He had a good business in the town of Castlereagh; and by sending him to gaol his business was, of course, abandoned to the mercy of his clerks, and while he was so imprisoned the Government took another step and arrested and imprisoned his manager. English Members, who know nothing about these cases, cheer the right hon. Gentleman when he attacks the Irish Representatives, and I must say they ought to be ashamed of themselves for doing so. I invite the smiling Member for Dover to write a few letters on the basis of the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians. He can describe "St. George" wrestling with the "Dragon" of the Land League, and he can go into the subject of "ostrich feathers," considered as "necessaries of life." What was done when the ease came on for appeal? The counsel for the prosecution made a terrible speech about boycotting. He suggested that the defendant was a terror to the neighbourhood, and consequently the County Court Judge, in the interests of what is called law and order, gave a decision confirming the conviction, but reducing the sentence to two months' imprisonment without hard labour. I am not going to quarrel with the learned County Court Judge. I believe he was the first County Court Judge in Ireland who directed that Coercion Act prisoners should be treated as first-class misdemeanants. These cases are not infrequent. They are like snow-flakes—one overlaps the other, and the dirtiest is always seen at the top. The hon. Member for the Holderness Division of York approves of the action of the Government in this matter. I should like to know what the working men in his constituency would say if he went down to them and endeavoured to justify the imprisonment of a man for refusing to sell ostrich feathers, which were asked for on the ground that they were necessaries of life. What would be done even in an English village if a man left the Primrose League? Would the Primrose dames patronise his shop? And now I come to another case, and that is that of Miss Cusack, who was deprived of her licence by two resident

  195
  bravos about two years ago, because she refused to serve some emergency men with porter. Well, we took her case on a technical point to the Queen's Bench, and we got her back the license, but will it be believed that in this case it was sworn that porter was a "necessary of life"? I should have thought that the hon. Member for South Tyrone, instead of condemning, would have approved of the conduct of Miss Cusack in refusing to supply porter to these men, and would have commended her self-denial and her efforts in the cause of temperance. They got her license put back. She applied for it next year, but they went at her again, and she was deprived of her licence by Magistrates of the type of poor old Colonel Carew, who I do not think has intellect enough to know how to sweep a street crossing clean. Instead of appealing from Philip drunk to Philip drunker, namely, the Court of Quarter Sessions, we took the case to the Queen's Bench, and again we got Miss Cusack back her license. This went on for three years. Her brother was arrested and sent to gaol, as also were a number of other people from the village in which she resides. Colonel Carew, having been instructed by two solemn decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench as to how to deprive a publican of his license, shot at Miss Cusack once more, and again deprived her of her license. Miss Cusack and her friends, however, took heart and determined upon starting a club. They opened a club in the village, and Miss Cusack's brother was made manager, whilst she herself had a position in it. I read in the newspaper to-day—and I am sure it will gratify the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see how the revenue can be enhanced—only members are admitted to the club, and they can, of course, go in every time they want a pint of porter. Emergency men cannot go in, and because of that I see that Mr. Cusack is being prosecuted for, probably, the 27th time, this time by Mr. George Bolton. Fancy Mr. George Bolton prosecuting any body—the saintly George Bolton, whom an English Judge said ought to have been struck off the Rolls for fraud and infamy of every kind. The man is creeping with infamy, but he is good enough at all times to prosecute for the Crown. Miss Cusack this time
  196
  was prosecuted for selling drink on unlicensed premises; but as it was shown that the club was regularly established, the Magistrates—and Colonel Carew was amongst them—what a bitter morsel it must have been for him—were obliged to dismiss the charge on the ground that the club was a legal institution, because drink was only sold to members, and all the necessary precautions had been taken to avoid a breach of the law. An application was made to the Magistrates to state a case, and, though such applications are almost invariably refused in the case of poor unfortunate prisoners, as a salve to Mr. George Bolton, Colonel Carew stated a case to the Court of Queen's Bench. Look at the cost of this proceeding to Miss Cusack. Supposing she succeeds, I venture to say these proceedings will cost her £30 or £40. Bye the way, I forgot to mention that last May Miss Cusack was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for refusing to sell a box of matches to an emergency man, and she is still under that sentence. And you tell us, for sooth! that cases of this kind are not cases of persecution. I ask, "What else are they?" And you talk of the sordidness of the publicans of Ireland! When we find people—even women—willing to go to gaol and to lose their licences, which means the loss of their livings in cases of this kind, I say that we, on our part, will never allow it to be said that the Irish publicans are sordid and money-grubbing, and animated only by one consideration, that of battening on the ruin of other people without standing up for them and defending them. There are a great many more cases. Like the Arabian Nights Entertainments, they are endless. But so far as the cases before the Magistrates are concerned, I did not intend to recite them. What I intended when I rose to-night to go into was the question of the specific promise of the Chief Secretary that we should have an appeal in all these cases. The right hon. Gentleman is very sick, no doubt, of hearing of this promise of his of 17th May, 1887. He has told us that he has dealt with this matter over and over again. Well, I have been a diligent student of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, and out of it. I consider that his speeches always repay perusal; but I have never been able to

