Sitting of 10 July 1890

QUESTIONS.

  THE BRENNAN TORPEDO.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hug to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what has been the total expenditure hitherto incurred in the purchase and manufacture of the Brennan torpedo, including expenses of the staff employed in it; what amount still remains due to Mr. Brennan for his invention; and how many of such torpedoes are now fit for service?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): To the end of the last financial year about £126,000 had been paid in all for the purchase and manufacture of the Brennan torpedo; and the sum of £32,000 remains to be paid as part of the reward granted. A considerable number of Brennan torpedoes are ready for use, but the right hon. Gentleman will scarcely expect me to state how many.

  THE ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE (Manchester, S.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what addition it is proposed to make to the staff of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, in order to assist the Astronomer Royal and Chief Assistant in the general superintendence of the work of the Observatory, which has so greatly increased of late years in every branch; and whether this addition is on the lines recommended by the
  1294
  Board of Visitors of the Observatory, who are the scientific advisers of the Government in the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): One first and one second class assistant were added at the end of last year to the staff of the Royal Observatory, that is to say, the same number of additional officers as the Board of Visitors recommended, the difference being that the Board of Visitors suggested a deputy chief assistant and a first-class assistant instead of two assistants.
  SIR H. ROSCOE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board have entered a strong protest against the present arrangement, and, in view of that expression of opinion, is it proposed to re-consider the matter?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have not seen the protest to which the hon. Member refers, but the matter was considered in November, and the conclusion arrived at was that the staff was sufficient.

  LIGHTHOUSE AT DIMLINGTON.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can explain the reason of the delay in the erection of a new lighthouse at Dimlington, near Withernsea, for which land had been already purchased; and whether the Government has been made aware of the continued danger that is being caused to passing steamers by the delay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The commencement of this work has been postponed in consequence of more urgent claims upon other parts of the coast. But I hope that it will be possible to make provision for it in next year's estimate.

  THE WEST HIGHLAND COMA1ISSION.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the West Highland Commission has closed its evidence, or at what stage its proceedings now are; whether the Commission has visited the localities on the north coast of Sutherland, promised by the Secretary for Scotland in his letter of 13th March last, and taken evidence regarding the claims of those localities; whether, in view of the recent deplorable loss of life in the said locali-

  1295
  ties, chiefly through the want of harbour accommodation, the Secretary for Scotland will use his influence to induce the Commission to visit the localities referred to, and report upon their claims; and what steps he proposes to take to redeem the promise in the letter above referred to?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The Commissioners are now engaged in preparing a Report, and it is nearly ready. They visited a part of the north coast of Sutherlandshire, that locality being included in the scope of the inquiry, as stated in the letter referred to by the hon. Member. The stormy weather prevented their visiting other parts of that coast. The Secretary for Scotland is necessarily unable, pending the consideration of the Report, to say anything as to the future movement of the Commission.

  THE CUSTOMS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a re-organisation of the Statistical Office of Her Majesty's Customs, on the basis laid down in paragraph 46 of the Treasury Minute of 10th August, 1889, would effect a saving to the country of about £1,500 a year, after providing for superannuations on compensation terms; whether the Board of Customs have recommended the economical re-organisation of the Office on that basis, and especially the granting of compensation terms; and is it the fact that there are now four vacancies in the above Department; if so, how long have they existed, and why have they not been filled up?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No calculation has been made of the cost of re-organising the Statistical Office of Her Majesty's Customs on the basis of the Treasury Minute of August, 1889, for the reason that no re-organisation on that basis has been recommended. The Board of Customs has, however, accepted the Report of a Departmental Committee on the subject, which is now under consideration, but the Board have not recommended the grant of compensation terms. As regards such terms, I must refer the hon. Member to my recent statements that the Government is precluded from granting compensation
  1296
  terms by the decision of the House of Commons and the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments. It would, however, be possible, with a view to facilitate reductions in the higher establishment generally, to consider applications from heads of Departments to permit retirement on ordinary terms. I am informed, with reference to the last part of the hon. Member's question, that two or three gentlemen have recently retired from the higher establishment of the Statistical Office, but the question of filling up the vacancies must be postponed until the scheme for the total re-organisation of the Office has been settled.

  BALLAST FOR SHIPS.
  MR. THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state under what authority a monopoly exists for the supply of ballast to ships in the port of Hull, and for whose benefit the proceeds of such monopoly are applied; whether he is aware that shipowners are compelled to make prepayment for ballast thus supplied, but are unable to obtain any redress from the Local Authorities when such ballast is short shipped, as is alleged frequently to be the case; and if he can suggest means by which redress may be obtained in such cases of overcharge?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The supply of ballast to ships in the port of Hull is regulated by a Local Act of Parliament, passed in 1832. Under that Statute, ½d. per ton of the current price of ballast (which is now 1s. 8d. per ton) is retained by the Pilotage Commissioners for cost of management, the remainder going to the ballast men. Shipowners are required to make prepayment, and the officers of the ship receive, before taking the ballast on board, a printed notice, requiring them to examine the ballast lighter, and thereby ascertain whether they receive the correct weight, and the ballast men are not paid except on the ship's receipt of having taken so many tons. The onus, therefore, rests with the officers of the ship.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact

  1297
  that, in the case of two men, named Edward Marshall and Charles M'Gill, convicted of killing one rabbit at Mary-hill, near Glasgow, Sheriff Balfour has imposed a penalty upon each of them of £5 or 14 days' imprisonment; and whether he will obtain some mitigation of this sentence?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have no knowledge of the case referred to in this question. If mitigation of the sentence is desired the proper course is to make a representation for the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.

  GOTHENBURG LICENSING SYSTEM.
  MR. J. E ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the precedent in the year 1876 (see Appendix to the Lords' Committee on Intemperance, First Report, dated 23rd March, 1877), the Secretary of State will instruct Her Majesty's Minister at Stockholm to obtain information as to the working of the Gothenburg scheme for regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors from 1876 to the present time, and lay such information before Parliament?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON, Manchester, N.E.): Yes, Sir; the information will be called for.

  THE MARGARINE ACT.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the statements of Consul General Bernal, at p. 29 of his Report on the Trade of the Havre District, as to the evasion of "The Margarine Act, 1887;" and whether instructions will be given to the Customs Officers to do their utmost to prevent these frauds?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): I have referred to the Report quoted by the hem. Member as to the adulteration of Normandy butter, and have called the attention of the Board of Customs to it, and asked them to take any steps in their power to expose the adulteration. I notice that the Vice Consul states that, between 1882 and 1887, the export of butter from Normandy to England fell from nearly 90,000,000f. to 58,000,000f.,
  1298
  a decrease of more than 35 per cent. It is therefore apparent that deteriorated butter is not appreciated.

  THE SCOTCH MAILS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E): I beg to ask the Postmaster General why it is that no acceleration in the mails has been effected by the opening of the Forth Bridge, notwithstanding the fact that passenger trains are arriving over an hour earlier, and before the London mails; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The Department is fully aware of the acceleration which is possible owing to the opening of the Forth Bridge. Arrangements are now under consideration which will enable me to take advantage of it for the mail service, and I hope it may be possible to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the matter.

  THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state the course which he will adopt with regard to the representations made on behalf of School Boards as to the prejudicial effects which the Industrial Schools Bill, in its present form, would have upon their powers and duties, and on the education and training of large numbers of neglected children; and whether he has fixed a day for receiving a deputation from School Boards upon this subject? I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman how soon the Report for 1889 of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Great Britain, which was laid upon the Table of the House on Monday night, will be in the hands of Members, and whether a copy of it is now accessible in the Library?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.): I am quite prepared to consider the representations of the School Boards as to the Industrial Schools Bill. No day has been fixed for receiving a deputation. The Report of the Inspector of the Reformatories is not now accessible in the Library, but will be early in the morning of Tuesday next.

  POSTAGE OF VOTERS' CLAIMS.
  MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether claims of voters, either as lodgers or occupiers, both before and after signature by the claimants, can be sent through the post at book-post rates, notwithstanding the fact that a printed footnote is attached to the document instructing the claimants how to fill up the form?
  *MR. RAIKES: Claims of voters are allowed to pass at book-post rates provided nothing of the nature of a letter is added; and if the printed footnotes the hon. Member refers to can be put in general and impersonal terms they will not be objected to, either when the documents are sent out or when they are returned after signature.
  MR. CAUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to the matter in order to prevent these fidgetty and vexatious objections in regard to postal matters? Would the regulations be strictly enforced if a man wrote "or" instead of "this?" A letter appeared in the newspapers a day or two ago, in which it was pointed out that a trivial objection of that nature had led to the Post Office refusing to receive the notices.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a question which ought to be put on the Paper in the usual way.
  MR. CAUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
  *MR. RAIKES: Am I to understand that the circular was printed in general terms?
  MR. CAUSTON: The Post Office Officials looked upon the word "this" as personal.

  TITHE RENT DISTRAINTS.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the course of the last three years, the total number of distraints for the tithe rent-charge in the county of Montgomery amounts to 122; whether, in any of those cases any of the parties concerned have acted in any way beyond their legal rights; whether he is aware that the total number of sales under distraints for
  1300
  tithe during the same period in the same county is 43; and whether at any of these sales there has been any breach of the peace, and whether, in the carrying on of the sales any expense whatever has been thrown upon the County Authorities?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Chief Constable that the number of distraints and of sales under distraints have been as stated. There has been no breach of the peace at any of these distraints or sales, and the county has incurred no expense whatever.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the statement of the Chief Constable of Denbighshire, made before the Joint Police Standing Committee, has been brought to his notice; whether it is true that rioting has occurred in North Wales, and the agents distraining for tithe rent-charge have been prevented from carrying out their legal duties; whether 300 farms remain to be visited, and whether in the Chief Constable's opinion he has not sufficient force to protect the agents; whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Chief Constable that Hussars should be called in for their protection, and to the fact that Mr. Stevens, acting on behalf of the Ex-Commissioners, has been put in fear of his life, the people threatening to kill him and all his party; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government are prepared to take precautionary measures for the preservation of order in the disturbed districts?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The only information on the alleged facts I have, is derived from a newspaper report, as to the accuracy of which I cannot give an opinion. It is the duty of the authorities charged with the preservation of the peace to see that proper steps are taken to prevent disturbance and to secure that process of the law duly issued is carried into effect. The nature of the steps to be taken and the precautions to be used must rest with the judgment of the authorities, and Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake, in answer to an abstract question, to say what measures should be taken.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his

  1301
  attention has been directed to the difference in the experience during the last few years of the Head Constables of Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire in collecting tithes?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I should not like to draw any invidious distinction between public servants who are performing valuable services. I may say, however, that I am informed that the tithe has been collected in Montgomeryshire in a manner which reflects credit on those concerned, and that the Chief Constable has exercised remarkable discretion in the discharge of his duties in connection with the maintenance of the law. I trust that like results may attend the due exercise of similar functions in Denbighshire.

  CASE OF THE REV. MR. DOBIE.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a full statement as to the case of the Rev. Mr. Dobie, who suffered imprisonment at Hodeidah; and what redress he is to receive for the maltreatment he has undergone?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The account given of the circumstances by the Turkish Authorities differs so materially from Mr. Dobie's version that the British Vice Consul at Hodeidah has been directed to make further inquiries as to the facts.

  CASE OF JED AT ALEPPO.
  SIR A. BORTHWICK (Kensington, S.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Aleppo Consulate has confirmed Mr. Barker's accusation against Jed?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The case is still before the Turkish tribunals, but is being carefully watched by Her Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople and Consulate at Aleppo. It would be obviously improper to make public the opinion of one of Her Majesty's Consuls upon a matter which is still sub judice.

  REFORMS IN ARMENIA.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communications, formal or informal, have passed between Her Majesty's
  1302
  Government and the Turkish Government as to the effect which the continued refusal of the Porte to carry out reforms in Armenia, in accordance with Article I of the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878, has upon the validity of other provisions contained in that Convention?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Such communications have passed, but they are not of a kind to be made public.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Will any of these communications appear in Papers-about to be laid on the Table in relation to the Armenian Question?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I do-not think so.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has had his attention drawn to a telegram from Odessa, in the Daily News of 9th July, to the effect that the-Armenians have lost all hope of protection and redress from the Turkish Government at Constantinople, as the futility of all appeals and protests made to the Porte by the Great Powers has been demonstrated during the last 12 months; and whether Her Majesty's-Government is prepared to invite the Russian Government to occupy Armenia, and put an end to the scenes enacted by the Kurds?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: That would be a very strong step to take on the strength of a telegram from Odessa.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): Is it true that there are two Russian Infantry divisions within a day's march of the frontier?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not prepared to answer that question.

  TEACHING UNIVERSITY FOR LONDON.
  MR.G.OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the proposed Scheme for the establishment of a Teaching University for London will be laid upon the Table of the House before it is finally confirmed; and whether, before such confirmation, an opportunity will be-afforded to the University Colleges in the provinces of expressing their views on the provisions of that Scheme?
  MR. JACKSON: Under the College Charter Act, 1871, a copy of every Draft Charter for the foundation of any College or University must be laid before both

  1303
  Houses of Parliament for 30 days before it is submitted to Her Majesty for approval. Every opportunity will be given to the provincial colleges for expressing their views on the subject. The Scheme has not been as yet submitted to the Privy Council Office.

  LOTTERIES IN INDIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, either by Reports from India, or by advertisements in the Indian newspapers, that a very extensive system of lotteries has lately prevailed in India, the law against lotteries notwithstanding, and that very large sums have been publicly offered and drawn for in connection with the last Derby Race, as "Bengal Club Derby Sweep. 20,330 tickets at Rs.10 each, Rs. 203,300. First horse, Rs. 101,650," and other lotteries on the same race, advertised by the Bengal Masonic Association, the North-West Club, Allahabad, the Cawnpore Club, and other Associations; and whether any steps have been taken to put down these infractions of the law, as was the case in former years?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject. It is one of the local administration of the law, which in India, as well as in England, forbids lotteries. But the question of the hon. Member will be sent out to the Government of India.

  THE INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the First Lord of the Treasury say when it is intended to proceed with the Indian Councils Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have received some information, but I do not know whether it is entirely correct, that the measure will not be opposed, as at one time it was feared that it would be. If it is possible to take it without opposition, it will be proceeded with on an early day.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Second Reading of the Bill? He will, no doubt, bear in mind that I refrained from moving an Amendment to the Address
  1304
  upon the honourable understanding and almost distinct pledge that the question would be dealt with between Easter and Whitsuntide, This arrangement has been recognised over and over again across the floor of this House.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I acknowledge the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but I am not able to say at this moment when the Second Reading will be taken. We are now in Committee of Supply, and as soon as I can see my way I will intimate to the hon. Gentleman when the Bill will be taken.

  THE POST OFFICE DISTURBANCES.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the notice signed by the Controller, and dated 7th July, which was published in the Pall Mall Gazette and other papers, on Tuesday last, was issued with his knowledge and sanction; and, if not, how it happened that an important notice purporting to contain his orders to the employ°s generally was issued without his knowledge and sanction?
  *MR. RAIKES: I had no knowledge of the notice to which the hon. Member refers, and, therefore, could not have sanctioned it. Notices in the name of the Postmaster General are necessarily often issued which he has not previously seen. In my absence on Sunday last the authorities of the Post Office only discharged their duty in issuing the notice in question, which has my entire approval.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask whether, in view of the apology which was posted by the Controller in the Post Office relating to a resolution supposed to have emanated from the E.C. district postmen, which the right hon. Gentleman read to the House on Monday, he is now prepared to make any correction of the statement which he then made?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have no correction to make in the statement, because I read it to the House exactly as I received it. It appears that the Controller who forwarded it to me was under a mistake as to the body from whom the resolution emanated. I only wish that the Controller's first impression had been a correct one.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Holloway district this morning no letters were

  1305
  delivered and no collection was made until 1.30 p.m., and whether it is a fact that in the E.C. district work has been suspended; whether at the Leicester Square Parcels Office 72 men have been dismissed at a moment's notice, for declining to sign an agreement binding themselves not to strike; whether it is a fact that 50 supernumeraries, or additional hands, are now employed there, how many of these the right hon. Gentleman has employed in the Post Office, and how many police he has employed to look after them?
  *MR. RAIKES: I must ask for notice of the hon. Member's questions as to matters of detail; but in order to re-assure the public mind, I may state that the defections which took place at Leicester Square Parcels Office have been more than filled up, and that applicants for the work have had to be turned away. I understand that the postal delivery has been proceeded with in the East and Holloway districts, but, of course, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, not with the usual regularity.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the traffic in Leicester Square has been considerably obstructed owing to vans remaining outside the Post Office there uncared for?
  *MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; I have no information to that effect.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Are boys, usually earning 7s. a week, employed as letter carriers?
  No answer was given.