  197
  find that he has "dealt" with his refusal to carry out his pledge. If I were a person drawing £4,000 a year, and very ticklish on the point of honour, and always standing up for morality and law and order, and laying down the necessity for conscientious dealings as between man and man, I think I should try to get out of this statement in Hansard. He has never answered it. In the words of the celebrated miner spoken of by Bret Harte, in the Lucie of Roaring Camp, when the miner gave the baby his thumb, "he wrastled with it, the little cuss." Here is his statement—and so long as he is in office, and so long as there is no Bill passed, I shall repeat it over and over again, like the beads of a rosary—and I would suggest to the hon. Member for Dover that he should write his next letter about it:—
  "The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the law of conspiracy is an obscure law. It is said that it is a difficult law, which is capable of dangerous extension, and that we are leaving its administration to men who are not learned in the law—namely, the .Resident Magistrates. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot to say that the Resident Magistrates' decision is not final.
  "Mr. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.): He may give two months' imprisonment.
  "Mr. A. J. BALFOUR; I do not complain of the interruption. The hon. and learned Member is quite correct in saying that under the Bill, as we have drafted it, we may have followed too closely,"
  "Too closely" are the words in Hansard, but this is a corrected speech, and I believe the word used was "servilely" or "slavishly,"
  the Act of 1882, and that by the existing law of Ireland there is no appeal if the imprisonment is for less than a month. But we propose to give an appeal in every case.
  "Mr. T. M. HEALY: With no accumulative sentences?
  "Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: There will be an appeal in every case to a County Court Judge, and if, on legal technicalities, the County Court Judge is objected to, the Government will be prepared to consider a plan for giving an appeal in cases in which a legal difficulty may be involved to a still higher tribunal."
  198
  This statement remains on record. It has never been explained. He says he has "dealt" with it, but will he deal with it in a manner that our intellects can grasp? He has promised us an appeal, but no appeal has been granted, and no attempt made to carry out the pledge which was given, and I say unfulfilled is shamed by its non-fulfilment. But this law has obtained a new extension; the Government are now proceeding almost entirely under the Statute of Edward III., and are giving six months' imprisonment under it. Under that Statute there is no appeal of any kind. But not only that; they proceed under the Statute of Edward III. and the Crimes Act at the same that a Minister whose pledge stands time, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the local magistrates. Take the case of Mr. Stack. On the 12th February, at Tralee, he was charged with conduct calculated to lead to a breach of the peace by cheering Mr. W. O'Brien when he was being conveyed as a prisoner to the station. Now, observe—this is the deposition of Cecil Roche; and who is it made before? Cecil Roche is a Resident Magistrate, and the deposition was made before another Resident Magistrate, Captain Welsh. Was it made in a Court of Justice? No; it was made in Tralee Police Barracks. They dragged Mr. Stack into the nearest police barracks; they got one puppet to try the case and another puppet to give evidence. Having ousted the ordinary Petty Sessions jurisdiction they tried him summarily before this Resident Magistrate. At the ordinary Petty Sessions Mr. Latchford would have sat on the Bench, to whom Mr. Cecil Roche had given a sentence of a month's imprisonment, which was quashed, and also Mr. H. St. John Donovan, a Catholic Magistrate and a Nationalist. For this reason Mr. Stack was brought before a puppet of the Government and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. In his depositions Mr. Cecil Roche said that he was aware that the town was proclaimed. That was an illegal way of giving evidence with regard to a printed document; such evidence would not have been given by the Attorney General at

  199
  the Commission. The deposition then continued—
  "I arrived from Tralee Petty Sessions and proceeded with a body of police"—
  fancy Sir J. Hannen proceeding down Fleet Street with a body of police—
  "and military in command of Colonel Turner)"
  Colonel Turner being the genius who selects Mr. Cecil Roche for the trials. Mr. Roche proceeded to say that there was a large and disorderly crowd cheering and booing on the street. God help the people who are batoned! When the police make a baton charge you can hear the batons go through the skull just as a spoon goes through an egg shell. A man, not knowing what is going on, may come round the corner of a street and be met by a policeman, who will strike him with his baton, and down he goes. Then Mr. Roche went on to say—
  "They booed for Balfour and myself. I saw Stack standing at the door of the house among a group of persons. When the car conveying Mr. O'Brien passed I saw the defendant take off his hat and waive it over his head. At that moment there was mingled cheering and booing from the people in the street. From my knowledge of the town of Tralee, as Resident Magistrate, I think such conduct is extremely likely to lead to a breach of the peace."
  I hoped the hon. and gallant Commander opposite (Colonel Saunderson) is satisfied with the deposition of his friend the Resident Magistrate. For that Mr. Stack was bound over to be of good behaviour or to go to gaol for six months. Mr. Stack gave bail, but how does that affect the question? He has no appeal. Is it not a monstrous thing, as the Lord Chief Baron said, that a man has to humiliate himself by giving bail in a matter of this kind? You must write yourself down a coward or go to gaol, without appeal, for the space of six months. And that is the law of Ireland. I say that such a state of things is shocking and appalling. If this went on in any other country in the world except Ireland numberless indignation meetings would be convened. Look at the row you are creating at this
  200
  moment over a wretched adulteress, because she is one of yourselves—a respectable person so-called. But everybody who is brought up in the Divorce Court now is a respectable person. The whole English nation is throbbing and thrilling to know what will happen in this case of Mrs. Maybrick, but many are the men who have been hanged in Ireland upon evidence upon which you would not hang a dog in this country. Ireland might be sweltering in blood, and you would have no indignation meetings. You are easily excited by events in Bulgaria and Armenia, but you regard Ireland as a British possession. Ireland is only four hours from your shores, and, therefore, you do not feel called upon to show her any consideration. When your own Minister promises an appeal in all cases under a certain Act, and breaks his word, he is regarded as the greatest statesman of the age. I brought in a Bill giving appeal, but it was objected to by followers of the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought the Government would have looked upon me as a saviour. I took the trouble to draft the Bill. The Government had a measure ready to their hands if they had liked to pass it. But the Government cling to the system whereby the Catholic and the Nationalist is tried by a packed jury of his enemies, and whereby the Protestant and the Orangeman is tried by a jury of his friends. When the clause permitting the empanelling of a special jury was before the House in 1877, and we got up to expose the nature of it, the only answer we got from the Treasury Bench was: "I beg to move that the question be now put." The qualification for a special juror is so restricted that, in a county where there are only 10,000 voters, there will only be about 200 jurors. You may take it that the special jury class is the Orange class, the agent class, the Magistrate class, I assert this proposition—that I firmly believe that if a Nationalist Member of Parliament were shot in cold blood in the streets of Dublin nobody would be punished for the offence. If I were shot in my constituency by an Orangeman there would be no more chance of the man being brought to justice than there is of grasping at the stars. With

  201
  the single exception of Dr. Cross, who by the most overwhelming evidence was hanged for poisoning his wife, there has been no Protestant hanged for murder in Ireland for years upon years; and I say, further more—for plenty of murders have been committed by Protestants—that, when Protestants are convicted, they escape without adequate punishment. There was a blackguard called Lloyd, a landlord in Tipperary, who, with his bailiff, got drunk in the town of Templemore. A man spoke to him and advised him to go home. Lloyd pulled out his pistol and fired "at large," as the Americans say, and the unfortunate man was killed, while another man was wounded almost mortally. Lloyd was returned for trial, but the Crown Solicitor, Mr. George Bolton, was with Mr. Soames in Lincoln's Inn, and the Sheriff did not return the Special Jury panel. So the whole county was inconvenienced, and a Special Assize was held, when Mr. George Bolton returned from the O'Donnell trial. Lloyd was proved to have murdered the man in cold blood; but every Catholic was challenged off the jury. A verdict of manslaughter was brought in, and the Judge gave him 10 years' penal servitude. Was the murder of Inspector Martin worse than this? Inspector Martin, at any rate, met his death in a tumult that he himself did much to provoke by seizing a priest as he was returning from the celebration of the most sacred rite of the Church, and brandishing a sword over the priest's head; at least, Inspector Martin was killed in hot blood. Then there was the case of the Walkers in Belfast, who killed a policeman and a soldier, and wounded almost mortally another policeman. They were tried by a Judge and jury, and the Judge said that the jury must convict or violate their oaths. They did violate their oaths. One man was acquitted, the other was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude. Was the murder of Inspector Martin worse than that? Take another case, that of John Kinsella, killed by a gang of emergency men, who had no more title to come upon his land than a stranger has to walk into this House. A verdict of wilful murder was returned; but the Grand Jury ignored the Bill.
  202
  The venue was changed, and a Special Jury, off which every Catholic was challenged, unanimously acquitted the prisoner, and the blood of John Kinsella at this hour cries to heaven for vengeance. Was the body and soul of Inspector Martin more precious in the sight of man than the body and soul of John Kinsella? Then there was the case of the man Frackleton, a gamekeeper to one of the Guinnesses, and who, drinking at a counter and being spoken to by a man, drew his revolver, and, without justification or quarrel of any kind, shot the man through the head. Not content with that, this man fired at the woman behind the counter, wounding her so that she has not yet left her bed; and yet a third shot Frackleton fired and wounded another woman who entered. Did you change the venue for Frackleton's trial? No, you had a jury of stalwarts in Dublin, who, on the plainest evidence of murder, brought in a verdict of manslaughter. The learned Judge was appalled at the verdict which the jury returned. The Chief Secretary was asked at the time to give some compensation to the widow of the murdered man, as was done in the case of a man murdered in Monaghan by some Orangemen as they were returning from some of their religious exercises, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian made the widow of Philip Maguire a compassion able allowance of £100; but in this case, when application was made on behalf of the unfortunate widow of Kennedy, there was a refusal. She and her children may go to the poor house for aught the right hon. Gentleman opposite cares, and the two poor women lie on their beds of pain in a Dublin hospital, and nobody cares. No, it is not like the case of Mrs. Maybrick. That does not exhaust my list. Take the case of Mrs. Lucas, the wife of a Magistrate in County Cork, whose husband was under police protection because he was boycotted. Mrs. Lucas was caught in her chemise at 2 o'clock in the morning by a policeman on duty with a can of petroleum in her hand, pouring the petroleum over the window-curtains and about to apply a match to them. The husband was drunk and might have been smothered, and the children might have been burned to

  203
  death. Mrs. Lucas was found guilty and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. But she did not serve her time; she was put somewhere where there were sympathetic doctors; her health became bad, and the Lord Lieutenant, returning from some English race meeting, signed the warrant for her release. There was a case tried a year ago at Kerry Assizes of an emergency man who killed his paramour. He was brought before the same Judge who let off Mrs. Lucas, and because he was an emergency man the police allowed it to be stated that the man's paramour was his sister, of whom he was very fond. Having been found guilty of manslaughter, the man was released on his own recognizances. The men convicted under the Home Rule Government for the Belfast riots were sentenced to five years' penal servitude; but directly the Tory Government came in they were released. Then there was the case of the Belfast frauds, which was tried by the same learned Judge who tried Mrs. Lucas and the men charged with the murder of Kinsella. In the murder of Kinsella the chief evidence for the Crown was that of a cousin of the deceased, who proved the shooting, and the Judge having ascertained that this man was a farmer actually said to him, "Don't you think you would be better minding your farm?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman have been for some time far removed from the Vote under consideration. The hon. Member is now discussing the conduct of a Judge. That should be done in quite another fashion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will pass from the conduct of the Judge, Sir, and go to the action of the Crown in regard to the Belfast frauds. The Crown called upon the New York Assurance Company to make a Report as to who were the persons guilty of fraud. I challenge the Government to lay that Report on the Table. I have seen it, and I find that deepest in the fraud is Mr. Henderson, the Government's chief backer and prop in Belfast, the proprietor of the Belfast News Letter, and a
  204
  Magistrate for the county. They were the meanest and most murderous frauds ever exposed in a Court of Justice. Confirmed drunkards, whose livers-were found afterwards to have been in a most astonishing condition, were plied with liquor and then set to climb up ladders. The doctors who signed the certificates and the men engaged in the frauds ought all to have been sentenced to penal servitude for life; for theirs was a dietinct conspiracy to murder. Who were the men chiefly involved? The chief man was Chestnut Smith, Secretary to the Chamberlain demonstration in Belfast. "What was done with him? The Government accepted him as an informer, although they had ample evidence without that aid; and the action of the Crown in taking this man's evidence simply to get him off because he was on their side was as petty, as mean, and as contemptible as any action which a Crown counsel ever engaged in. Robert Dunlop, worth £80,000, and some others were convicted, and the Judge passed sentence of nine months' imprisonment, and in relation to one of them he stated a case. The curious thing about this was that the Lord Chief Justice said he could not find out what was the point of the case which had been stated, and the upshot was that the man got six months' imprisonment; and when in gaol those prisoners got back their own clothes and paraded up and down Derry Gaol in silk hats. There was also the case of Kirwin, who murdered his wife, but being a Freemason he was not hanged, and was set free by the present Government; there were also the cases of Matthews and Beatty, but I will not enter further into these cases; time will not allow of it. All I will say is this—while on the one hand the Coercion Act is used as a mesh to entrap every Catholic brought before the Court constituted under it and to convict him, right or wrong, on the other hand it guarantees absolute immunity to the Tory or the Orangeman who commits a crime. I assert again, if I should be murdered in Dublin to-morrow, supposing I were there, not a soul would