  THE LEWIS MAILS.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the loss entailed on the inhabitants of the Island of Lewis by the mail contractor, Mr. MacBrayne, causing the mail steamer Locheil to diverge to Portree, both on her outgoing and incoming passage daily from Stornoway to Stromeferry since 27th June, to relieve himself of the expense of chartering a steamer for the Skye Mail Service, this divergence causing the Lewis Mails to lose the train connection at Stromeferry, and retarding their arrival at Stornoway by three to six hours behind the advertised time, notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman had caused the
  1306
  Stornoway Burgh Authorities to be informed on the 20th September last that Mr. MacBrayne had promised in September, 1889, that under no circumstances, unless compelled by storm to do so, would the Stornoway and Stromeferry steamer be diverted from her course; and whether he will use means of putting an immediate stop (if not already stopped) to such a course of action on the part of the contractor?
  *MR. RAIKES: It appears that some dislocation of the Mail Service has been caused by one of the steamers employed striking on a rock. Mr. MacBrayne has been communicated with in respect of the divergence from the prescribed route complained of by the hon. Member, but I think the House will understand the difficulty in which the contractor was placed by the accident in question, and that the hon. Member will make some allowance for the unforeseen contingency. I will give directions that the service shall be restored to its normal state without delay.

  PLEUROPNEUMONIA IN AMERICAN CATTLE.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of the Annual Report of the United States Department of Agriculture (Bureau of Animal Industry) just issued; and whether, for the information of British agriculturists, he will lay upon the Table of the House that portion of it which relates to the alleged existence of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle shipped from the United States to Great Britain?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OK AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The Annual Report of the United States Department of Agriculture has been received, and there will be no objection on my part to lay upon the Table of the House those parts, of the Report which relate to the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle in the United States.

  PICTURES FOR THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true that, without consulting Parliament, and while the debt for the very expensive pictures

  1307
  bought a few years ago is still undischarged, he has consented to giving £25,000 from the Exchequer to enable the National Gallery to pay £55,000 demanded by the owners of three pictures?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have consented, subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament, to contribute £25,000 towards the purchase of three pictures—a Velasquez, a Holbein, and a Moroni, as representations made to me by the highest authorities convinced me that it was most important to secure these -works for the nation. The remaining £30,000 has been guaranteed by private donors, who have come forward with great munificence. Their alacrity in making the offer is a striking and most satisfactory proof of the value attached to these pictures by men who are competent to judge, and ready to back their judgment by personal liberality.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that I shall strenuously oppose the purchase.

  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. ALFRED PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the serious want of details and discrepancies that exist in the published maps of Africa, purporting to give the new boundaries as settled by the Anglo-German Agreement, and seeing that the Tea Room map to which he has referred hon. Members does not correspond in some particulars with the Agreement, and does not give the following rivers and places named in the Agreement and Correspondence, namely, the River Lum°. southern branches of the River Kilambo, River Aka, Lufira River, and Towe, Kowe, and Agotine, in the Volta District, he will re-consider his decision, and have a correct map setting forth the new boundaries published for the use of Members?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: A map will be placed in the Tea Room. At the time when that now in the Tea Room was prepared we were not in possession of the full particulars.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Naval Authorities at the Admiralty, or otherwise, have presented any Report as to the strategical importance of Heligo-
  1308
  land to England; and, if so, what is that Report?
  *MR. W. H. SMIIH: As I have before stated, the papers relating to the strategical value of Heligoland are of a confidential character, and I am unable to make any statement as to their purport, but the hon. Gentleman may draw his own inference from the fact that no Government since 1821 has either armed or garrisoned the island.
  MR. SCHWANN: Does it not appear that these documents are so confidential that they can only be shown to Members on the other side of the House?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in, the case of those inhabitants of Heligoland who, under the 2nd section of the 12th article of the Anglo-German Agreement, exercise their right of option to remain British subjects, the children of such inhabitants born after the signature of the Agreement will, under the Agreement, have the status of British subjects or will be German subjects, and liable to military and naval conscription and the other duties of German subjects? I wish further to know what will be the position of these children under the German law. Will they be liable to conscription or not?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will lay the German law on the Table.

  FLASHING SIGNALS.
  MR. HOLLOWAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Papers to be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons relating to the claims of Admiral Colomb as the inventor of the system of flashing signals in use in the Navy will include copies of the Correspondence between Major General Henry P. Babbage and the First Lord of the Admiralty regarding the title of his father, the late Charles Babbage, M.A., F.R.S., &c., to the invention?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have only undertaken that the Official Correspondence relating to the claims of Admiral Colomb shall be presented to Parliament, and this is voluminous in itself. I see no advantage in adding to it the letters alluded to, as the

  1309
  question is not who invented flashing signals, bat the value of Admiral Colomb's system in adapting such signals to naval purposes.
  In answer to further questions from Mr. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester), and Mr. BRADLAUGH,
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I must adhere to my answer, that it would be useless to add to the Correspondence the letters I refer to. If Mr. Babbage or any other person was the real inventor of the system of flashing signals, he could have made his title good in a Court of Law.

  POSTAGE OF VACCINATION CERTIFICATES.
  MR. THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that in Scotland the form of vaccination certificate given out to be filled up on the registration of a child's birth is charged at the rate of a penny postage, instead of a halfpenny as in England; and if be will have this difference of charge remedied?
  *MR. RAIKES: Mere certificates are passed at the book-rate of ½d. in Scotland as well as in this country. But vaccination notices are considered to be letters, and the charging of letter postage in the cases to which the hon. Member refers has no doubt arisen from the fact that the certificates have been accompanied by the notices. I am, however, now in correspondence with the Registrar General of Scotland with a view to an arrangement which, I trust, will be satisfactory.

  THE DISCONTENT AMONG THE GUARDS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N. W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is true that a line regiment has been ordered to London to help the Guards in their duties; and if he will inquire into the alleged discontent in the regiment (Grenadier Guards) as to parades and drills?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The answer to both paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is—Yes.
  MR. CONYBEARE: How has it come about that it should be necessary to bring a line regiment to London to assist the Guards in performing their duties?
  DR. TANNER: Is it true that the unfortunate men of the Grenadier Guards have been compelled to perform night sentry duty on seven nights out of ten?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I can make no observation with respect to the last question, because the whole subject is now under inquiry. The presence of the line regiment is necessary, because, for the present moment, the number of Guards in London is short, owing to the absence of men engaged in manœuvres.

  MR. EDWARD BARNARD.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the superannuation allowance proposed in the Vote in the name of Mr. Edward Barnard for £14?0 includes any added number of years for "special age at the time he joined, and for special technical knowledge and experience;" whether Mr. Barnard joined on the understanding that he should receive the benefit of the 20th article of the 1859 Act, and whether the War Department have decided his claim to he a fair one; and whether he will state the reasons why, if so, his claim has been refused?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: No years have been added under the provisional clause, because the Treasury are unable to admit that any promise was made under due authority at the time Mr. Barnard entered the Service.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give any facilities for passing into law the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Wales) Act (1881) Amendment Bill, which carries out all the recommendations made in the Report of the Royal Commission appointed by the Government to inquire into the operation of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to say that the Government are not in a position to give facilities for this Bill.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL
  MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the appropriation of the money provided for the purposes

  1311
  of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Duties) Bill, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration that these taxes were voted with the express intention of making good to the County Councils the deficiency in the sums promised in 1888 arising from the withdrawal of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill in that year; and whether, having regard to the probability that the tax will considerably exceed the estimate, Her Majesty's Government will take this opportunity of placing sufficient sums at the disposal of County Councils to enable them to establish or aid technical schools within their jurisdiction, and also to enable them to aid subordinate Sanitary Authorities in dealing with unhealthy areas and premises under the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, about to be passed this Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must refer the hon. Member to the many answers I have given to questions of a similar nature.
  MR. CHAINING: But, Sir, this raises a new point. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state whether the money will be appropriated to Imperial or local purposes?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I can give no further assurance.

  MALTA.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the strong objections taken by the inhabitants of Malta to pay the expenses of Sir Lintorn Simmons's special Mission to the Vatican, on the ground that the Mission was despatched by the Imperial Government acting on its own exclusive responsibility, and that neither they nor their representatives had any voice in the matter; and whether, under the circumstances, he will consider the advisability of placing on the Estimates a Vote for the Mission in question? I also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Mr. Savona brought forward a Motion in the Council of Government at Malta, on 20th June, to the effect that—
  "The payment of all the expenses incurred for Sir Lintorn Simmons's special Mission to the Vatican out of the revenue of Malta, without taking the vote of the elected Members thereon, was made in violation of the 29th
  1312
  section of Her Majesty's Letters Patent of the 12th December, 1887, and that the amount so paid should, therefore, be refunded;"
  that a majority of the elected Members of the Council voted in favour of this Resolution; that the three salaried elected Members of the Executive Council who voted against it have since resigned; and that the Council of Government has been adjourned sine die, without completing the business which it had under its consideration; and whether he can give the House any information on this subject?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Her Majesty's Government are aware that objections have been taken by some of the Members of the Council of Government of Malta to the payment of the expenses of the Mission to the Vatican out of Malta funds on the grounds mentioned. As the Mission related exclusively to Maltese affairs, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to place a Vote on the Estimates. In answer to the second question of the hon. Member, Mr. Savona did bring forward a Motion in the Council of Government in the terms stated. The Motion was not carried. Eight of the elected Members of the Council voted in favour of the Motion, and six against it. The three salaried elected Members of the Executive Council who voted against the Motion have tendered their resignation, which has not been accepted. The Council of Government has been adjourned, in consequence of the tender of resignation by the three Members of the Executive Council, without completing the business before it. I have no further information to communicate to the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This is a subject in which Irish Members take an intense interest, regarding it as an attempt by a side wind to bring the authority of the Government to bear on Borne, viâ Malta. I beg to ask what opportunity will be given of discussing the policy of the despatch of Sir L. Simmons to Malta?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I apprehend, although I do not speak with certainty, there will be an opportunity for a discussion to take place on the subject on the Colonial Vote.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Irish Members will certainly raise that most important question, either on the Colonial Vote or on some other occasion.

  IRELAND-THE POTATO BLIGHT.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, K): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the reports from West Cork and several parts of Kerry County, stating that, owing to the continued bad weather, the potato blight has made its appearance in those districts; whether the Government have any information on the matter; and, in view of the serious nature of these reports as affecting a large number of poor people, whether he will cause inquiries to be made on the subject?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The reports before the Irish Government lead to the conclusion that the recent continuous wet weather has had the effect mentioned in the first paragraph of the question. The matter is receiving the careful attention of the Government, and all possible inquiries have been and will continue to be made.

  EMERGENCY MEN.
  MR. SHEIL (Meath, S.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the emergency men occupying the house of Miss N. Kieran, of Castletown, Navan, County Meath, are in the habit of indulging in revolver practice beneath the windows of the house; that besides the lady named above two others dwell in it, one of whom is so ill that it is impossible to remove her, and that her life has been seriously endangered; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this conduct of the emergency men?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are not accurately stated in the question. On one occasion only did one of the caretakers referred to discharge his revolver. His object is stated to have been to frighten some crows from a field of potatoes under his charge.

  LAND COMMISSION—MR. SUB-COMMISSIONER FRAZER.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is true that Mr. Robert Frazer has recently been appointed a Sub-Commissioner to fix fair rents; whether this is
  1314
  the same Mr. Frazer who formerly applied to have a fair rent fixed on a farm near Donaghmore which he held from the Dowager Lady Castletown, with regard to whom the Chairman of the Sub-Commission said—
  "We have had frequently Mr. Frazer, the tenant of this farm, before us as a valuer, generally for landlords, and certainly if we took his valuations as a standard to base the value of this land on, we should be obliged to increase instead of decrease the rent. However, we give him the benefit of our own estimation of its value and reduce the rent. We must Bay we consider this the worst managed farm we have come across for a long time;"
  and whether he can state what Mr. Frazer's qualifications are for the office to which he has been appointed?
  *MR. MADDEN: In May last, Mr. Frazer was merely appointed temporarily to perform the duties of an Assistant Commissioner, who was absent on sick leave. When this gentleman returned to work, Mr. Frazer ceased to be employed, and has no claim for further employment. Mr. Frazer is the same person who applied to have a fair rent fixed in the Queen's County, to which reference is made in the second paragraph. That farm, however, appears to have been merely a small outlying grass holding, containing some 40 acres, and on which Mr. Frazer did not reside. As regards his qualifications, I am informed that he is a practical farmer, holding altogether nearly 500 acres.

  LAND COMMISSION—MOUNTMELLICK UNION.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state how many cases of tenants from the Mountmellick Union, who had served originating notices to have fair rents fixed, were heard by the Sub-Commissioners sitting at Maryborough last month; how many cases were postponed; and why the case of Mr. Carroll, of Gossbrook, in the Mountmellick Union, who served an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed as long ago as October, 1887, has not yet been heard?
  MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners report that 57 cases from the Mountmellick Union were listed for hearing at Maryborough, and were heard and disposed of on the 10th, 11th, and 12th of June, Three cases were post-

  1315
  poned; one in consequence of the recent death of the landlord; one at the request of the parties to effect an arrangement of the future rent; and one for the purpose of ascertaining the proper area of the holding. The case of Mr. Carroll, of Gossbrook, will appear on the list for 8th October next, with other cases from the same district. This case was not in the same district as the cases which appeared for hearing on recent lists.

  BALLYMENA UNION.
  MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Belfast Morning News of 30th June, of the proceedings at the last meeting of the Guardians of the Union of Ballymena; and whether, considering that the Master of the Workhouse has practically denied the serious charges made against him, and considering, also, the explanation given by the Matron of the charges made against her, he will consider whether it is not desirable to cause a sworn inquiry to be held to investigate these charges?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Local Government Board, having received and considered the explanations in writing of the Master and Matron of the Ballymena Workhouse in regard to the charges made against them, have determined that is a case in which a sworn inquiry should be held. They have accordingly directed oue of their Inspectors to proceed with such inquiry.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Phoenix Park was declared an infected area within the past 12 months because of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia amongst the cattle grazing thereon; who owned these cows, and who sanctioned their being in the Park; what loss have the taxpayers sustained for compensation to the owners; will the Government in future prevent the annoyance caused to the public by allowing cows to graze in the Park; and by whose authority has the lower portion of the Park, near the Hibernian School, Been railed in from the public, and for what purpose?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Phcenix Park -was declared an infected area on
  1316
  September 16, 1889, in consequence of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia among the cattle grazing in it, and the Order is still in force. The cattle referred to were the property of Mr. R. G. Nash, of Howth. They were, in accordance with the usual practice, taken in for grazing by the Commissioners of Public Works, who are the custodians of the Park. I have no information as to the loss the taxpayers sustained by the payment of compensation to the owner. The Park is now, under the advice of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, being grazed with sheep, and this arrangement will be continued so long as there is any liability to an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia among cattle. The plot of ground near the Hibernian School has been railed in for many years under the authority of the Commissioners of Public Works, being meadow land, the hay from which is used for feeding the deer in winter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated what the loss to the taxpayer has been, nor has he explained why it is that the Board of Works, in spite of the repeated expression of opinion on the part of the Irish Members, still allow cattle to graze in the Phoenix Park. I myself warned him last year against the practice, and the ratepayers have now lost £600 in consequence of allowing it.
  *MR. JACKSON: I have given the information I was asked to give. I was asked a specific question, and I am told by the Board of Works that they have no information that will enable them to give the figures.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the fact that when this herd of cattle was ordered to be slaughtered under the Pleuropneumonia Act a claim was immediately made by the owner for so much per head? Surely if that is the case the loss may be easily calculated even at the Board of Works.
  *MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member had better give notice of the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will put down another question.

  INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS ACT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will state why "The Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889," is not more stringently

  1317
  enforced in the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Clontarf districts; and have any prosecutions taken place within those areas?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that the police are watching the advertisements closely, and are making every effort to enforce the Statute. I am further informed that since the Statute came into operation the phraseology of certain objectionable advertisements has been modified. Several cases have been reported for prosecution. Of these, the strongest was taken as a test case. It was adjourned for a week and then dismissed, the Magistrate expressing his regret at having to adopt such a course. No opportunity will be lost of instituting further proceedings where there is a likelihood of obtaining a conviction.

  MR. WILLIAM BLOOD.
  MR. COX (Clare, E.): I see there is a question on the Paper in my name to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. William Blood, of Cranaher, County Clare, was twice fired at within the past 12 months while under protection of the police, first on the public highway in the middle of the day, and secondly, into Mr. Blood's house while ha was sitting at the fire; whether the bullets found in the house, and alleged to be fired, were found to be of the Constabulary rifle and revolver pattern; whether any investigation as regard the police on protection duty was made; and, if so, with what result; and whether any arrests were made in connection with either of the alleged outrages? The question appears on the Paper to-day without my knowledge. I did not authorise it to be put down. I may say, however, that the question now appears as I originally handed it in. It may be remembered that on the last occasion I had to complain of its mutilation. I have now to ask whether the two attempts, by shooting, on the life of Mr. Blood, within the past 12 months, are included in the Returns of Irish Agrarian Outrages; and, if not, under what head do they appear?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that the outrages referred to are recorded in the printed Returns under the following heads,
  1318
  namely:—First, Firing at the person—not agrarian; second, Firing into Dwelling—not agrarian.

  WEATHER FORECASTS.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR (Falkirk &c): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement of the officer in charge of the Ballycastle (Antrim) Coastguard division, which is given in the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries:—
  "There should be more knowledge of forecasts of weather, and if the system of hoisting drums were carried out at Port Ballintrae and Portrush it would be advantageous, the fishermen at those places being very persevering. At the former place two boats lost their long lines on two separate occasions, owing to unforeseen gales coming on;"
  and if, in consequence of this suggestion, it is proposed to arrange that, drums shall in future be hoisted, so as to allow the fishermen of these ports to have the advantage of weather forecasts?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am informed by the Meteorological Council that they are quite prepared to issue storm warnings to Portrush and Port Ballintrae if local arrangements are made for publishing them.

  NATIONAL LEAGUE MEETING AT TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a meeting of the suppressed branch of the National League at Tipperary was held on Sunday, the 29th ultimo, and that after the meeting was over, from 500 to 600 men marched into the town in a body; whether any steps were taken by the police to prevent the holding of this meeting, and do meetings of this brunch regularly take place once a fortnight, where speeches are delivered; and is it the intention of the Government to allow these meetings to be held in the future; and, if so, will the Government announce its intention, so that the members of the branch may not be put to the trouble of holding them in secret?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that there was no outdoor meeting of the suppressed branch of the League at Tipperary on the date mentioned; and,

  1319
  also, that it is not a fact that 500 or 600 men marched into the town. The Government has no intention as that expressed in the last paragraph of the question.

  "BARRY v. BALL."
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the civil action of Mr. Barry, Poor Law Guardian, against District Inspector Ball, Royal Irish Constabulary, Fermoy, is fixed for Thursday next; and, in view of the fact that Mr. Barry is at present in Cork Prison as a bail prisoner, whether he can state if there are any means open to the Prisons Board by which they can have Mr. Barry produced at the Court on Thursday, or any later day on which the action may be taken?
  MR. MADDEN: My attention was called to this matter through the previous question on the subject put by the hon. Member. As I then stated, while the General Prisons Board have no power to produce the bail prisoner in Court, there would not be the least difficulty in his obtaining a writ of habeas corpus, which would enable him to attend at the hearing of the case.

  ALLEGED DEATH BY VIOLENCE IN A LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. W. CORBET (Wicklow, E.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the verdict of the Coroner's Jury on the inquest on Christopher O'Connor, who they found came to his death by violence in the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum, whether the Inspectors of Lunatics have made any Report on the case; and what steps he intends to take to find out by whom the injuries were inflicted?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Inspectors have called for copies of the depositions at the inquest. Upon receiving them, they will be in a position to consider the matter.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): I beg to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to make any statement as to the course of business, and whether the Government have formed the intention of summoning Parliament for a new Session in November?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The House will remember that I undertook to make a statement respecting the course of public business, if, as I then hoped, the Committee on Procedure should report at an early date. I now hear from my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee that it has adjourned until Monday, and that after what has occurred in the Committee we cannot hold out any certain expectation of an immediate termination of its labours. In these circumstances, I have thought it advisable and respectful to the House not to delay making a statement as to the course which the Government are prepared to take for the future conduct of public business. The first question which the Government had to consider was whether it was desirable in the second half of July to interpose a prolonged and possibly an acrimonious Debate in order to secure the passing of a Standing Order to which they attach great importance in the present Session. I had hoped that that Standing Order would be received with favour in all parts of the House as an improvement in our procedure; but I need not refer further to the opinion which I formed, as it does not appear to be shared unanimously by hon. Members. The Government have decided in the negative—that is to say, not to press this Standing Order in the course of the present Session, at the same time reserving to themselves absolute freedom of action in the future. It follows that they will not proceed with the Land Purchase Bill or the Tithe Bill before the prorogation; but, having regard to the great importance of those measures, they intend to re-introduce them at the earliest opportunity in the next Session, which, as at present advised, they propose shall begin at a much earlier period than is customary. In this way, whilst it is the desire of the Government and the intention of the Government to deal at an early date with that which they regard as important legislation, it will also be possible to meet the wish expressed this Session by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division, and supported in the Division which followed, for a much earlier prorogation of Parliament. It now remains for me to indicate generally the more important measures with which the Government intend to proceed this Session. They are the Housing of

  1321
  the Working Classes Bill, the Police Bill, the Heligoland Bill, the Local Taxation Bill, and the Census Bill. There will also be one or two Departmental measures which I need not particularise. In these circumstances, I think I may assume that the House will be ready to give Wednesdays for public business, and I shall make the necessary Motion on Monday next.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us the date at which the Government propose that the new Session shall begin.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: We intend that we should meet at a much earlier period than usua', and the Motion of the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division pointed to a meeting in November. As at present advised, Her Majesty's Government think it would be right to ask the House to meet in November, but we hope not until after the first part.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the Government will give an opportunity (to ascertain the general feeling of the House as to whether the meeting of Parliament should be in November or at -an early date in January. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman should take some means of ascertaining the general feeling of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the climatic conditions that prevail in London in November. When we met in November, 1888, for the purpose of considering the Land Purchase Bill, the fog rendered Deb do almost impossible.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): Are we to understand that the Land Purchase Bill will be the first measure dealt with in the new Session?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford will see that any condition of atmosphere which would tend in the slightest degree to the shortening of Debate would be a great advantage. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, I am sure he will see that it, rests with the Government to recommend Her Majesty as to the period at which Parliament should be called together, and I think it is necessary that they retain to themselves that responsibility. They have not formed the conclusion at which they have arrived without first
  1322
  taking due precautions to ascertain the feeling of hon. Members.
  MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I wish to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring the Census Bill forward at a time when there can be a discussion upon it.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the Departmental Bills are?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: From the right hon. Gentleman's experience, both in the Government and in the House, he must know what the Departmental Bills are. The Government will endeavour to give a fair opportunity to the House to discuss the Census Bill, but I may add that there is no change in it. It will practically be the same as the Bill of 1880, which, I believe, met with general approval.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to know whether the House is to understand from the answer given very succinctly by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have already determined that the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill is to take precedence of all other important measures in the coming Session, thereby reversing the order in which it stood with regard to the Tithe Bill in the present Session? I wish also to ask with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, that it rests with the Government to advise Her Majesty as to the period of the prorogation and summoning of Parliament—in which, of course, I quite agree—whether that is a reason why the House should have no opportunity of expressing its opinion upon a matter so very gravely affecting the convenience of Members, and likewise a matter concerning the progress of public business, upon which hon. Members must be supposed to have some opportunity of forming an opinion which may be of use to the Government in determining what advice they should tender to Her Majesty?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman as to the Land Purchase Bill, I have already indicated the views of Her Majesty's Government at the present time. It is impossible to say what circumstances may occur to qualify those views, but it certainly is our intention to put the Land Purchase

  1323
  Bill forward, so that it can be dealt with by the House at the earliest possible opportunity. With regard to the other questions of the right hon. Gentleman, if he will be so kind as to point out any occasion in his experience on which the House has been consulted prior to the assembling of Parliament at a period unusual, but determined upon with reference to the better management of business, I should be exceedingly glad to consult that precedent. But there are methods of finding out the view of hon. Members with which the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted, and which have satisfied us that it would be for the convenience of the House, on the whole, that we should meet in November, at all events, by way of experiment, with the object and intention of rising in July.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This is simply a question, not of determining the matter, but of allowing Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion. Undoubtedly, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, there have been occasions on which Members of the House have partially expressed their opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman has himself referred to the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton as having been a matter which has given light to the Government in considering the course they will pursue; and now the Government have come nearer to the point and are about to determine the matter, I must own that it appears to me, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it does not seem to him, to be a moderate claim that there should be some opportunity given to the House to express its opinion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman that a vote of the House should be taken upon the matter. The right hon. Gentleman may have communicated with some hon. Members, but I do not think any communication has reached hon. Members on this side of the House upon the subject. I never heard of the suggestion to meet in November until I saw it in the newspapers this morning. All I ask of the right hon. Gentleman is that, having indicated that it is the wish of the Government, they will not announce it as a decision from which they cannot recede. Assuming that the Land Purchase Bill
  1324
  is to be the first measure nex6 Session, if you meet at the end of the first week in January, you would have three weeks in January in which you might dispose of the Debate on the Address—at all events, I have never known a Debate on the Address take more than three weeks, not even when it was conducted by right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite—I repeat we might dispose of the Debate on the Address and the Second Reading of the Land Purchase Bill before the end of January, and I say that with the assent of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. If that were so, on February 1 you might go into Committee on the Irish Land Purchase Bill, and dispose of that stage in the course of February, March, and April. The legitimate object you have in view might be accomplished by meeting on January 10, which would give you four weeks before the usual time of meeting.
  *MR. J. TALBOT: I wish to ask my right hon. Friends to bear in mind the great importance of getting the Tithe Bill passed before the winter is far advanced. Therefore, if Parliament meets again in November, I would urge upon my right hon. Friend-that the Government should, if possible, make the Tithe Bill the first measure of the Session.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will the Savings Bank Bill be proceeded with?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: As reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Division on an early occasion this year, and the deductions the Government have drawn as to the feeling, of the House, may I ask him whether he is aware that a very great number of Members voted on the Main Question whether they could get a considerable part of the summer away from the House of Commons, and that a considerable number of Members who voted for the Resolution believed that that could be done by meeting at the end of the first week in January, and it was only in case that failed to secure a good part of the summer that a considerable number of those who voted in the minority would then very likely have gone over and voted in favour of meeting in November or December? I would also ask whether it is not the case that the actual number of

  1325
  working weeks in the House is, according to the usual proceedings of the Session, 25, and whether, in case we met at the end of the first week in January, those 25 weeks and two weeks for an Easter holiday would not have been secured before the middle of July?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider how much it would soothe the declining hours of the present Session if the Irish Members were consulted with regard to the allocation of a certain surplus arising out of a certain dropped measure?
  MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to make his Motion with regard to the Government taking Wednesday Sittings?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Monday.
  MR. LEA: Then I give the right hon Gentleman notice that I shall certainly oppose his Motion. I would also ask him whether he is aware that the first business now on the Paper for Wednesday next is the Irish Intoxicating Liquors Bill, the Second Reading of which was carried in this House by a majority of 166; and whether he is aware of the enormous interest taken in that measure in all parts of Ireland?
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): Am I right in supposing that the Government intend to proceed with the Scotch Police Bill as well as with the English Police Bill; and is it intended to proceed with the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Bill?
  MR.ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.): If the House meets in November, at what time in the new year will it reassemble?
  MR. SEXTON: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to secure for Ireland the allocation of the £40,000 under the Local Taxation Bill within the present year, and whether it cannot be done by a clause inserted in the Appropriation Bill?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman need have no anxiety as to the with drawal of the £40,000 from Ireland. It shall be secured in one way or another, but it would be premature to deal with the matter at the present time.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider the possibility of the Financial Statement for India being presented before the last days of the Session; and whether he is aware that the explanatory Memorandum, which last year was issued on the 15th of May, has not yet been laid upon the Table?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Savings Banks Bill obviously cannot be proceeded with if it is an opposed Bill. In regard to the allocation of the surplus, I am not able to add anything to what I have already stated as to the Local Taxation Bill, but the Government will come to a consideration of that question the course of a very few days. I have listened, with the greatest attention and with every desire to meet the views of hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen, to their remarks with regard to the period of the Session; but I think they must be content with the assurance that their suggestions will be received with the consideration which they deserve, and that we do feel ourselves responsible for calling Parliament together for the business to be transacted. And when we have called Parliament together we shall endeavour, as far as possible, to consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen. I do strongly deprecate the idea that this arrangement will add to the length if the Session. I think there is a strong wish on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House that we should get away into the country earlier this summer than we have done. As far as the Government are concerned, we shall make every endeavour to bring the Session to an end at a period which with correspond with the earlier meeting tit Parliament. With regard to the Scotch Police Bill, it is oar wish to proceed with that measure. I hope that it will be referred to a Select Committee this evening, and that it will come back to the House in a form in which it will be possible to deal with it. In regard to the Indian Budget, I will endeavour that it shall be taken at an earlier period if possible. I was not aware that the Memorandum referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton had not yet been issued; but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Under

  1327
  Secretary of State for India on the subject. With regard to the Scotch Procedure Bill, the question is whether it is opposed. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER It is opposed.] I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton say that he does oppose it, and we cannot in these circumstances proceed with it.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of suggestions from this side of the House, and as it appears to be very doubtful whether there will be any opportunity of giving an opinion in detail in Debate, I cannot help expressing my strong conviction, with regard to this very well intended plan of shortening the Session, that if we begin our meeting in November, and if no other method is adopted, the inevitable effect of that will be, not to shorten, but to lengthen the Session.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL (consolidated from HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, and HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Bill reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No. 294.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 375.]

  MALTA (PROCLAMATIONS.)
  Address for—
  "Copies of the Proclamations issued by Mr. Cameron, Civil Commissioner of Malta, dated the 15th day of July, 1801:
  "And by Sir Thomas Maitland, the First Governor of Malta, dated the fifth day of October, 1813."—(Mr. Summers.)