  205
  be brought to justice for the deed, though possibly the murderer might receive a Government appointment as prison warder or perhaps Resident Magistrate. You ask us to respect your law. I pointed out when the Crimes Act was passing in 1882 that there was a clause in the Act which would enable unnatural offenders to escape. Cornwall and Fernandez escaped, having been acquitted by their "pals" on the jury without a stain on their character. Ffrench, it is true, was convicted. The only answer I got to my objection was closure, and now we see the use to which this section is being put. The Crown changed the venue in the case of the Donegal peasants down to a man, and after those prisoners have been convicted and turned out of gaol to die, the right hon. Gentleman says that those were not Crimes Act cases at all. The venue in cases like that of Father M'Fadden is changed. You bring this Catholic priest to Queen's County, and you are going to try him by the descendants of those men who, in '98, stirred their punch with Father Murphy's finger. Why, you might as well expect a runaway slave to be fairly tried by a jury of southern planters. And this is the great Government which is upholding law and order. The people despise your law and hate your order. Your order is that of the highwayman; your law is the law of the strongest—"Your money or your life." No one could entertain any feeling but that of holy horror and loathing for your system of law; and the Irishman who does not hate and despise it is the unworthy son of a great country which has always loved liberty and which will yet maintain it when those who are now persecuting it are only remembered to be accursed.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Before the Vote is taken I should like to call attention to the position of the Donegal peasants, who have been brought some 120 miles to Maryborough to be tried for complicity in the murder of Sub-Inspector Martin, who are to be tried on the 16th or 17th of October next. Why was the venue changed in such a case? The Chief Secretary
  206
  has said that these men were able to meet the change of venue, but it should be remembered that these people in Donegal were starving, and had no means of bringing their witnesses or their legal advisers to the Court to which the venue had been changed. With regard to the practice of the Crown Prosecutor selecting the Jury, about 350 years ago a prisoner had the right to challenge the names of 30 jurors, but that has been reduced to 20, so that the prisoner is no w in a worse position than before; but the Crown still retains its right of unlimited challenge. In Wexford, in the year 1887, a number of poor peasants had been fired on by an Orange mob, and the victims were tried for taking part in a riot; at the trial which took place no fewer than 65 jurors were ordered on the part of the Crown to "stand aside." In Wicklow last March no fewer than 35 jurors were similarly ordered to stand aside. In these cases the Judge remonstrated; but they have no power to alter the law; and only a few weeks ago Mr. Justice Andrews and Mr. Justice O'Brien said they could not interfere with the right possessed by the Crown in this respect. When, however, we ask whether the Crown intends to continue the exercise of this right, we are told that the Attorney General will exercise his discretion; and yet in the same breath we are told that the law of England and Ireland is the same. I can only say that if these 10 men are tried by a jury selected by the Crown, men who have no feeling in common with the class to which the prisoners belong, they will not be tried, as in the theory of the law they ought to be, by their Peers. When the trial is removed to-such a distance that the witnesses have to go 150 miles, and when the jury are selected in this way, I say that these men will not have a fair trial according to the law. I might go on citing cases. Not long ago there was a man called Hickey tried for murder in County Kerry, and when a number of jurors were ordered to stand aside, one of the special jury, to use his own expression, declared that the jury-was packed. The Chief Secretary has denied that packing; but there was another case in which every Roman

  207
  Catholic who happened to be summoned on the jury was ordered to stand aside. Protestants and Catholics alike protest against the number of jurors ordered to stand aside. I ask whether the Government intend to carry on this system of selecting juries on the principle that men may be set aside until the Crown Prosecutor is assured of a jury that will convict the prisoner.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 61.—(Div. List, No. 338.)
  8. £7,273, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.
  9. £885, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
  10. £10,243, to complete the sum for the Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to have an assurance from the Government that in any re-arrangement and re-construction of the Registry of Deeds Office the existing clerks will not be damnified. The clerks feel grave apprehensions on the subject. I also wish to know whether the Report of the Departmental inquiry that has been held can be made public?
  MR. JACKSON: In connection with any changes that may be effected in the office there will, of course, be every desire to preserve the rights of the existing servants. I will endeavour, as far as possible, to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman that justice will be done, and I will make inquiries as to the feasibility of publishing the Report.
  Vote agreed to.
  11. £1,297, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland.

  CLASS II.
  12. £50,000, Supplementary, the Mint, including Coinage.
  13. £15,765, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board, Scotland.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask whether the Government will give the names of the gentlemen who will be appointed on the Royal
  208
  Commission to consider the rights of salmon fishery in Scotland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Commission has been constituted, and consists of the hon. Member for Elgin, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the hon. Member for Wigtownshire, and Mr. J. K. Murray, a gentleman well known in Scotland. The Commission will begin work as soon after the holidays as possible.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I must protest against the taking of an important Scotch Vote at this late hour, when it is impossible that it can be fully discussed.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS III.
  14. £50,709, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I hope the Government will postpone this Vote in order at once to go into the Scotch Votes, which I understood were now to come on.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I trust the hon. Gentleman will allow this Vote to be taken. It was postponed last evening in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. That objection has now been withdrawn, and I believe there is now practically no opposition.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not think it is fair to take the Vote now, but if the Government insist, I shall not feel myself entitled to stand in the way of the Scotch Votes being disposed of, especially as I know that several hon. Members desire to speak on them.
  MR. SEXTON: What the right hon. Gentleman has described as a "withdrawal" is merely the resolve of hon. Members on this side, in view of the whole situation, to postpone their criticisms on the Vote till it next comes on for payment. We take it that this course will be more respectful to the Special Commission, to say nothing

  209
  about the convenience of the Attorney General.
  Vote agreed to.
  15. £44,029, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Law Charges, Scotland.
  16. £43,800, to complete the sum for the Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
  17. £25,480, to complete the sum for the Register House, Edinburgh.
  18. £6,120, to complete the sum for the Crofters Commission.
  19. £150,125, to complete the sum for Police, Counties and Burghs, Scotland.
  MR. HUNTER: Without wishing to prejudice the attitude the Scotch Members have resolved to adopt—namely, that of silence, and of allowing these Votes to be passed under protest—because it is perfectly absurd to suppose that they can be discussed on the 22nd of August at 1 o'clock in the morning—I hope I may be allowed to ask the reason of this Vote having increased £3,800 since last year.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The increase arises from certain items connected with the pay and clothing of the constables. No substantial change has been made in method or system.
  Vote agreed to.
  20. £65,424, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  21. £723,000, to complete the sum for Customs.
  22. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,556,961, 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 Inland Revenue Department."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have a question to ask on this Vote; but not anticipating that we should reach this Vote to-night I did not bring my papers with
  210
  me. My question is with regard to permanent servants of the Crown holding Directorships of Public Companies. As to the future, the Government have laid down a rule which is proper so far as it goes; but I wish they had adopted the rule of the Colonial Office, which is more stringent, and which has been recommended by the Commissioners. I wish to raise a question as regards officers of the Inland Revenue who, in contravention of the spirit of the existing rule, have accepted these posts. I believe that a rule preventing officers from accepting posts which require their attendance between 10 and 6 o'clock has for many years been in force in the Treasury Department. On previous occasions I have called attention to the case of Sir Alfred Slade, Receiver General of the Inland Revenue, who is a Director of several companies. I am told he is a Director of a Land Company and also of the Union Steamship Company—a Company carrying out very extensive operations. Surely this is an abuse of the position of Receiver General of the Inland Revenue. I understand also that he has been associated with South African Gold Companies—with one which, having been bolstered up by the use of his name for a few weeks, in the end went altogether to smash. This circumstance has caused some of the financial newspapers to use very harsh and unpleasant language concerning him. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500, being part of the Receiver General's salary, in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be induced to make some statement which will bring this scandal to an end.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,556,461, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member was good enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this question, and I immediately communicated with Sir Alfred Slade, asking him as to the facts. I have to-day received a letter

  211
  from Sir Alfred Slade, who states that he is a Director of one small Land Company. That is the only company he is connected with, and his connection with it will very shortly cease. Probably, therefore, the Committee will feel that Sir A. Slade has done everything he could to carry out the regulation and to meet the hon. Gentleman's view.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member's explanation is quite satisfactory. I am aware that Sir A. Slade is no longer connected with the Union Steamship Company. In the circumstances, I will withdraw my Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY ESTIMATES.
  23. £258,800, War Office.
  24. £56,700, Supplementary, Works, Buildings, and Repairs.

  CLASS V.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a gum, not exceeding £116,698 (including a Supplementary sum of £7,650), 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 Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I hope Her Majesty's Government will not press this Vote now. There are some most important questions to be raised on it, and I trust it will be postponed. If the Government take the Consular Vote I shall not object.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid the remaining Votes must be taken at an inconvenient hour, whether to-day or to-morrow. However, I at once concur in the request of the hon. Member. We will go on with the Consular Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  25. £86,094, to complete the sum for Consular Services.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to say a few words on the subject of Nyassaland and Zanzibar. I wish, if
  212
  I can, to elicit some information from the Under Secretary upon points which have already come under discussion. Her Majesty's Government have in the past given satisfactory assurances, and I want to ask if they can now repeat them. I trust the Government will be able to give an assurance that they are doing all they can to maintain the open navigation of the Zambesi up to the commercial settlement in the district known as Nyassaland. Can they give the House any information as to the state of affairs generally in Nyassaland, and can they assure the House that they are fully maintaining the attitude they have hitherto taken up in regard to possible Portuguese aggressions in that country? Something which looks very like annexation seems to be going on on the part of the Portuguese; and although Her Majesty's Government have declared that they cannot undertake anything in the nature of an expedition into' the interior, I hope they will view with jealousy any attempt on the part of the Portuguese to assert territorial sovereignty. I must say I was disappointed at the answer made by the Under Secretary to-day to my inquiry in regard to the telegram published in this country two days ago giving information as to the proclamation issued in Lisbon, giving sanction to a Portuguese expedition to Pondo's Territory. It was spoken of as a mission, partly ecclesiastical, but steps I understand were to be taken for purposes of colonisation. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that no annexations will be sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government? With regard to Zanzibar, it would be very satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some information as to what will be our future policy in regard to the large interests which we have in that country. I should also like to know whether any steps have been taken with a view to securing compensation to British subjects, who, through no fault of their own, have suffered very severely from recent occurrences upon the coast. I understand that the blockade is now to be considered as at an end. I should

  213
  also like to know what steps are to be taken by the German and English Governments with a view to the future regulation of the slave traffic and the future adjustment of affairs on the South-Eastern Coast of Africa. I also desire to know if there is any prospect of an early assembling of the Conference, which it was suggested Belgium should summon, to consider the question of the Slave Trade, particularly with regard to South-East Africa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): With regard to the navigation of the Zambesi and the position of British subjects on Lake Nyassa, Her Majesty's Government adhere fully to the declarations that have been made on the subject. They are not unobservant of the course of -events in that region, and they intend to watch and safeguard all the rights which British subjects have acquired in that region. I was unable to-day to answer the question put to me with regard to the erection of a Portuguese mission station as reported in some newspapers, but I fully admit that this is a matter which will require careful watching. With regard to Zanzibar, we have good reason for expecting some permanent improvement to follow on the great exertions made by England and Germany. Of course, I cannot announce what it is proposed to do, but I can say that good results are anticipated. I believe that the Conference will assemble at Brussels on the 15th of October. Probably, the arrangements we may make will be influenced by the results of that Conference.
  MR. MOLLOY: I desire to know, Sir, whether all the Papers, complaints, and Memorials which have been received regarding the conduct of the Consular Court of Siam will be submitted to the new Minister who is going out to Siam, with a request that he will examine into the complaints of British residents there and get rid of one of the worst scandals in our Consular Service? I believe it is alleged that the conduct
  214
  of the British Consul there has been such as to force British residents to go to the American and French Consulates in order to get necessary business transacted.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should not like it to go forth that the Consul at Bangkok is an officer not deserving of public confidence. He is a gentleman of long standing, who has passed upwards of 20 years at that place. The new Minister to the Court of Siam is on his way out, and he will undoubtedly look into the complaints, and if the constitution of the Consular Court requires alteration he will have an immediate opportunity of reporting to the Secretary of State to that effect.
  MR. MOLLOY: What I asked was—Will the Memorials and other Papers forwarded during the last two or three years be placed before the new Minister to Siam?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have no doubt that all the matters in question will be gone into by him.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: There are a good many questions which ought to be raised on this Vote, but I admit it is quite impossible to discuss them at this hour of the night. Now, this Vote includes the salary for the Consul General at Borneo. I have seen an advertisement in the newspapers regarding the Central Borneo Company, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give us some information as to the terms on which that Company has been granted a Charter by the Government. Also, I should like to know if the Government are pursuing the policy of granting new Territorial Charters to new companies without first consulting Parliament? It seems to me an extraordinary and unconstitutional course to grant these new Charters giving territorial rights without first consulting Parliament. It may be suggested that a precedent for the granting of this Charter is to be found in the one given to the Hudson's Bay Company in the days of Charles II., but I venture to suggest that nothing of that kind