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN SPIRITS.
  Ordered, That Mr. Hozier be discharged from the Select Committee on British and Foreign Spirits.
  Ordered, That Mr. Vernon be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £29,558, 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, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and of Subordinate Departments."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): On a previous occasion the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) asked me whether it would be possible to put these two Votes separately. The Estimates presented this year reduce the number of Votes by combining a certain number of them together. One of the combined Votes is for the salaries of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. The Estimates were subsequently referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and the Government frankly and completely accepted their recommendations, and, as a consequence, the two Votes now combined will next year be presented separately. It is proposed this year that there shall be no transfer between the two Votes as regards this year's accounts, and, as I have found it is possible to propose the Votes as separate Votes on this occasion, I propose, with the leave of the Committee, to take that course.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.): I think it was a strong order for the Treasury to attempt to take the course they sought to take in this matter without any authority or precedent whatsoever. When the Closure was passed, I prophesied that an attempt would be made to extend the operation of the Closure by putting more matter into a clause, but I never dreamed for a moment that the Constitutional Authorites at the Treasury would attempt to dovetail one Vote into another for mere Closure purposes. I stigmatise the attempt made by the Treasury to consolidate these Votes as a most unfortunate one for the Department; and I am very glad to find that, after attention has been publicly

  1329
  called to the subject, the Treasury have been obliged to recede from their position. But that does not relieve the Treasury from the imputation which they will be under—that they have endeavoured to subordinate for Closure purposes matters of Treasury detail and management. I would advise the Treasury, if they again desire to throw dust in the eyes of the House, to confine that dust to English and Scotch optics, and not to ours.
  *MR. JACKSON: It is due to the Treasury, and particularly to the Departmental Treasury, to say that the proposals made were made on the authority of the Government. In framing the proposals no idea of combining Votes for Closure purposes ever entered into their calculation. The hon. and learned Gentleman says there is no authority or precedent for what has been done. I assure him there is both' authority and precedent, and what was done was recommended by a Committee.
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the last sentence which he uttered. What was recommended by the Committee on Estimate Procedure was that the scheme for throwing some of the Votes together should be submitted to the House, not that the Votes should be thrown together and the Estimates introduced in the altered form. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to-day taken a course which was obviously the proper course to follow.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The hon. and learned Member for North Longford has said that a reduction in the number of Votes was suggested by the Treasury for Closure purposes. The reduction in the number of Votes was suggested by the Select Committee.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.): I am glad there is a division of the Votes. I do not say that in the present instance the combination would lead to any very great inconvenience, but in the future it might lead to very great inconvenience, indeed. We have now a Chief Secretary who is a very strong man, and we have a Lord Lieutenant who is remarkable only because his title begins with the last letter of the alphabet. But for this fact I
  1330
  do not know that there would be many people here or in Ireland who would remember who the present Lord Lieutenant is. But it may happen in the future that we may have a strong Lord Lieutenant and a mild-mannered gentleman like the Attorney General to represent him in this House, and under such circumstances it might be awkward to have to discuss the two Votes together, for we might find ourselves visiting on the head of the inoffensive Chief Secretary the censure we intended for the Lord Lieutenant.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Bum, not exceeding £3,164, 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 51st day of March 1891, for the Salaries of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and other expenses."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I understand there was an intimation at the close of last Session, and it was generally mooted that there was some intention to make a statement as to the continuance of the office of Lord Lieutenant. We heard that a number of Conservative gentlemen, hon. and gallant Members on the other side, Ulster Members of the Conservative Party, intended to make a tremendous onslaught upon this Vote this year.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be quite outside the scope of this Vote to discuss the salary of the Lord Lieutenant, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, is charged upon the Consolidated Fund. This is a Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. Any question of general constitutional policy in Ireland should be raised on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, Sir; but I apprehend the expenses of the Household are the consequence of the office of Lord Lieutenant; and if we had no Lord Lieutenant, it naturally follows we should have no Household to provide for; abolish him, and his Household would be abolished. However, Sir, if you can point out the distinction by which we can discuss the propriety of abolishing the Household, and leave the Lord Lieutenant standing, I will endeavour to obey your direction. I will endeavour to narrow my observations within the

  1331
  sense you have indicated. I will only say, in regard to the expenses of the Household, that we did expect to hear from hon. Members opposite or from the Government some statement expressive of their views as to the continuance of the Lord Lieutenant's Household.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That being so, I ask if the Government are now prepared to say whether His Excellency's House hold.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that discussion must be confined to the expenses of the Household.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Of course, Sir, if you rule that we must discuss it from an £ s. d. point of view merely, accepting the existence of the Household, I presume it would be impossible now for Her Majesty's Government to make such a statement, though it was mooted abroad that the Government had such an intention.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No, Sir; I do not propose to make any statement.
  MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): This Vote is an old friend. I am sorry the Financial Secretary is not here, for I was going to ask him a question upon the Estimates; that is, under what head of the Irish Votes an item is included which I thought to have found here, but do not—I mean the Vote for the Ulster King-at-Arms. But I suppose it will turn up ultimately.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not recollect just now where the item appears. I think in the latter class of Votes.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Well, we have the Votes now divided, and have to deal with the Household first, and we find that for servants and keeping up of the Household we are to vote.£4,500. I take, first, the Spiritual Department—the Chaplains—and for this alone £789 is expended. That is a very small sum, but it touches a matter of principle; and I should ask to be forgiven perhaps if on a Vote in Supply, I make a personal allusion. As a member of the Irish Church, I do most strongly object to this State support of a chaplain in Dublin Castle. It is the very last relic of an Established Church in Ireland, the last relic of a shameful system which con-
  1332
  nected the Church with Dublin Castle; and as an earnest member of the Church, I should like to see this last relic of a State Church abolished. If this £789 were taken to-day and thrown into the Thames it would not be less wisely applied. The Chaplain at Dublin Castle is a gentleman whom I know very well, and for whom I have a very great esteem. He has another cure in Dublin. In former times the Dean of the Chapel Royal held the post as a stepping stone to a Bishopric. He had rooms in Dublin Castle; he was a Member of the Viceregal Court; he dined every day with the Lord Lieutenant; he was part of the Household. Under the new system, that is, since the Irish Church Disestablishment, this office, formerly something more than a sinecure, has now become considerably less than a sinecure, and the salary is taken by a gentleman who is rector of St. Andrew's, Dublin. He has £150 a year added to his chaplain's salary. This is an example in a small thing of what is done in greater things. This is an addition in lieu of rooms in the Castle simply because, as the Attorney General for Ireland very well knows, Dr. Nicholson has attached to his rectorate a very fine residence, and, therefore, does not require what were formerly the chaplain's rooms in the Castle, and so the Government give him £150 a year more because he has a residence of his own. Is this not a small example of the heartless, wanton waste and jobbery that run through Irish administration? Money is a thing of relative value, and what £5 is to one man 1d. is to another. We know how the gross amount of taxation weighs heavily upon the poor, and is it not a heartless, wasteful thing to take the public money thus and give it to a gentleman simply because he does not take, because he does not need them, the rooms formerly belonging to the office he holds in Dublin Castle? This chapel in Dublin Castle is not used by the Dublin Court, nor is it a place of worship of popular resort. We have in Dublin an exquisite Cathedral with full choral services—St.Patrick's—and this the Lord Lieutenant attends in the afternoon. In the morning he goes to the chapel at the Hibernian Military School, and within short distances he has churches on all sides. In former days the chapel in the

  1333
  Castle was frequented by hangers-on to the Court, that dubious class of persons ever on the look-out for an appointment or the means to advance their social position, and these used to visit the chapel for worship or to stare at the Lord Lieutenant; but he does not go there now. This beautiful chapel, for so it is, has been converted into a military chapel, and the Protestant troops in Dublin attend there. The arrangements for conducting State worship have been practically abolished, yet still we have these expenses on the Estimates. Here are expenses for reading clerk, choristers, and boy choristers, and choral services which are absolutely unnecessary. For those Protestants who admire a choral service there are such services at Christ Church and at St. Patrick's Cathedral. This is kept up, I say, as the relic of an old system, and as, I should say, a pernicious system, having regard to the true interest of the Church of which I am a member. With regard to the present holder of the office of chaplain, I say he would have been appointed to a Bishopric long ago under the free election of the Irish Church, but such an appointment is retarded by his connection with Dublin Castle. Only one good sermon, so far as I know, was ever preached in this Chapel Royal, and that was on the occasion when Dean Swift, one of the first chaplains, preached his eloquent sermon on the broomstick. And now, leaving this spiritual provision, I come upon large sums for service and attendance, and a waste of public money. Here are 17 attach°s, I may call them, though they have different positions. I recollect a celebrated actor once saying the most difficult thing to do on the stage was to do nothing, but here are 17 supers who perform that difficult task on the Vice-regal stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle in a brilliant speech once said he only knew within his experience five literary men who subsisted upon their pen, but I think he may now add a sixth in the person of the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. This gentleman draws the handsome income of £829 0s. 8il., and what does he do for it? Since Lord Zetland has been in office, I do not remember a single public letter from him. There have been one or two answers to addresses, and I be-
  1334
  lieve on one occasion Lord Zetland made a speech of three or four minutes' duration, and these may have been prepared by the private secretary; but sure I am that since Lord Zetland was appointed, Mr. John Mulholland, his private secretary, must have received £100 for each letter of a public character he has-written. Now, we come to four aides-de-camp at £200 each. Their duties, I believe, consist of standing about in more or less picturesque attitudes on the few occasions when receptions are held at Dublin Castle. They help to give distinction to this vulgar, gingerbread Court. Then follow various other officers. The State Steward—I am sure I do not know what he does. I had an acquaintance with an ex-steward from Dublin Castle under a very different r°gime, and he told me that his duty was to introduce ladies to gentlemen at dances. For this important and delicate duty he is paid £505 19s. 4d. This is very amusing as a farce, but it is very real indeed when we remember that these are items in the heavy taxation of our poorer countrymen. The Comptroller—what does he do? He has a kind of fixed tenure of his office which I believe he has held for 20 years. He pays, I think, the Viceregal Household, and for this he is well paid himself at £413 13s. 4d. Following the catalogue we come upon the Gentleman Usher; what his function is I do not know, except to receive the cards of those who come to leave them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some information, although the right hon. Gentleman himself does not appear at these public receptions, upon which I congratulate him. Next comes a Chamberlain at £200, and then the Master of the Horse. There are no horses, but for the mastery of the pretended horses this official draws £200 a year. Then come* a group of three Gentlemen in Waiting, gentlemen waiting for something to turn up, for some crumbs from the Viceregal table of patronage, some Resident Magistracy, or vacant office; meanwhile, they are solaced with salaries amounting to. £443. There are many such gentlemen waiting for what may happen; possibly the right hon. Gentleman himself may be added to the number after the next General Election. Why, if we pursue our investigation, we shall find that this

  1335
  establishment is merely an asylum, a means of providing pensions for idle, lounging members of the aristocracy. Among others, we find a son of our old friend Mr. Olphert, of Falcarragh, getting £184 12s. 8d. Next passes in review the Surgeon of the Household with £100, an amount which is either too little or too much. If he does anything at all in the way of keeping the Household in health £100 is too little; if he does nothing, which I strongly suspect is the case, then it is too much. Then there are other items which go to make up the gross sum of this waste of public money. A State porter, an old Army pensioner, £61 13s. 3d.; a sergeant of the Riding House £30—the Riding House does not exist. Remember all this expenditure, and more of the same kind, comes from our constituents, and we who know the intense poverty of our people are justified in contesting this waste of money penny by penny. If we can we will prevent this robbery. Here I come to the evidence of a job to which I have before called attention. I have been four years in Parliament, and here is my only legislative achievement. I have succeeded in staying the expenditure of 5s. a day upon a telegraphist at the Viceregal Lodge for doing nothing. The distance between the Viceregal Lodge and Dublin Castle is a mile and a half, and no telegraphic messages are sent from the one to the other. I believe such messages are sent from the Chief Secretary's Lodge during the time the Chief Secretary is there, which may be six or seven weeks during the year. This salary of 5s. a day for every day in the year is now, I see, only to be paid during the lifetime of the present holder of the office; but I say, if the Lord Lieutenant chooses to make provision for the man out of his own extravagant salary, by all means let him do so, but it should not be given at the public expense. I hope we shall not be met with the trite and somewhat absurd statement that if we maintain a Viceregal Court at all, we must pay to keep it up. I am curious to know what defence the right hon. Gentleman can make. It is of no use to tell ns these things come down to us an evil legacy from a bad old time. If it be not for public benefit that these men should receive public
  1336
  money for nothing, then we, as Trustees for the public, should do our duty by knocking off these sums; we have no right to say these men shall be gainers at the expense of the country. Unhappily, the Chief Secretary knows very little about Ireland. I sometimes feel irritated at his observations, until I remember that he is simply giving official information. If he examined things for himself, I cannot but think he would come to very different conclusions; but as it is, he simply adopts the statements of interested persons. Why, again, I ask, the payment of £789 for the Chaplains' Department? It is wholly unnecessary. The Lord Lieutenant may be of a very different religion to that of the late Disestablished Church; he may be a Hindoo; he may be anything, or nothing; only he may not be a Catholic. It is one of the worst instances in this list of jobs. Under the system of former times the outgoing Lord Lieutenant was, of course, not able to retain these various gentlemen, or the retinue of Dublin Castle, and it was left to his successor to make appointments; but now, under the new r°gime, most of these 17 officials are fixtures, and have retained their appointments through the reigns of several Lords Lieutenant. It is difficult to remove them, but, none the less, it is time these abuses, these mischievous attempts by a sham aristocracy to keep up a shoddy Court, were swept away.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.): There is one part of the Vote to which my hon. Friend has not given much notice, the salary of the Master of the Horse, who, as a foot-note informs us, also receives £276 a year as the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare. I should like to know from the Chief Secretary what are the duties of the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare, valued at £276 a year. That which we have had occasion to find fault with in the English Estimates is here repeated—the salaries of officials are divided under different heads, and do not appear in one lump sum. Also, I should like to know what are the duties for which three Gentlemen-in-Waiting receive £443 a year. I appeal with all earnestness to the Government, is it not possible to exercise some authority in these matters? Must all this expenditure go on helping to swell the amount

  1337
  of taxation, while throughout Ireland we see such evidences of dire distress among the people? It would be much better if the money were spent on some deserving object in Dublin, or other parts of Ireland, instead of in supporting Gentle-men-in-Waiting. What good on earth are the Gentlemen-in-Waiting for? It would take more than three gentlemen, whether in waiting or not, to make Dublin Castle a respectable resort. As to the telegraphist at the Viceregal Lodge, I do not know what his duties are, but the chances are that he earns his £91 a year a great deal better than the Gentleman Usher earns his £200, or the Chamberlain his £200. I think that matter might be arranged by cutting down the salaries of these gentlemen, and thus providing for the telegraphist. Now, the State Steward receives £506 and the Comptroller £414 a year. What do these gentlemen do? Are they entitled to public money on any ground whatever? I do not know what the Chamberlain does; but if you are to have a Chamberlain, surely £200 is a very cheap price. Then there is the Sergeant of the Riding House. Does the Chief Secretary go riding in order to give this official employment in teaching him to ride, or does his private secretary (the Member for Dover) give the Riding Sergeant work to do? Sir, I think that all these offices are useless and ought to be abolished. The Chief Secretary should give us some explanation as to why we are asked to pay £3,875 a year for these useless offices. It is simply a waste of money, and I am sure hon. Members opposite, in their hearts, condemn it. And then I come to the Chaplain's Vote. It is a monstrous thing, in my opinion, that in a country like Ireland, where the great bulk of the people profess the Catholic religion, they should be called upon to maintain an office which no Catholic could ever find it possible to fill. I think the supporters of the Government in Dublin Castle might very well be called upon to provide their own chaplain, for we do not find that people of other religions are ever called upon to pay for a Catholic chaplain. If there is one place that requires purification by prayer or by any other means more than another, I am sure it is Dublin Castle. Still, I do not see why the Roman Catholics of Ireland should be
  1338
  called upon to pay a single sixpence for the purpose of maintaining a chaplain to administer to the religious wants of the Lord Lieutenant. The fact that a Roman Catholic can never hold the office of Lord Lieutenant, and that a priest can never receive this salary, makes the charge grossly unfair, and constitutes a standing and continuous insult to the people of Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I cannot give the House or the Committee any minute information on the various details referred to by hon. Members, or as to the duties of the officials of Dublin Castle. But if you are to have a Lord Lieutenant at a salary which is admittedly inadequate to cover the cost of the functions which have to be performed I do not think it right that Parliament should complain that part of the cost is borne by the community. I have no doubt that if the Lord Lieutenant could carry out the duties of the office at the expense of £20,000, allowed out of the Consolidated Fund, he would be a great gainer; but knowing what I do of the experience of previous holders of this great office, I can tell the House that they spent a great deal more than this £3,000 charged in the Vote for these posts in excess of the £20,000 which is voted for the office. When you choose to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant, all the other offices will, of course, disappear with it; but while you retain the Lord Lieutenant, you ought to retain these other officials. With regard to the salary of the Dean of the Chapel Royal, the hon. Member who has just sat down appears to be of the opinion that it is an insult to the Roman Catholics of Ireland that those in authority in Ireland should be Protestants.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I must strongly object to the right hon. Gentleman putting that construction on my words. What I said was, that it was an insult to the Catholics that they should be called upon to pay the salary of an office which, under the present law, is impossible for a Catholic ever to fill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I take it the hon. Member's objection is that, in a Roman Catholic country, £700 a year should be paid to a Protestant chaplain.
  MR. W. REDMOND: No; my point is, that in a country which is largely Roman Catholic, it is wrong to make the