  215
  would be suffered in these days. Under the new Charters which are being granted on the African coast, great responsibilities are thrown upon this country. There is the West African Company, the East African Company, and the Niger Company—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not think this question is relevant to the Vote under discussion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Very well, Sir; then I will content myself with simply asking—Has a Charter been granted to a new Central Borneo Company, and, if so, what is the nature of it, what are its terms, is the Charter completed, or is it only being negotiated, and by whom is it being negotiated?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The company alluded to is the same company as the North Borneo Company, which is a company of a good many years' standing, and the only change made in the time of the present Government has been that strict regulations have been framed for the management of its affairs, and requiring that an account shall be rendered to the Government of all transactions of a public nature. The colony of Labuan has been placed under the charge of this company, but its administrative affairs will still be revised by the Colonial Office.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the right hon. Baronet assure the House that the Government will take steps to prevent the Portuguese Government from extending their sovereignty or suzerainty to the South or West of the Zambesi?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That would be rather a strong declaration to make. The policy of the Government has been explained again and again, and it is that they will not recognise any nominal sovereignty where no duties of sovereignty or protectorate have been performed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I wish to ask one more question, and that is,
  216
  what is being done in the case of the Oil River Territory?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: An inquiry is being made into the affairs of the Oil River District by a competent official, and when his Report is sent in the Government will be able to state what is necessary to be done for the better administration of this region. I can assure the House that nothing will be done without full consideration, of all the interests concerned.
  Vote agreed to.
  26. £12,630 (including a Supplementary sum of £6,000), to complete the sum for the Slave Trade Services.
  27. £955, to complete the sum for the Suez Canal (British Directors).
  28. £17,728, to complete the sum for the Colonies, Grants in Aid.
  MR. W. MCARTHUR: There are many questions of interest to colonial people which ought to be discussed in this House, but under the present system of dealing with Supply it is impossible to debate them. I now want to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, and that is to give the Committee an assurance that we shall next year have a chance of discussing in this House the affairs of the 270 odd millions of people who live outside the British Islands, but who are under our flag. We have not had an opportunity of doing so for the past three Sessions.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the appeal of the hon. Gentleman a reasonable one. It is our intention next Session to reverse the order of Votes, so that those which have been fully discussed shall be placed at the end, and those which have not had the same full discussion at the beginning.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think that this would be a reasonable arrangement, and I trust it will be carried into effect, and thus give us a reasonable

  217
  chance of discussing this very important Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  29. £48,257, to complete the sum for South Africa and St. Helena.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: At any other time this question would be treated as of enormous importance. It is, however, hopeless to expect the House to discuss it now, and I will, therefore, only ask one or two questions. I want to know whether any steps are being taken to prevent gross injustice to the natives of India in this part of Africa, for I believe a policy is being deliberately pursued of preventing these industrious, clever, and enterprising natives of India entering into competition with white traders. I believe that both in Swaziland and in the Transvaal the Asiatics are not now allowed to trade.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Transvaal does not come under this Vote.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Then there is another serious question. The expenses of the Government of Bechuanaland have this year run up from £48,000 to £70,000. Is that increase to be a permanent one, and is the burden to go on increasing year by year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Government of the Transvaal in regard to any disabilities which natives of India may now suffer there. The increase of the charges in Bechuanaland has been caused by the necessity of increasing the police force; and I may inform the Committee that since that increase has taken place the general condition of Bechuanaland is much more satisfactory than it was before, and free-booting has practically ceased.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I do not think it right that the expense of increasing the police force should fall
  218
  on the British taxpayer. This territory was taken over for the benefit of the Cape, and we derive no advantage from it.
  Vote agreed to.
  30. £21,300, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
  31. £1,000, to complete the sum for Cyprus, Grant in Aid.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I wish to know whether the Government have yet seen their way to do something towards relieving the burdens upon the people of Cyprus? These people have not only suffered terribly from locusts and from bad harvests, but they are over weighted with taxation, and they are comparing their position under the present system of administration with that under Turkish rule, greatly to the disadvantage of the existing state of affairs. Indeed, many of them are leaving the island for the mainland, and I wish to ask whether the representations which have been recently made by Cypriotes have been considered, and, if so, what is the result?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The representations made by the Cypriot deputation which has had several interviews with the Secretary of State, and one with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have been carefully considered, and are still receiving the earnest attention of Her Majesty's Government. I may point out with regard to the repeated allegation that taxation is heavier now in Cyprus than under Turkish rule, that that statement is not correct, but that it has its orgin in a misrepresentation arising from the fact that under Turkish rule the taxation was imposed but not levied, whereas under English rule the collection of taxes has necessarily been more rigidly carried out. Much has already been done to ameliorate the condition of the inhabitants of the Island, and in this direction the levying of the tithes in kind instead of in money has already been adopted in some districts, and it is contemplated to extend

  219
  this system. This suggested change finds much favour with the Cypriots, as it prevents their being exposed to the loss consequent upon a realisation of produce at times of great agricultural depression. The deputation invited the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a proposal for the establishment of an agricultural or land bank. This proposal was most carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, while fully recognising the importance of such an institution as a means of rescuing the inhabitants from the clutches of the usurers who now prey upon them, and also of facilitating advances on agricultural holdings at a fair and reasonable rate of interest, pointed out that it would be impossible for the Government to give a guarantee to any such institution, while "they might be willing to allocate to it the whole or a portion of the locust tax. At the same time, he expressed a hope that such an institution might find favour with local or other capitalists who might be willing to promote its foundation, and thereby materially assist the agricultural population. I may point out, in answer to the general allegation that Cyprus is in a worse condition under English than under Turkish rule, that the following are among the advantages which have accrued to the Cypriots under our administration:—the gain to wine-growers by the abolition of tithes on grapes and of the teskerch system; the advantage to the general public by the abolition of tithes on many kinds of fruits and vegetables; the abolition of tithe farming; the changes in the military service system; the removal of export duties; the abolition of roosoomat duties; the removal of the liability to personal labour; and the improvement of the judicial system, which is fully recognised by the Cypriots themselves.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  SUGAR CONVENTION BILL (No. 194.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  JUDICIAL RENTS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 368.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [13th August] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL (No. 882.)
  Lords Amendments considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think some of the Amendments inserted in the other House constitute a rather large order, and it is a serious thing to ask the House to consider them at this hour of the morning. It seems to me that this legislation will infringe the rights of the colonies. It is sought to be provided that people in the colonies offending under this Bill shall be brought to the Central Criminal Court .for trial. Why, this is the very thing that the American Colonies revolted against. Surely this question requires further consideration.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I think the operation of the Bill will be exactly contrary to what the hon. Member suggests. As the Bill left this House it applied absolutely to all the Colonies, and it was thought it might be regarded as interfering with the self-governing Colonies. Hence power was given to Her Majesty to suspend the operation of the Bill in the event of a Colony making provision for dealing with offences of this nature. As to the trial of cases at the Central Criminal Court, the Bill only provides that where a person from the Colonies charged under the Act happens to be in England there shall be power to try the case at the Central Criminal Court. It is not intended that offenders shall be specially brought over here for trial.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have an Amendment to move on this clause, and I understand the Government do not object to it. It is to insert words to the effect that the provisions of the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act shall not apply to trials arising under this Act.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, Subsection 4, to insert—