  1339
  people support an office which cannot be occupied by one of their own religion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the hon. Member does not object to the present holder of the office?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Certainly not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand. I will not now go into the question whether or not the office of Lord Lieutenant should be abolished, but, in regard to the post of chaplain, I may remind the Committee that whatever view they take of the propriety of retaining the office, it is held for life, and therefore the money must be paid under any circumstances, for the honour of Parliament is pledged to the holder so long as he chooses to retain the appointment.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I understand the Chief Secretary to justify these charges on the ground that the salary of the Lord Lieutenant is insufficient to maintain the dignity of the office. That is a view which I cannot accept. The salary is, I believe, £20,000 a year, and I ask, is it not an outrage on common sense to tell us that the Lord Lieutenant, who keeps up this petty, contemptible, wretched travesty of a Court in a city which, under the present r°gime, has been reduced to the condition of a fourth-rate provincial town, cannot do it at a salary which is double that paid to the President of the United States, who rules over 63,000,000 of people. Nothing more grotesque could be imagined. When Abraham Lincoln ruled America he had a salary of 825,000, or £5,000, and it is ridiculous to say that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland cannot keep up his office on £20,000 without these Supplementary Votes. If that is the only argument the Chief Secretary can bring forward, it is a very poor defence. Now, let us look at the details of this Vote. We find that many of the officers are paid large salaries for doing absolutely nothing. I do protest against the assumption of the Chief Secretary that we are bound to vote blindfold large salaries out of the pockets of the taxpayers for sinecure offices. He came down to this discussion forewarned that he would be called on to defend the Vote on its merits. Yet, what was his answer? It was, "I am not able to give information as to the duties of these officials." That means that he will not take the trouble
  1340
  to inform himself on these points, although he knows that, as the responsible Minister of the Crown, it is his duty to defend the Votes. That is the way in which we are met. The right hon. Gentleman rose from his seat slowly and with infinite grace and announced that his duties would not allow him to examine into the details of this matter. I do not know what his duties are; but some people say that they consist of reading French novels, on which he is one of the greatest authorities. The truth is, however, that the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are no details to be inquired into, and that these officials have no duties to perform. All they have to do is to dress themselves in lace and silk stockings and parade about on absurd occasions when ladies are admitted to the Castle. Now, take the case of the State Steward. He receives £506 a year. I am told that his business is to introduce ladies and gentlemen when entertainments are given at Dublin Castle, and to decide who shall go into dinner first. Is it not an outrageous thing that this House should be called on to pay £506 of the taxpayers' money to a gentleman whose onerous duty it is to decide who shall have precedence in going in to dinner. I say that people do not care three farthings who goes in first or last, and the ladies and gentlemen who honour Dublin Castle by their presence ought to be left to settle the matter of precedence amongst themselves. Can the Chief Secretary name any other duty which the State Steward is called upon to perform? If he cannot, then I call on him to strike that Vote out of the Estimates. The next Vote is for four aides-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant. These are four young gentlemen whose only duty is to dance with young ladies at Dublin Castle balls. Are we to pay military gentlemen for doing that which they should be glad enough to do for nothing? I never heard of a young officer requiring £200 a year as an inducement to dance with young ladies. The next Vote to which I have to call attention is that of £829 for the salary of the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. This question has been brought before the House over and over again, and in the whole of the Estimates no more disgraceful or scandalous piece of jobbery is to

  1341
  be found. In many of the permanent Departments of the Civil Service maybe found highly-trained and valuable officials, who for years have laboured skilfully in the service of their country, and would be only too glad to get a salary like this, yet here we have an utterly untrained man chosen for this appointment. It is notorious that Mr. Mulhall has had no training of any kind whatsoever, and any ordinary ornamental young man would deem himself extremely lucky to get a salary of £200 a year and his board for performing the duties of this office. It is, I repeat, a gross and monstrous job. Now, what are the duties of this private secretary? We are told that his business is to write invitations to balls, dinners, and suppers at Dublin Castle. Surely that does not justify the payment of a salary of £829 a year. If the Lord Lieutenant, with his salary of £20,000 a year and all these hangers-on, cannot write his own letters, be had better pay his private secretary out of his own pocket, for the taxpayers of England certainly ought not to be called on to pay £829 a year to a young gentleman whose only duty, besides dining with the Lord Lieutenant, is to fill in printed cards of invitation, address the envelopes, and paste on the stamps. I would therefore suggest that the Chief Secretary should hand over his coal allowance of £400 a year to his chief private secretary. I am sure Mr. John Mulhall will have every reason to be gratified. Then there are two other items on which we are entitled to an explanation. First, "Telegraphist, 5s. a day," a charge which expires with his life. I always find that where salaries are for life, the recipient goes on living for ever. Why is this telegraphist at the Viceregal Lodge? I could understand the need of a telegraphist for the monstrous use which is made of the wires in the work of spying all over the country. But why should there be a special telegraphist dancing attendance on the Lord Lieutenant? I cannot see any object at all, unless it be, as we know the Viceroy is a horsey man, that he has to send telegrams in respect of horse races. But Lord Zetland should pay for his own racing telegrams, and I protest against it. The Castle of Dublin is provided with a staff of telegraphists; all the business is done by that staff. If
  1342
  the Lord Lieutenant, his weary round of labours over, retires to the rural delights of Phoenix Park, and he wants to arrange his betting, let him pay for the telegraphists out of his own private resources. There is one other item I desire explained. I refer to the chaplain at Dublin Castle. It is an absurd and monstrous provision. It is a remnant of the old intolerance; and we had a recent example of the monstrous absurdity to which this gives rise. Although the Lord Lieutenant must not be a Roman Catholic, yet he may be a Presbyterian; and we bad the grotesque spectacle of a Presbyterian Lord Lieutenant, who was unable to receive the ministration of the Church of Ireland clergyman who was chaplain. I want the Chief Secretary to get up and tell us in a businesslike way what the private secretary does and why he is paid a large salary; why these four aides-de-camp each receive £200 a year; what the Comptroller does; and, if the Lord Lieutenant has a Chamberlain, Master of the Horse, and Gentlemen-in-Waiting, what does he want with State Stewards? These three gentlemen are not required for deciding questions of precedence in going into dinner, and so on. I hope the Chief Secretary will get up and explain what these officers do. If he does not, I think we are entitled, in the interests of the taxpayers of this country, to divide the Committee against every single Vote.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is very painful to me to hear all these attacks upon the Lord Lieutenant. I think I shall save the Chief Secretary trouble if I give a general defence for the existence of the Lord Lieutenant's Household. First of all, I will take the salary of the private secretary. Now, my hon. Friend says that Mr. John Mulhall is getting a larger salary, when a smaller one would do. But, no doubt, the private secretary to the present Lord Lieutenant and to the late Lord Lieutenant, the Marquess of Londonderry, has something to do. We know that the private secretary to these noblemen must have some allowance made for his feelings. I observe the hon. Member for Dover opposite. He is private secretary to the Chief Secretary—an intellectual man—he gets nothing. I have examined the Votes, and there is no charge whatever for the extraordinary

  1343
  services of the hon. Member for Dover. He takes a pleasure in the work, and perhaps the reason of it is that he often gets his name published in the newspaper. I have often wondered to my self whether the hon. Member for Dover is private secretary to the Chief Secretary or the Chief Secretary is private secretary to the Member for Dovet. Then, again, Mr. John Mulhall, it must be remembered, is a barrister, and he has to advise Lord Zetland of the legal competence of Irish Resident Magistrates. It will be seen at once that Mr. Malhall has a number of very important duties. Knowing how difficult it is to get Irish barristers into the service of the State, unless a sufficiently tempting and adequate salary is offered, I must say it is something to get a barrister for £829 Os. 8d.a year. I admire the 8d., and it shows that Mr. Mulhall is ready to maintain the reputation of the Irish Bar down to 8d. Then the aides-de-camp. On what ground are these gentlemen attacked? It is said that they do nothing but dance attendance on the Viceregal Household. It is a very dull place for these English gentlemen to spend their time in, and why on earth should they not have some salary. The Chief Secretary, who has £400 a year for coals, never goes to Ireland. Is it to be tolerated that these four aides-de-camp should not get each £200 a year for living in that country? I say they are dirt cheap to the State. Then we have the State Stewards. I do not know what they do. I have read about stewards in the Bible; but what the State Stewards do is a question on which, no doubt, the Chief Secretary will illuminate us. For my part, I could not for a moment attempt to decide why they should not get £413 19s. 4d. There is the Comptroller. I must say nobody wants more controlling than the Lord Lieutenant. It is a most admirable office; and if the Lord Lieutenant had not a Comptroller, there is no knowing what would happen to the British Constitution. Master of the Horse. That I can quite understand, because the Lord Lieutenant has no horses to be master of. I say to the Radicals of the country, that when they have got the Lord Lieutenant and his Household, they must be prepared to pay for them. Do not attack these miserable details. Let us address
  1344
  ourselves to these questions in a large and becoming sprit. It is unworthy of this House that these niggling comments should be made upon such an office as the Master of the Horse. I must say, Mr. Courtney, that so long, I hope, we will register no opposition to the Master of the Horse. But, Sir, something must be said of Sergeants of the Riding House. All these are absolutely, indispensably requisite to his position. From my knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, and the large acquaintance I possess among these persons, it would be wholly impossible, to maintain the dignity of the office if these adjuncts were not maintained. Then I come to the Chaplain of Dublin Castle, and I would ask, does any Institution stand more in need of such a functionary? He reads prayers daily at an expense of £184 12s. 8d. per annum, and yet we are asked to vote against his salary. Beyond this there is the cost of the telegraphist, who receives 5s. per day. Well, Sir, I say, I let us cut that off. I am prepared to cut down the expenditure of the Lord Lieutenant by 5s. per day, but when I am asked to abolish the other officers necessary to the dignity of that official, every feeling that is loyal and legitimate in my nature revolts against the proposal. This 5s. a day may seem a small matter; but I say it is not a small matter; and if any Radical in this House ventures to move its reduction, I shall vote with him against that payment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hon. Members opposite have spent a considerable portion of the evening in a discussion which may be, very agreeable and entertaining to them, but which can hardly be said to relate to matters of importance as affecting Ireland. In regard to what has been said as to the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Lean assure the House that the Lord Lieutenant has an enormous and very confidential correspondence, and it would be impossible to obtain a competent gentleman to deal with correspondence of that character by merely going into the market and engaging the first person who undertakes to give his services. When a comparison is drawn between the salary given to the Lord Lieutenant's secretary and that of a permanent Civil servant, it should be remembered that the appointment of the

  1345
  Lord Lieutenant's secretary is only temporary, and that, unlike the permanent Civil servant, he knows that his tenure of office will end with the tenure of the Lord Lieutenant himself, and that he has no claim to pension. Under these circumstances, I think the arguments used on this subject fall entirely to the ground. I hope the Committee will now come to a decision on this Vote, and that we may be allowed to proceed to matters of rather more importance.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has1 altogether failed to answer the direct inquiry put to him as to what are the duties of these officers of the Lord Lieutenant's Household. The right hon. Gentleman in his first speech told us he was not in a position to inform us as to the duties of the members of the Lord Lieutenant's Household.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said I was not in a position to explain the minute details.
  MR. W. REDMOND: We do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for minute details. All we have asked is that the right hon. Gentleman should state broadly what these officers do, and the right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out a single duty performed by either of these persons. He has told us, however, that we should commence by attacking the office of the Lord Lieutenant himself; but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that if he were to attempt to discuss the Lord Lieutenant's office, you, Sir, would rule us to be out of order; consequently, we are compelled to draw attention simply to the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman is evidently in absolute ignorance of the duties performed by those functionaries; he has made some attempt to give an account of the duties of the secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but he has not told us what the steward and the other officers do for the salaries which are here set down. It is an exceedingly cool proposition to expect this Committee to pass this Vote without the slightest inkling as to what these persons do for the money which is paid. Take the case of the Master of the Horse. He receives a salary of £200 a year; but, in addition to this, he has a further salary of £276 a year as the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare. Even if this were not
  1346
  a question of £276 added to £200 a year, natural curiosity would prompt us to inquire who and what is the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare, and I think we are entitled to that information. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know himself, he might inquire through his private secretaries. The right hon. Gentleman's chief private secretary has spent some time in Dublin Castle, and surely ought to be in a position to tell us what is done by the three Gentlemen in Waiting in order to earn the money they receive. He ought to be able to tell us what are the duties of the State Steward and the Controller, and also of the Gentleman Usher, who is in receipt of" £200 a year. But the right hon. Gentleman gets up, and, with an obvious affectation of seriousness, tells us we are not entitled to occupy the time of the Committee now, because the Vote does not relate to any serious important matter, such as will arise, no doubt, on the question of his own salary. This may be true; but, at the same time, the Vote is one of close upon £3,800 a year, and, therefore, it is not a trivial matter. We find that not only do some of these gentlemen receive salaries set down in this Vote; but, by a note at the bottom of the page, we find that they are also receiving salaries for fulfilling other offices in different parts of Ireland. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the Committee to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the fitness of the salary given to the Master of the Horse when we find that he is receiving another salary as Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out to the hon. Member that the question at issue with regard to the Master of the Horse has reference only to his salary of £200 a year. The other question is not raised by this Vote.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I quite see the, force of your interposition, Mr. Courtney, but I apprehend that there must be some connection between the two payments. However, when the proper time arrives, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what are the duties of the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare. At present I only desire to know the duties of the officers of the Lord Lieutenant's household. We are bound to go to a Division in order to express our view as to the maintenance of