  221
  "The provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, shall not apply to any trial under the provisions of this Act,"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments, as amended, agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [this day] reported.
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,271, he 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. A. O'CONNOR: When this Vote was under discussion I asked the Chief Secretary's attention to the serious disadvantages under which the Irish fishing industry labours as compared with the Scotch fisheries, especially in regard to trawling, the Irish fishermen having been denied, the facilities which are enjoyed by Scotland. I regret that in his reply the Chief Secretary took no notice of my statements. I endeavoured to put the case before him as fairly as possible, and I must repeat that I am surprised he did not take the least notice of the representations I made. I do not know whether it is necessary that one should assume a tone of asperity in order to secure attention at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. I will now ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he sees any reason for refusing us the facilities which Scotland possesses. I spoke especially of the experiments which had been made in the Firth of Forth.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is aware that after he spoke on this Vote the Debate took a somewhat different turn, and that fact will probably account for my omission to reply to him. It was an inadvertent omission, and there was certainly no discourtesy intended on my part. I am quite aware that the Irish Fishery Board is not in precisely the same position as the Scotch Fishery Board in respect to steam trawling. The matter, however, is one rather for the Treasury than for the Irish Government. It has suggested itself to me that instead of having these experiments carried out on a small and perhaps inadequate scale partly in Scotland,
  222
  partly in Ireland, and partly in England, by independent authorities, it would be far better to have a single scheme, carried on for the general benefit of the United Kingdom. But this raises a large question.
  Resolution and the following eight Resolutions, agreed to.
  On Resolution 10,
  MR. PICKERSGILL: In consequence of the reply made by the Home Secretary when this Vote was under discussion, I should like to quote some figures from the Report of the Chief Commissioner on the question of the increase of population and of crime. The Home Secretary alleged that in speaking of the increase of crime I had not taken into account the increase of population. But what does this Report show? It shows that between 1887 and 1888 the population of the Metropolis increased 2 per cent, while felonies committed within the Metropolitan area increased 10 per cent in the same period. I am, therefore, surprised that the Home Secretary should close his eyes to open and palpable facts instead of recognising them and applying appropriate remedies.
  Resolution and the two following Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [20th August] reported.
SUPPLY CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS III.
  1."That a sum, not exceeding £73,214, 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 Office of the Irish Land Commission."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When this Vote was under discussion I asked the Chief Secretary for information as to the purchase by 16 tenants in the County of Galway of their holdings. The purchase price was at the rate of 32J years' rent, and the explanation given was that a certain amount of grass land had been added to each of the holdings. Now, I want to know what were the rents formerly paid, what are to be the annual instalments, and what is the acreage added to each farm; also to whom the Irish Land Commission paid the money?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will put a question down on the Paper I will get him the information.
  MR. FLYNN: I should like to know why do not the Government, in appointing the Land Commissions, nominate some representatives of the farmers, instead of merely landlords and landlords' agents. Will the Government promise in future appointments to nominate practical farmers—even from the North of Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension on this matter if he thinks the tenant farmers are unrepresented. It has been the effort of the Government to appoint as Sub-Commissioners men who are thoroughly acquainted with agricultural matters, and of known impartiality.
  Resolution agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  "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."
  Resolution agreed to.

BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES AND OFFICERS UNDER THE CROWN) PREVENTION BILL (No. 380.)
Lords' Amendment considered.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what course the Government propose to take with reference to this Bill. As it left this House it was a valuable measure, but their Lordships have inserted Amendments which open up such important questions that I think it would be impossible adequately to discuss them this Session. After the progress which has been made to-night with the business of the House, I think it would be better if the Government would consent to adhere to the Bill as it was sent up from this House, and would disagree with the Lords' Amendments.
MR. W. H. SMITH: As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, this is not a Government measure in any respect. It was promoted by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, and I think that as it left this House it was an exceedingly valuable one. The Amend-
224
ments which have been made by their Lordships certainly do raise a number of questions which require very careful consideration in this House, and, under the circumstances, I am quite prepared to concur in the suggestion that we should dissent from the Lords' Amendments in the hope that the Bill as it went up from this House may be allowed to become law in the course of the present Session. Otherwise it will be quite impossible to pass it this Session.
MR. T. M. HEALY: There is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Government, and that is the desirability of giving this House some power to discuss separately Amendments which are made by the Lords in Bills passed by this House, instead of merely being called upon to decide whether we agree or disagree with their Lordships' Amendments en bloc.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House dissent from the Lords' Amendments," put, and agreed to.
Lords' Amendments disagreed to.
Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed,"—Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, MR. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, and Mr. Jackson:—To withdraw immediately.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES AND OFFICERS UNDER THE CROWN PREVENTION) (No. 380.)
Reason for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments, reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (BUCHANAN INSTITUTION.
Order [9th August] that the Copy of the Scheme for the Management of the Endowment in the Burgh of Glasgow and County of Lanark, known as Buchanan's Institution, do lie upon the Table, read, and discharged.
Ordered, That the Scheme be withdrawn.—(The Lord Advocate.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Three o'clock.

LEASEHOLDERS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 231.)
  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 234.)