  1347
  these apparently useless offices. We are bound to do this in the interests of the unfortunate taxpayers, not only of Ireland but of England and Scotland, who have to provide the means of maintaining these useless appointments.
  MR. DILLON: I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £3,000, in order that the opinion of the Committee may be taken upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has stated that we are wasting time in a discussion of an insignificant Vote. If time is being wasted it is simply because our criticism of the Vote has been met in a manner which is, at any rate, very unusual in this House. Here are a number of items which have been challenged in Committee, year after year, and I ask any Conservative or Liberal Independent Member to compare the way we are treated in regard to these Votes with the way the Secretary to the Treasury meets points that are raised in the Votes which are under his charge. I have never known the Secretary to the Treasury, political opponent of ours as he is, fail to go into the most minute detail on any question raised on a Vote; but here, when criticisms are offered, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately refuses to give us any information on any detail in the Vote, and rides off on the plea, "I have not got sufficient time to acquaint myself with the details of the matter." Therefore, if there is waste of time in Committee, the blame must rest entirely on the shoulders of the gentleman who expects us to take Votes in this way. The only case in which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to give anything in the shape of an answer was in regard to the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He said this gentleman had an immense mass of confidential correspondence to deal with, and that, therefore, we got full value for his salary. But I would point out that the whole of the work of the Government of Ireland is done through the Irish Office and the Castle. Then what in be the nature of this confidential correspondence? A lot of it is correspondence about betting, or has to do with the private affairs of Lord Zetland, and it is not for this House to pay a secretary to attend to it. If Lord Zetland's private correspondence is large, and his betting transactions are considerable, he should pay out of his own
  1348
  pocket the salary of the private secretary who attends to such matters. But, as I say, whatever time is occupied with these Votes, the Chief Secretary, whose duty it is to know all about these things, comes down here and calls on the House to vote a sum of £3,164, without giving us the slightest information as to the duties of the officials.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, Lord Lieutenant's Household, be reduced by the sum of £3,000."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  DR. TANNER: Before we proceed to divide on the question I would point out to the Chief Secretary that most of these aides-de-camp are military men drawing full pay all the time they are absent from their regiments. Many of these gentlemen belong to cavalry regiments, and have fair private means of their own, and they look forward to positions of this kind without the slightest regard to this beggarly £200 a-year. They enjoy the kudos of being appointed to this honorary position. They act as dancing men, in every sense of the word, attending all the Viceregal entertainments. Their salaries, it seems to me, if the Chief Secretary would look upon the matter in a business-like and conciliatory spirit, might easily be dispensed with. Why is not this economy effected? Merely because these salaries were granted years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Conservative Government, desires to preserve the salaries of others, as he desires to preserve his own. I would point out that the surgeon to the Household receives only £100 a year, though he has to look after a great many people. He has to maintain a high position, yet he only gets £100 a year, while these dancing military men get £200 a year each. Then, the Master of Horse—than whom there is no more courteous gentleman in connection with Dublin Castle, and who is well known to many hon. Members—has nothing to do but, on certain occasions, choose the horses for the Viceregal equipages. That is not a very onerous duty. The gallant Colonel is a permanent official. Like the Vicar of Bray, no matter what I Government comes or goes he still remains Master of the Horse, and if the

  1349
  question is put to him whether he desires to see this controversy year after year on this useless Vote, I am sure he will say he does not want the money, and will be very happy to fulfil his functions without payment. There is an item of £200 for a Chamberlain, and it seems to me absurd that you should pay that amount, when the surgeon only gets £100. Why, the telegraphist at the Castle only receives £9 a year less than the surgeon, a thing which is absurd on the face of it. I am sure that the Chief Secretary will see that some explanation is due to us in regard to these matters, and that he will deal with such Votes in a dignified, steady, and righteous manner.
  MR. MORTON: I desire to support this Amendment as a Representative of an English constituency. I think this charge is simply plundering the English and Scottish taxpayers. There may be some use for the private secretary and telegraphist, but the amount which it is proposed to leave will be ample for them. It seems to me extraordinary that we should pay for the objects set forth in this Vote four times as much for Ireland as we pay for Scotland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote has been divided into two parts, and we are now dealing with the first portion.
  *MR. MORTON: We must bear in mind that there is no occasion at all for State in Ireland. The people do not want it; and it must be a sham and a farce. If the Queen or the members of the Royal Family were in the habit of residing in Ireland, I could understand that there was some excuse for the Vote, though, in another way, it would be bad even then; but, at present, so far as we have any evidence, there is no occasion for this money being spent in any shape or form whatever. I hold, therefore, that for us to vote this money is to deliberately waste it. I hope the Committee will reduce the Vote.
  MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.): I fail to see why this House should vote money for a surgeon to the Lord Lieutenant. If with £20,000 a year the Lord Lieutenant cannot pay his own surgeon's bill—as we Members of this House have to do—there is a law which the Torty Party are constantly quoting, namely, 1st and 2nd Vic, Chap. 26, by aid of which the noble Lord can obtain
  1350
  relief. He can go to the South Dublin Union Dispensary and get attended to; but why he should come here for assistance of this kind I cannot make out. I find there are two Gentlemen in Waiting charged for, one at a salary of £184, and the other at a salary of £58. The reason one of these has got his post is because he is the son of Mr. Olphert, of Donegal. When I went down to Donegal this very Gentleman in Waiting had an interview with the Lord Lieutenant, and got me four months imprisonment, my sentence being doubled on appeal.
  Mr. AIRD(6.47.) Mr. AIRD rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BLANE: The Chief Secretary does not tell us the use of these men, or give us an intelligible explanation of the Vote, and, therefore, I say that we are justified in resisting it. It seems to me that the Lord Lieutenant should be able to meet all these charges out of his £20,000 a year, and that, in respect of them, no call should be made on the general taxpayers, most of whom are poor men, who have to pay to the Treasury on every smoke of the pipe they take, and every cup of tea, coffee, or cocoa they drink.
  MR. DILLON: I feel compelled to say, Sir, that the proceedings on the opposite side of the House are not such as are calculated to facilitate discussion. I never, in the whole course of my experience in Committee in this House, witnessed such a method of attempting to carry the Estimates as that adopted by the Chief Secretary today. We are accused of wasting time, but I will undertake to say that no English Vote was ever attempted to be carried through Committee in the way these are attempted to be carried through. The Chief Secretary has not endeavoured to offer the slightest justification for the Vote, and then, whilst we are trying to extract some explanation from him, one of his supporters gets up and moves that the question be now put. Surely some intelligent Member of the Party opposite will shortly rise and move that the

  1351
  whole of the Irish Estimates be carried forthwith. Let the hon. Member opposite give some intelligent indication that he understands the matters we are discussing before he tries to stop the Debate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would point out that on the Irish Estimates, as Irishmen themselves have often said, there arise great controversies on matters connected with the Government of Ireland. I am most anxious that the Committee should discuss those great controversial questions which come up upon the Irish Estimates, but we have now had two and a half hours of a discussion upon questions which cannot be regarded as of first, or even secondary, importance. The hon. Member for Mayo has accused the Government of declining to give information. I have not declined to give information. I have discussed many details with regard to the Vote, and if I have not gone into detail upon the duties of the various officials, the Committee will see that to attempt to discuss such questions in detail must be unsatisfactory in a high degree. If we require a Lord Lieutenant, and one who has to pay more than his salary—for that is what it really comes to—I maintain that it is not important to discuss what precise distinction there may be between the duties of a Chamberlain and those of an Equerry. There is no Court in which there are not similar functionaries; the salaries are not excessive, and far less than those which used to be paid. These have been discussed over and over again in this House, and I would again respectfully urge the Committee not to peddle with these twopenny-half-penny questions, but to decide at once the question of whether there should be a Lord Lieutenant or not.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that they were not twopenny-half-penny which were raised in Committee on Monday and Tuesday night. The right hon. Gentleman has given us another proof of his great cleverness in evading the real question, and turning aside the whole course of the Debate. We maintain that the offices for which these charges are made are not real offices. There is no real office of Master of the Horse, as there are no horses to master; there is no
  1352
  office of Equerry, as there are no horse" to ride. If we object to this Vote it is- because these offices are unreal, and because we want to put an end to shams. We move a reduction of the Vote, and at once an hon. Member on the opposite- side rises and moves that the question be now put. I was at that hon. Member's election. I have never heard him make a speech—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The question, "That the Question be now put," was.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Then I will only-say I object to this item for a Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. If the Lord Lieutenant were such an one as-we had prior to 1886—a Member of the Cabinet and a distinguished statesman—one could understand the necessity for a Private Secretary, but we cannot in the case of a man whose only claim to distinction is that his name begins with a Z. The secretaries to the Chief Secretary deserve to to be on the Vote, if they are not, for we get information from them. They enlighten the House. But that cannot be said of the officials under this Vote, whose functions the Chief Secretary declines to explain. We in Ireland are not opposed to institutions-like the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant. I should have no objection myself, under more propitious auspices, to be conducted to the State ballroom by an aide-de-camp. We do not object to-the pomp of State, but we want the offices to be real. They are not real, and, for that reason, I feel it my duty to-support the Amendment.
  (7.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 202,—(Div. List, No. 183.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. TANNER: We now pass to sub-head (b), and I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one item under the sub-head. It is a very small matter, but I trust the Chief Secretary will vouchsafe us some reply. I see that £100 is set down for incidental expenses. The same sum was taken last year-How comes it to pass that in these wonderfully well paid offices a sum is

  1353
  provided every year for ineidental expenses? What is the £100 for?
  MR. A. J BALFOUR:I understand that the incidental expenses are principally connected with travelling by Members of the Lord Lieutenant's household upon matters of public importance, and also with the supply of newspapers, and the like. The sum is less than it was some years ago; it has remained at the present figure for the last two years.
  DR. TANNER: £100 for newspapers is a large sum. To whom are the newspapers supplied? Is it to the Lord Lieutenant or to individual members of the staff? We know that the Chief Secretary, a gentleman of great literary culture, objects to newspapers; he never reads them. Let us receive some enlightenment on this matter; small as it is. It certainly would save a great deal of time if the particulars were given in the Estimates themselves. To whom tare the newspapers supplied?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Lieutenant's household.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.): I wish to raise the question of the distribution of the Queen's plate, but am not sure whether I can do so in this Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That will come lip in a later Vote.
  DR. TANNER: We now come to the question of the chaplaincy to the Castle. It seems to me extraordinary that a clergyman of the Disestablished Episcopal Church in Ireland should occupy the position of chaplain. I should have thought that when the Church was disestablished, this office, this ridiculous sinecure would have been done away with. The chaplain has very few duties to perform; indeed, most of the members of the Lord Lieutenant's Household take a great interest in receiving, and very little in praying. Surely it is time this solemn farce was stopped. The ehaplain gets a very good sum of money. He has an allowance of £184 12s. 8d. a year, and an allowance in lieu of furnished house of £150. Speaking as a Protestant, I think it would be to the benefit of all parties if this solemn farce should be abolished. I know the chaplain is a very learned and a capable gentleman, and I have no doubt he feels very deeply
  1354
  the absurdity of his position. I hope the Chief Secretary; will see his way to at all events make some inquiry in the matter. In; the meantime, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £335.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C be reduced by the sum of £335 (the salary of the Chaplain of Dublin Castle."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I trust my hon. Friend will not persist with this Motion. We have now passed the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's Household, which includes many gentlemen who must necessarily belong to the Protestant Church. While the House of Commons maintains these gentlemen in their offices it is only right and proper the House should provide for their religious observances. It has been the custom of the Committee to provide for these requirements in the past, and I trust that under present circumstances the Committee will not find it necessary to depart from that custom. I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and allow us to preceed to more serious matter.
  DR. TANNER: Apparently my hon. Friend does not see the importance of this matter. You have surrounded the Lord Lieutenant with at least five or six Protestant Churches, and if these gentlemen are desirous of going to Church there is no reason why they should not walk about 300 yards to Christ Church or a few steps further in another direction to St. Andrew's. The Chapel Royal is scarcely attended by anybody except the dearly beloved clerk. I went there on two occasions many years ago, and I was struck by the paucity of the attendance. The Protestants of Ireland know this is a solemn farce, and would be glad to see it stopped, I sincerely hope a decision will be taken upon this point.
  MR. MORTON: I must support the proposed reduction unless we get some explanation. Up to the present the Chief Secretary has not given us any explanation. Why should not the gentlemen connected with the Castle pay pew rents like other people? I certainly do not see why we in England should be called upon to pay for such expenses as these. I trust we shall

  1355
  have the courage to reduce this Vote. I entirely object to the speech the Chief Secretary delivered just now. He said, "Vote this money and let us get on to what is political matter." As I understand we have been discussing these votes as a matter of business. We are trying to study economy, trying to do away with what is absolutely useless expenditure. I have great pleasure in supporting the reduction. Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £26,394, 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, 1891, 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. W. O'BRIEN (Cork, N.E.): I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £4,425, the amount of the salary of the Chief Secretary. It is a little outrageous, perhaps, but I think nobody can have failed to notice a certain change of demeanour on the part of the Chief Secretary towards Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman seems lately to have developed some spirit of courtesy, and even of blandishment, towards some at least of the criminal conspirators sitting on these Benches. Now, this would be very gratifying, and we should all, I think, be very glad to reciprocate it if, with the altered manner towards Irish Members in this House, there was any indication of a change in the treatment of the people of Ireland. We should be very much more impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's somewhat new-born courtesy towards Representatives of the people here, if it were accompanied with some consideration shown to an unfortunate newspaper editor in Ireland, who is now picking oakum among thieves in Tullamore Gaol; or for another gentleman who is lying on a plank bed in Cork Gaol to-night for protecting Protestant tenants. Let the right hon. Gentleman display his change of demeanour towards Mr. Tom Barry, a man of great influence, and held in much respect in the South of Ireland, who, a few days ago, was dragged handcuffed, without reason,
  1356
  through his own town of Mallow. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to instruct Colonel Caddell to change his manner towards the people of Tipperary, and not to use filthy language towards a young woman in custody of his police, not to stick out his tongue at a clergyman, and proclaim his triumph at the grave of a Nationalist. These and many more such things we cannot help remembering, they are burned in upon our hearts, and we cannot help remembering that if the Chief Secretary has adopted a somewhat subdued tone towards Irish Members in the House, that happens after he has discovered that his other and original policy of insult and violence towards the Representatives of the Irish people did not commend itself to the constituencies of Great Britain quite so enthusiastically as he concluded it would. The right hon. Gentleman began with a very different sort of programme towards the Irish Members. We can hardly forget my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) stretched in the street at Cork by my side with two frightful gashes in his head, his life hanging in the balance for a couple of weeks afterwards. We cannot forget the personal violence inflicted upon my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Tipperary and Mid Cork, while the man who ordered these attacks, instead of being brought to trial and sent to prison, is promoted to the post of County Inspector. Most fortunate—for those were the early days of coercion, "when the bloom was on the rye" it is pretty well off now—for us, the British constituencies, at bye-elections, rather moderated the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman for gibing and coercion. I really think that every brilliant gibe of his must have cost his Party a seat in this House. It is pretty plain that he is a gentleman who can be improved by a little wholesome thrashing. We do not hear so much of the expressions of delight at the progress of his administration in Ireland. Only the other night, in a spirit of meekness and humility, he confessed that when two-years ago he boasted in this House to the British public that the National League in suppressed districts was a thing of the past, he only spoke in reference to what he desired.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hem. Gentleman is entirely mistaken, as lie will see on reference to the report of what I said in answer to a question in reference to attendance at suppressed meetings.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I have not the slightest desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but does he now say that the National League in suppressed districts is a thing of the past?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Do I understand him to deny what he so piteously complained of the other night in this House, that he, with all his force in Tipperary, can make no headway against the power of the National League? Does he deny the Report cited in the House, that, at the last meeting held under the nose of his 130 policemen, in Tipperary, the three last adherents of Mr. Smith-Barry made their submission to the National League? I gave him credit for better things. Facts are too strong for him. There is no getting over the fact that, instead of crippling the power of the League, his Administration has increased the contributions to its resources until they exceed the contributions of half a century before to the national cause. He will find it hard to get out of the fact that, in six bye-elections in different parts of Ireland, not a single Representative of the Party opposite dared to put in an appearance, and three of these elections were in the province of Ulster, and one of the constituences was sacred by the residence of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. I must say I had thought the right hon. Gentleman had changed his old tone of boasting. It seemed to me his speech on the Constabulary Vote if it meant anything was really a piteous appeal, a lament that he had been utterly foiled and was helpless against the irresistible power of the League in Tipperary and elsewhere. Though he has 130 police and nearly 700 soldiers massed in that one small town, he cannot point to a single officer of the law injured in the struggle. The worst crime he can inpute to the people of Tipperary'is that they insist that men shall choose their sides, that they shall throw in their fortunes with Mr. Smith-Barry if they love him, and have confidence in him, or with the people whom
  1358
  Mr. Smith-Barry has wantonly, wickedly endeavoured to exterminate. Whether there is any change or not in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, at all events there is a change of tactics rather than a change of administration in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has learned to conduct his operations in such a way that they do not attract attention in England, and they make no sensational appearance in the English Press. He fights pretty shy now of eviction campaigns, such as those carried out at Glenbeigh, Bodyke, and elsewhere. He conducts evictions now by surprise in half dozens. He takes care to provoke no more quarrels with prisoners in gaols. He takes care to have no more English visitors attacked and flung off platforms, as Mr. Wilfrid Blunt and Lady Ann Blunt were flung off the platform at Woodford. He hides his hand now, and carries out his operations stealthily, silently, and slowly; the work of clearing estates is carried on without attracting notice in England. This was done last year, when the backs of English visitors were turned, with little excitement, and little to attract English attention. The Chief Secretary is very fond of sneering at the English visitors to Ireland; but he himself once invited English visits to Ireland. He was not quite so ardent in pressing his invitation when it was suggested that English visitors might take the form of a Committee of this House, to investigate facts, and show the slanderous nature of the charges made against the people of Tipperary in this House. The right hon. Gentleman is never tired of jibing at English visitors to Ireland who happen to go and see for themselves; but, I venture to say, these English visitors have done more for the tranquility of Ireland, and for the permanent unity of the Empire, considerably more, than he has done with all the bayonets and coercion at his command. What is more, although he affects to sneer at these men, and the want of effect of their speeches compared with those of Irish Members, I venture to say he knows in his heart that these men are very much more formidable adversaries to his Party and Administration than we are, and this he has discovered from the results of the bye elections in this country. These men have, for them-

  1359
  selves, examined the daily work of coercion, the only way to iearn what is going on in Ireland under the present Administration. These men can tell their countrymen, from actual knowledge, the hardships of the Irish people, not in single instances, but in daily life. They can tell how clergymen and principal men in various districts in Ireland are hunted about the country by the police like thieves, under the suspicion that they intend to hold meetings. The persecution is well-nigh incredible to the English people. It astounds me to hear the Chief Secretary talk of intimidation by the people, and the sufferings they inflict. Why, they are the most marvellous people in the world, that, year after year, they have borne this system of cruelty and violent persecution at the hands of the myrmidons of the right hon. Gentleman. These things the English people now know from their own Representatives. It is as well to know in every constituency in England how, in the struggle between landlord and tenant, the dice are loaded against the unfortunate tenants, and every combination of landlords and English capitalists, many of them like those who back Mr. Smith-Barry, is petted and supported by the whole power of the Executive, at the expense of the British taxpayer, while the forces of the Crown are used, and the most desperate attempts are made, to terrorise the people and break down the combinations, so that many of them day and night are in constant dread of the visit of the Sheriff to confiscate their property, or the police to arrest them. Look at the state of things in the City of Cork. We dare not go there, because the people would assemble to greet us, and we know that from some dark ambush a gang of police would sally out and commence a savage bludgeon attack. We have seen, in the streets of Tralee, how the silent rising of the hat may subject a man to such treatment. This is how coercion works in Ireland, and these things are now known in England, in spite of the sneers of the Chief Secretary. There are districts in Ireland where you cannot find a man which has not had a member of his family evicted or put into prison. In Longford, one of the quietest towns in Ireland, you have a member of the Town Council, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, five of the principal men of
  1360
  the town, all in prison, undergoing the treatment of criminals, upon some trumped-up charge of intimidation against them. In the noble town of Tipperary a boy was killed by a Force of 37 armed police. It is not there a question of the Plan of Campaign, in spite of all the Chief Secretary has said. I do not think any Judge would say so, not even my namesake would say it. The action of the tenants in Tipperary is as lawful as the dockers' strike in London. It is an unselfish, crimeless, fight for justice and humanity. We could go on accumulating facts, if it were any use piling Pelion upon Ossa, we could quote volumes showing the utter hopeless failure of every department of coercive policy. There is no disguising the fact that this unarmed peasantry have resisted all the force with which the Chief Secretary has been pounding at them for the past four years, In spite of the Olpherts, Clanricardes, and Ponsonbys, the people have defied the right hon. Gentleman and all his legions. The contest still goes on, but I do not think it can last much longer. So long as it does last it is our duty to expose the policy of the Chief Secretary, his failure, and gross ignorance of Irish affairs. There is no disguising the issue—either he must crush us or we must crush him and his administration. He still has his motley majority at his back in this House. [An hon. MEMBER: Of four.] No, more than four on the Irish question, for that happens to be the one question upon which they are together—together in a leaky boat in a heavy sea—and their only chance is to stick together, and together they will stick. The constituencies have long been united in condemning the verdict of the majority here, and are longing for the chance of shattering that majority to atoms. Meanwhile we are bound by our duty here to our people to protest by voice and vote against any admission that the Chief Secretary is entitled to any recognition for services rendered at the hands of the Irish people, or anyone who values the peace and tranquility of the Empire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item D be reduced by the sum of £4,425 (the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant)."(Mr. William O'Brien.)
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: During the opening remarks of my hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary denied that there had been any meeting held in Ireland of suppressed branches of the National League. Now, Sir, to-day I asked a question of the Chief Secretary, or rather of the Attorney General for Ireland, whether a meeting did not take place in Tipperary last Sunday, and whether it was not attended by 500 or 600 men, who subsequently marched into the town in procession, in order to show that such an assembly had taken place. The Attorney General, acting on the information supplied by the officer of the Chief Secretary, stood up and denied that any such meeting had taken place, or that such a procession had marched into the town. Now, I have read a report of the proceedings in no less than three different newspapers, and I am convinced that it did take place. In fact, I myself have attended many such meetings over and over again. I have addressed meetings of the suppressed branches within a short distance of the town of Tipperary, where you have 200 policemen and 700 soldiers, and those meetings have been held in the absence of policemen. I have addressed meetings of my constituents, under these circumstances; the priest has been in the chair and reporters have been present. Yet if I were to ask a question as to whether such a meeting had been held, either the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General would get up and assure the House that no such meeting had taken place, although I might have been present at it. The fact is the Chief Secretary is like a child, he shuts his eyes in the dark because he is afraid. He does not want to know that these meetings are held, he declines to admit their existence until something occurs which raises the fears of his own supporters, and then he is obliged to admit it, and to alter his policy. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will declare that he has not altered his policy from the beginning, and that he has not changed his course of conduct. But I should like to point out to him one instance in which he has changed his policy, in deference to the public opinion created in this country, because his policy was inconsistent with the enlightened notions of the people of this country, and inconsistent with their ideas
  1362
  of punishment. The right hon. Gentle-I man stood up in this House last year, and, in reply to speeches which were made in opposition to his policy, in regard to the treatment of prisoners in Ireland, he admitted that owing to the manner in which prisoners were treated in Ireland, and owing to the impression which, he said, was made on English audiences by public speakers upon the subject, he admitted that a case had been made out for inquiry into the treatment of prisoners throughout the three Kingdoms. But although an inquiry was instituted the right hon. Gentleman did not await the Report of the Committee, but he directed the Prisons Board to make fresh bye-laws, which conceded every one of the main demands made on behalf of prisoners in Ireland for what we believe to be political offences. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of one of his speeches to-night, asked us to turn our backs on the twopenny-half-penny questions which he said were contained in the Votes we have just passed, and to turn to what he called the dramatic points which remained to be argued under the Vote. He might well style them dramatic, for there is a great drama being enacted in Ireland at the present moment. There are evictions going on in the presence of policemen and soldiers. People who are compelled to break the law are hauled before the Magistrates, who do not administer their duties according to the law, but who prefer to follow the instructions from Dublin Castle. The Chief Secretary may laugh at this, but does he mean to say that it has not taken place? Why, we can prove that it has, out of the Magistrates' own mouths. For instance, on one occasion Colonel Carew said he did not care about the law, or about evidence; he had his instructions from Dublin Castle. What are the Magistrates in Ireland doing? Why, last year 15 of these young men were brought before two of these Resident Magistrates, Messrs. Frewen and Meldon, in the town of Tipperary, and were charged with riot. The Resident Magistrates retired to consider the evidence, and they returned into Court and declared that the case against one of the defendants was dismissed, while, with regard to the other 14, they said they

  1363
  could not, on the evidence produced by the Crown, convict them of riot; but in order to put a stop to such proceedings they would direct the defendants to find bail to be on their good behaviour for 12 months, or to go to gaol for two months. Here are men absolutely declared by the Magistrates to be innocent of the charge preferred against them, yet, in order to carry out the in structions from Dublin Castle, they are compelled to give bait for their good behaviour, or else go to gaol for two months. What was the offence of these 15 young men—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This does not properly come under this Vote. It is a question which should be raised under the Vote affecting the present Magistrates.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: My contention is that these Resident Magistrates were acting under the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of Ireland. They are servants—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! This matter cannot be entertained under this Vote. Questions affecting the general policy of the Chief Secretary may be taken, but the action of the Resident Magistrates must be discussed under the Vote affecting them.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I have repeatedly brought this question before the House. I have asked the Chief Secretary to explain upon what principle the conduct of the Resident Magistrates can be justified. I have received from the right hon. Gentleman very unsatisfactory answers, and now I think it is incumbent on me to prove my contention that he is responsible, because he backing up these Magistrates in an un-constitutional manner, and in a manner which ought to be questioned in this House. I want to prove that my constituents have been treated by these Resident Magistrates, under orders from the Chief Secretary, in such a manner as to meet with the condemnation of the House. I think I am entitled to raise this question, because the Chief Secretary's salary is under discussion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This subject can only be raised on the Vote for the Resident Magistrates.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to bring a charge against the police on this question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The action of the police must be questioned on the Vote for the police. On the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary only questions of general policy can be discussed. The action of any especial Department of the Executive in Ireland must be raised on the Vote affecting that particular Department.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I submit that when the Chief Secretary moved the Closure the other night he made a statement to the effect that the police Vote and the Vote for his salary were very much the same thing, and they both involved the same question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that was what I stated. What I intended to convey was that some of the questions which were raised on the Police Vote should have been raised on this Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! What occurred on that occasion does not affect this Committee. We cannot go into this question now.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The difficulty is to decide when a Resident Magistrate is acting as an executive officer, and when he is acting as a Judge. Take the case, for instance, of Mr. Cecil Roche, who sometimes sits on the Bench, and who at the same time may be conducting the actions of the police, and, while so acting, may be inciting them to murder people. On what Vote are we to question such conduct?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! When the Vote including his salary comes under discussion it will be open to the hon. Member to raise this question.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I submit that these are questions of general policy. The Chief Secretary justifies the action of these Resident Magistrates. Still it does not matter to me when I bring these matters forward. I can do it to-morrow just as well as to-day, and I will, therefore, in obedience to your ruling, Sir, pass on to another subject. I want to know from the Chief Secretary why it is that the men who shot down Heffernan in the streets of Tipperary have not been proceeded against. It was stated in the course of the Debate on the matter that the man in charge of the Force who committed this desperate deed had ordered the crowd to disperse. But I

  1365
  wonder is the Chief Secretary aware of the fact that it transpired in the evidence that the rules of the force on this occasion had not been complied with by this officer. According to those rules the crowd should first have been charged with batons, but, as a fact, this young policeman recklessly ordered the men under his command to fire, and he added instructions that they should aim to kill. I think the facts in this case should have induced the right hon. Gentleman to take further action. The Coroner, when the issue paper was handed to him by the Jury, said that they had found that the man Heffernan came by his death by a gunshot wound received on the 5th instant in the public streets of Tipperary, and that he died on the 7th. The Jury found a verdict of wilful murder against the District Inspector and a constable, and they further found that the constable fired the shot by the direction of the District Inspector. The Jury further added a rider calling upon the Government to take immediate steps to prevent a repetition of such occurrences, because they believed that such events would lead to anarchy and crime. Before the proceedings of that inquest closed the Crown Prosecutor stated that he had never seen an inquest conducted with more ability or greater impartiality than had been the case on that occasion. But what has been the result of that verdict? What has become of the officer who ordered the shot to be fired, and what has become of the policeman who fired the shot? I suppose the officer has followed the example of the District Inspector who distinguished himself by invading a non-proclaimed meeting, and calling upon the Force under his command to draw their swords, and charge the crowd and disperse it, with the result that they wounded no less than 30 or 40 men, without any warning and without reading the Riot Act. That Inspector, who was afterwards found guilty of assault by a Bench of Magistrates, but the informations concerning whom were subsequently quashed by the Government, was promoted to a Resident Magistracy, and I believe that every one of the men under his command on that occasion received a pecuniary reward, while in the case of this poor man Heffernan, who was murdered in the streets of Tipperary, I believe the Dis-
  1366
  trict Inspector has received promotion. Indeed, the police have discovered that the wise path to promotion in Ireland, under the existing r°gime, is by doing acts of violence to the people of the country, and by committing outrages upon personal liberty. And while I arm upon this point I may as well allude to one or two other matters of general policy. The Police Vote, I know, has been passed, but some of my constituents in Tipperary are being persecuted by the police. I have had brought under my notice the case of a man named Burke, who has been in the habit of earning his livelihood in the-streets of Tipperary by mending boots, and shoes. A short time ago it was brought under the notice of this House that he had been deprived of his livelihood, because the police surrounded the place where he worked, and by making, it appear to the people generally that the man was one of them, his customers were-scared away. I have received a letter calling particular attention to this case, and from that letter I gather that the man had to leave his usual post for working owing to the action of two or three policemen, who constantly stood by him and pretended that he was doing work for them. The consequence was that he lost his customers. He left the main street, and for nine weeks he was unable to get any work. He applied to the Board of Guardians for relief. Ultimately, he went back to his ol65 place, but he had no sooner taken up his position than three policemen presented themselves and prevented any of his customers approaching him. I think this is one of the cases which ought to be inquired into by the Chief Secretary. It shows the manner in which the people of Tipperary are treated by the police—a manner which is not calculated to maintain the peace of the town. If a dog persistently attacks a man the latter is entitled to take steps for his own protection. I look upon the police of Tipperary as being nothing better than a dog, and I think the people there ought to be protected from this vicious system of espionage, following, and shadowing, and if they are not so protected they will be justified in using any means that can be devised to protect themselves from such an obnoxious policy. I should like to deal with one other question arising