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (No. 235.)
    PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL (No. 236.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 179.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments.
Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments considered.
Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons' Amendments."
LORD DENMAN: The Amendments of the House of Commons do not in any way improve this Bill. Persons who have filled their offices for many years and know their duties are now to be subjected, first, to an election, and then to apply to the Treasury for compensation. My experience of what takes place in England upon the occasion of elections makes me anxious to relieve Scotland from the burden which this new election will entail. As an hereditary Councillor of the Crown I would humbly advise
90
Her Majesty to refuse her assent to such a Bill as this.
On Question, resolved in the affirmative.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL (No. 230.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): By the Prisons Act of 1877, when a prison was discontinued it was provided that it should be offered to the Justices of the Peace, then the County Authority, and that in case of their declining to take it at the price that was fixed by the Act (which was based upon the number of cells then in occupation), it should be put up for sale by the Secretary of State. The Coldbath Fields Prison was discontinued in 1885. It was offered by the Secretary of State to the Justices at a price based on the principle sanctioned by the Act of Parliament, which amounted to about £186,000, and the Justices declined to take it. About that time the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor recommended in their Report that the sites of certain prisons, including the Coldbath Fields Prison, should be offered to the Metropolitan Board of Works at a price under the market price, with a view to artisans' dwellings being erected. Mr. Childers, then Secretary of State, in accordance with that recommendation of the Royal Commission, offered this site to the Metropolitan Board of Works at a price less than the market price, which was to be settled by arbitration; but the Metropolitan Board of Works thought that there was at that time in the locality a sufficient provision of

  91
  artisans' dwellings, and they, therefore, declined the offer. The Secretary of State then endeavoured to get a price offered for this site, but the highest offer that could he obtained was £100,000. About that time the Post Office entered into negotiation with the Treasury for the transfer of, at first part, and then the whole, of this site. It was of very great importance to them to get the site, and a very great advantage to the taxpayers, because the Post Office would then be able to move certain Departments which were very expensively housed elsewhere; and it was also a most convenient site because of its proximity to three stations of great lines of railway running from London. Negotiations went on; the Justices of Middlesex made no opposition, and, finally, the Post Office were placed in possession of this site in the year 1888. A question then arose whether the title of the Post Office was good, inasmuch as it could not be said strictly that the Secretary of State had sold the site in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1877. Therefore this Bill was introduced to remove that doubt, and also to confirm an arrangement which was made as to the closing of a right of way. The Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, and was referred to a hybrid Committee. It was at first opposed by the County Council on the ground that it was an opportunity which should not be lost of providing a public open space for this crowded part of the Metropolis; but a compromise was arrived at which was embodied in Sections 4 and 5 of the Bill. I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this measure.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed forthwith.

GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 228)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL (No. 227.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount Cross): My Lords,
  92
  this is a purely sanitary measure. It is for the purpose of regulating the amount of steam that may be introduced into the sheds, so as not to oppress the people who are working there. The fact is that the steam, if the room is not at a proper temperature, condenses upon the workpeople and does them great injury. The object of this Bill is to regulate the heat as compared with the amount of steam which may be admitted. It is a Bill which has been very carefully considered elsewhere, and it has been entirely agreed upon between the operatives and workmen engaged in this class of business and their employers. As an excellent sanitary measure and a very useful piece of legislation, I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (No. 229.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. There is also on the Paper a notice to the effect that I propose to ask the House to suspend the Standing Orders for the purpose of the consideration of the Bill. That notice was given at a time when it was thought possible that it might be necessary ask the House to take that step, but I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that I do not intend to make that Motion to-day. If your Lordships read the Bill a second time, I propose that the Committee stage should be taken tomorrow. The Bill itself is a very simple one, and one which I think will command the general assent of your Lordships. Its provisions are mostly matters of detail. By the first clause it is proposed to give the Board of Trade power to make Orders, obliging the Railway Companies when called upon to introduce on passenger lines what is known as the block system; also to make a better provision for the interlocking of points and signals where those mechanical contrivances are at present defective; and thirdly (and I think this is the most important provision), to compel the in-

  93
  troduction and the constant use of efficient brake power. A very large number of vehicles which are used for passenger traffic are now fitted with continuous brakes, but it is found that some companies are backward in introducing these necessary appliances, and it is thought right that further pressure should be put upon them to take that step. The conditions which it is proposed to enforce are laid down, in one of the sub-sections to the first clause of the Bill. It is not the intention, of the Board of Trade, and I am sure it would not be thought right by Parliament, to prescribe by name any particular brake, but there are several brakes in existence and in regular working on some railways which comply with all the conditions in the Bill. These are five in number—that the brake must be instantaneous in action, must be self-applying in the event of any failure in the continuity of its mechanism, must be capable of being applied to every vehicle of the train, must be in regular daily use, and of such material as to be durable and easily kept in order. Those conditions are thought to be necessary, and it is the intention of the Board of Trade that any brake which complies with them shall be regarded as sufficient for the purpose. The second clause of the Bill provides for proceedings in case of a company making default in obedience to the Orders. The third clause provides a method of meeting any expense to which the companies may be put in complying with the Orders. The fourth clause provides for certain Returns being given to the Board of Trade by the companies as to the overtime of the servants in their employ—a matter in which the noble Earl behind me (Earl De la Warr) takes great interest. The fifth clause strengthens the regulations for the production and delivery of tickets upon demand by railway employés. The sixth clause accomplishes a very simple, but I venture to think, a very useful, reform, by providing that the Board of Trade may order (after allowing a certain time for the Railway Companies to work off the existing tickets) that each ticket shall have its price legibly printed upon its face. That is really the whole of the Bill, and I now ask your Lordships to read it a second time.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I do not rise in any way to oppose this measure,
  94
  which I think is an admirable on e in many ways; but I think the attention of the House ought to be directed to Clause 3, which empowers a Railway Company executing any of the works ordered to issue debentures or debenture stock in priority to or ranking pari passu with existing debentures. This is a very strong, and. possibly a necessary power; but, in the first place, it would enable Railway Companies to exceed their normal borrowing powers, and in the next place it would enable them to create debentures or debenture stock having priority over existing debentures. I assume that the justification for this is the paramount requirements of public safety. I am quite aware that the amount of capital that is to be so raised is to be fixed by the Board of Trade, and with these guarantees that it will not be improperly raised—and I presume that it will only be raised in the case of extremely poor and small railways—I shall offer no opposition to that portion of the Bill, though I thought it was right to call the attention of the House to it.
  Bill read 2a (according to order): Then Order of the Day for the consideration of Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. read, and discharged; Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

COINAGE (LIGHT GOLD) BILL (No 233.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD DENMAN: I am extremely glad that the holders of light sovereigns are not to suffer, but that they are to be indemnified under this Bill. I venture to think that there is at the present time one of the best opportunities for increasing the circulation in the country by the restoration of £l notes, and, if possible, by such small notes as the $1 and $3 notes in Prussia, which were always preferred to silver, and were really of the greatest possible convenience. This would prevent people

  95
  being in such a violent hurry to return their half-sovereigns to the Mint. I earnestly hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I am indebted for very great courtesy, may take this into consideration, so as to be able to relieve persons from the want of small change.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL (No. 230.)
Reported without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.