  1367
  out of tins recent difficulties in Ireland; In the course of a discussion on the dock strikes—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question is pertinent to the Police Vote, and indeed it was discussed upon that Vote.
  MR. J O'CONNOR: We are discussing the policy of the Chief Secretary, and I must say that I find it very difficult, now that the Police Vote has been passed, to keep within the very narrow limits in which you are confining us, and I do hope that before these Votes are-finally passed-we shall have some opportunity of condemning the action of the Chief Secretary for the persistent persecution of the people, and for the miscarriage of justice by the Resident Magistrates. I cannot help remembering the conduct of these officials. For instance, Colonel Turner was in charge of a Military Force at some evictions on the Ponson by estate, and at the very scene of those evictions, while the people were writhing under the injustice of being driven from the homes which they had built, and from the farms which they had reclaimed by means of their own capital and labour—while they were writhing under this injustice, in the very midst of sorrow and tears, this Colonel Turner ordered the bagpipes and bands of soldiers under his command to play up their national airs and their merry tunes, in order to drown the wails of the people thus driven from their homes. We intend to do all in our power to bring these facts before the people who constitute the Court of final appeal, and in the very short period which will elapse between the close of this Session and the opining of next Session, we shall utilise all the time at our disposal in order to make these facts public.
  MR. MACNEILL: I would much prefer to discuss this matter more on the general aspects of policy than—as I am compelled to do by your repeated rulings, Sir—direct myself to the personal conduct of the Chief Secretary. A Chief Secretary who, with his high position and limited knowledge of the country, finds himself in possession of despotic authority over an entire country—into which he, perhaps, has never put a foot before being invested with that authority—has one or other
  1368
  of two courses to pursue. The moment he arrives at the seat of his administration he finds there a number of gentlemen, his officials. If he throws him self unreservedly into the hands of these gentlemen, everything, so far as he is concerned, will be rendered pleasant for him. There will be plenty of one-sided information given to him for the confusion of his opponents, and everything will go smoothly so long as he is content to view all matters with other eyes than his own. In the case of the present Chief Secretary, this system has been adopted, and it is now too late to alter it. If, three and a half years ago, he had put his foot down and taken an independent course, and had said, "I will examine things for myself; I will not take a one sided view of every prosecution in Ireland," things would not have gone so smoothly. No doubt his servants would have been courteous, but they would not have liked it; and if he had made mistakes, they would have been secretly delighted and would have been ready to say, "Well, you would not be advised by us, and now you must put up with the consequences." If the right hon. Gentleman had brought fresh eyes to the Administration, however, the results, far as Ireland is concerned, would have been very different. At present he is simply dealing with officials who are actuated by the fear of the loss of their posts, and he gives them a power-of-attorney over his voice, his conscience, and his influence in the House. He has thrown himself entirely into the hands of the Castle officials, and as far as answers to questions are concerned the right hon. Gentleman is nothing more than a telephone between the officials and the House of Commons, and his salary might well be cut down to the cost of the telegrams. In answering supplementary questions, of course, he displays great ability, resource, and cleverness; and no one would admire him more than I should every afternoon if these questions and answers were a mere dialectical game—a mere game in a drawing room—but it becomes a very serious thing when we reflect that on these matters depend not merely the personal triumph of some smart repartee, but the lives and happiness of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, fails to realise that Irish politics are something

  1369
  more serious than a highly intellectual game. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble of seeing things for himself. He has simply placed himself in the hands of persons who are interested, and there is one feature in the right hon. Gentleman's administration which is in complete contrast with every other administration in Ireland. Other Chief Secretaries have spent the greater portion of their time in Ireland, but last year the right hon. Gentleman was only in Ireland for six or seven weeks out of six or seven months that he might have spent there. I have had the curiosity to make a note of the dates, and I find that Parliament last year rose on the 30th of August, but that the Chief Secretary did not put in an appearance in Ireland until October 24th. He was away during that period of excitement, when, if he was any good at all in Ireland, his presence would have been most valuable. He was away during the rise of the Tenants' Defence Association, during the founding of the Smith-Barry Syndicate, and the transactions which took place in Maryborough. And when he came to Ireland, he only remained until the 16th November, reappearing on the 16th December, and remaining until the 30th January. Where was he is the intervals? Why, ho was in England or Scotland governing Ireland by correspondence with men whose words, as we contend, are thoroughly unreliable on all matters affecting Irish administration. It is no exaggeration when I say that the Castle officials are practised in falsehood. They seem to be continually undergoing a competative examination to see who is the boldest and most effective liar. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is a man of intelligence; he knows in this dialectical game of question and answer on which side the truth lies, but he sticks to his official information. He has received his official instructions, and he sticks to them. The hon. Member for Dover, the Chief Secretary's secretary since he has assumed his present post, has made some references to Irish history. I would remind him and the Chief Secretary that in Grattan's Parliament, when a very respectable gentleman had committed the error of making his position in Parliament the medium of
  1370
  publishing slanders and falsehood, although he did not know that the words; he had used were slanderous or false, and had given his authority for them—which the Chief Secretary never does, except to say that he has got his information from the police—Grattan got up and declared that the informant of the hon. Member was a gross, public liar, and in the most vigorous terms condemned the misconduct of the Member who was capable of giving expression to the slanders put into his mouth by officials. We can imagine from that what Grattan would have said if he could have heard the Chief Secretary day after day, relying upon the words put into his mouth by the Castle officials. The Chief Secretary I have always regarded as a man of great ability, but, at the same time, I am sure he is too much of a philosopher to believe in political miracles. Yet it would be a political miracle if the right hon. Gentleman were anything but what, under the circumstances, he ought to be and is, namely, an example of gigantic ignorance as to the primary facts of Irish social life Twelve months ago the right hon. Gentleman got up on the Police Vote and said that within a few months the relations between the police and the Irish people would be as harmonious as the relations between the police and the people in any country on the face of the globe. How have those predictions been realised? Why, on the very eve of the murder of Inspector Martin the right hon. Gentleman, in the only speech he ever delivered in Ireland—a speech delivered at a ghastly banquet of place hunters whose names would never have been known if the Nationalist Party had not got hold of them and published them—actually congratulated his audience on the excellence of the relations between the police and the people. The right hon. Gentleman did the same thing only a few evenings ago, having unfortunately for himself neglected to read the Dublin newspapers which contained the best possible evidence as to the nature of the relations existing between the police and the people of Ireland. Those newspapers contained a report of an action brought before the Lord Chief Baron by an individual1 against a police constable in reference to a transaction which took place at Charleville last year, and at the trial Mr.

  1371
  Carson (who is to be the successor of the Irish Attorney General in the representation of Dublin University when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is elevated to the Bench, and who is known in Ireland as "Balfour Junior") got up and said that the police were described by reporters for telegraphic summary purposes as "Balfour's Bloodhounds." And this is a Force which the right hon. Gentleman says is a popular Force. Let us test his knowledge of popular sentiment from the little speeches he sometimes makes in England and Scotland. Last year, speaking in Scotland, he brought a charge against Father M'Fadden. He said Father M'Fadden was a gentleman who had constantly used his clerical position to the detriment of his parishioners.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): Hear, hear.
  MR. MAC NEILL: "Hear, hear," says the Donegal Investigator. I will not say anything about him, but will merely state what Father M'Fadden has done—and I must say, from a knowledge of the facts, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman when he made that statement about the rev. gentleman was in ignorance of what he was talking about, or probably only received his information from the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Father M'Fadden is a priest who has established schools in an extensive parish, who has obtained no less than £8,000 from America to relieve the temporary wants of his parishioners, and in a country where illicit distillation is greatly in vogue has in an increasing parish an increasing number of teetotalers. This gentleman has been a constant benefactor to the poor people of his district, and yet we have a Chief Secretary with a salary of £5,000 a year not disdaining to attempt to take away the character of such a devoted priest by making charges that he would not bring to trial even before one of his packed juries. Such are the statements the right hon. Gentleman is induced to make on the information supplied to him. The hon. Member for Mayo said the other day that he had been struck by a policeman's baton. Up started the right hon. Gentleman with the statement that the hon. Member must have been misinformed. The hon. Member had not been struck; the police had told him so.
  1372
  In connection with the case of the boy O'Donoghue, who was murdered at Timoleague in cold blood, the attention of the Chief Secretary was directed by one of the Members for Cork to the fact that drunkenness had taken place amongst the police in the town. The right hon. Gentleman confused the case with what had occurred at Portumna, and had no idea that the men had been murdered by his constables in cold blood. When it is said that the police disturb bonfires, the right hon. Gentleman replies that they have a right to do so, such things being an obstruction, but he ought to know that there is nothing to obstruct in Irish villages at night time. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's action towards Irish officials, when one of the people is promoted amongst his follows, and popular honours are conferred upon him, he becomes at once a marked man by the Dublin Castle sentry. In the case of the late Lord Mayor of Dublin, at the opening of a Commission, although it had always been customary for this civic functionary to attend and take his seat amongst the Judges, the custom was departed from on that occasion because the Lord Mayor was a Nationalist. In the same way, the Lord Mayor of Wexford, because he had been convicted under the Coercion Act, was removed from the list of ex officio visitors of the Enniscorty Lunatic Asylum. And by these means the right hon. Gentleman expects to establish law and order in Ireland. There are few criminals in Ireland, but we give little thanks to the right hon. Gentleman. When real crimes are committed, the police take little pains to investigate them. There was a burglary at Pill Lane, in Dublin, within a few yards of the police barracks, and a man was nearly killed, but the perpetrators of the outrage were never brought to justice. Has the right hon. Gentleman, who came into power to strike oil for the landlords, done so much as strike terror into a single tenant? Has Mr. Olphert got a penny of his rent after the awful persecution his people have been subjected to? The right hon. Gentleman has unroofed no fewer than 300 houses on that estate, and has made houseless no fewer than 1,500 people. He has arrested no fewer than 150 people. He has, through his

  1373
  agents, placed the handcuffs on peasants, who have been put into an open boat and taken to be put on board a gunboat, though the captain refused to take them unless he received the keys of the handcuffs. He probably thought the administration of the right hon. Gentleman was, to use a phrase which has become Parliamentary, damnable. Now as to Mr. Olphert himself. I have here a secret circular. It was dated August 8th, 1889, and signed by Robert McClinton, D.M. In it the writer invited contributions to a fund which he was trying to raise on be half of Mr. Olphert, and said it was plain that the battle at Palcarragh was one between law and order on one side, and communism and anarchy on the other. He added that Mr. Olphert could not without assistance continue the fight, as he had received no rent for three years. Two days before that letter was written a most remarkable admission was made by the Chief Secretary with regard to the battering ram. Of all Governments this is the Government of what is called the even keel. They announced that they would preserve strict and equal laws between landlord and tenant; they would see that neither side took advantage of the other. But they supplied the police with the battering ram, which was employed by the landlord to destroy the houses in Falcarragh, and the Chief Secretary justifies the use of that instrument. On the 6th of August, 1889, the Chief Secretary said in this House, "I am perfectly ready to defend the use of the ram." [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] Well, it has won more elections than all the sneers of the right hon. Gentleman put together. The cost of the ram does not appear on the Estimates, because it was paid by the Association of Landlords, presided over by Lord Courtown. That Association gave it to the Chief Secretary, and he gave it to the police to work. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to contradict my statement. The Chief Secretary said, "I am prepared to defend on any platform in England the use of the instrument." I have here a model of the ram. [The hon. Gentleman exhibited the model.] It was made out of the piece of the beam of the real ram I have been speaking of. On one occasion the ram was broken, and the wood out of which my model was
  1374
  made was picked up. Now, I will lend the right hon. Gentleman the ram to lecture with on any public platform he chooses, and, what is more, I and other Irish Members will undertake to be present in order to preserve the peace. The right hon. Gentleman might use the ram on the occasion of his next lecture at the Church Congress, which lecture might very appropriately relate to the seige of Jerusalem. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was new in Ireland until he accepted the office of Chief Secretary. That was his misfortune and not his fault. He was only three days in office when Captain Plunkett was in the law room at Dublin Castle. The right hon. Gentleman was present and advised Captain Plunkett to send that awful telegram to Youghal, "If resistance be offered do not hesitate to shoot the people." The right hon. Gentleman defended the telegram. He said—
  "The sergeant of police would have been guilty of grave dereliction of duty if he had not tired to kill. It was contrary to every received regulation that an armed force dealing with a crowd should lira deliberately over the heads."
  Since then no fewer than 14 men have met their death at the hands of the police, and not one of the men who caused these deaths has been one hour in custody. The police have fired to kill. They have followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice, and 14 men have been slain by them. No fewer than 1,000 men have been injured. In consequence of your ruling, Sir, I am not able to speak of the Resident Magistrates except in direct connection with the right hon. Gentleman. I ask if it is worthy of a gentleman in the Chief Secretary's position to bring up to the Castle the dependent Resident Magistrates—men whose salary is everything to them—and to confer with them. He has repeatedly denied that he has spoken to these men in reference to pending coercion cases. But what right has he to bring these men up to the Castle? He is the hero, and they are nothing more than the valets. His conduct in this matter is not that of a statesman. He cannot deny that the men have been to the Castle, and a few days afterwards they have proved themselves the Government's puppets. Lord Londonderry, immedi-

  1375
  ately on leaving Ireland, made a speech at Stockton, and in that speech he said his experience during the past three years had convinced him it was utterly hopeless to even attempt to govern Ireland except by exceptional powers. That is the testimony of the late Lord Lieutenant, the former head of the Irish Administration. Is that the establishment of law and order? But even the Orangemen of Ireland are discontented. Three years ago some of my own constituents presented an address to the Chief Secretary, in which they described him as brave and magnanimous, but recently Dr. Kane commented very adversely upon the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings. In the colonies, too, the right hon. Gentleman's conduct meets with the disapproval it deserves. Sir George Grey, a very distinguished New Zealand minister, has condemned in the strongest language the Coercion Act, and said that the people in the distant parts of the Empire were determined to render help to the Irish people in their time of trial. This is a matter which appeals to human nature. We wish to defend the poor, to re-establish in our own country our own Constitution, our own laws, and we cannot longer tolerate the gentlemen who administer the affairs of our country.
  MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.): The Chief Secretary has often boasted of his marvellous success in the government of Ireland; but I venture to say he has failed, and is bringing destruction to his own friends. Let me to night call attention to some of the methods he is employing in Ireland. He has encouraged the landlords to proceed on a wild enterprise of eviction against their tenants. In giving this encouragement he is only luring them on to their own ruin. I think it is right the Committee should be put in possession of the facts relating to this encouragement, and that the British taxpayers should know into what illegal channels some of the money of the Treasury goes. In 1886 the present President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and in a Debate on the Estimates in that year his attention was called to the practice of evicting landlords applying for and getting extra police for protection duty and making a profit out of the transaction. The method by which these land-
  1376
  lords made a profit was to charge for their cars which the police used. The then Chief Secretary promised to take care that no landlords, and no persons receiving police protection, should make a profit out of the transaction. He went further, and promised that those who sought police protection should be required to contribute something towards the cost. I want to know how much has ever been required from any landlord towards the cost of the police that have been given to them for their protection duty. How much has the Chief Secretary received from Lord Clanricarde for the army of police placed at that nobleman's disposal daring the last four years? I presume I am within the mark when I say Mr. Tenner, Lord Clanricarde's agent, has as many as 100 policemen at his command. These men are paid out of the British Treasury. They are doing no service to the State, but are, in fact, Lord Clanricarde's lackeys. I desire to know, also, whether Lord Clanricarde is being paid barrack rent for the old castle in Portumna? If so, on what ground is such rent being paid? There is another case worthy of notice. There is a great number of evicted houses in the town of Tipperary. The ordinary police force in the town is something like 30, but now it is 150. Extra barrack accommodation is therefore necessary. Such accommodation has been provided by the use of three evicted houses on the estate of the hon. Member for South Huntington (Mr. Smith-Barry). I want to know if the hon. Member is getting a rent for those evicted houses. The policemen are really doing bailiff duty for the hon. Member, and I want to know whether the hon. Member is being paid a rent for the houses in which his ordinary tenants would not stay. These are very pertinent questions to put four years after the promise of a Minister of the Crown that no evicting landlord should make a profit out of the protection afforded him. We charge that the entire resources of the Government in Ireland are handed over to the landlords, and we charge that everything that it is possible for the landlords to do the Government are prepared to support. We charge that so perplexed has everything in Ireland become, that the tenants can have no protection of their own; they dare not combine, while the landlords may com-

  1377
  bine to hearts content. We charge that the police are handed over as lackeys to the landlords. There was a curious illustration of this only last week, when I was in the town of Tipperary. We have heard a great deal about the shadowing by the police of certain persons in Ireland. As Father Humphreys was leaving his house, the two policemen told off to keep watch over him, at once proceeded after him, but the agent of the estate was at that moment leaving his office, which is opposite to Father Humphrey's house. The agent called one of the policemen back and ordered him to go round to the stables and order his carriage. And this policeman left his duty which he was specially charged to perform and went round to the stable to order the carriage as directed. Well, another matter I have to call attention to is this: Statements are constantly made on the other side of the House upon the number of farms that are being taken. Over and over again it has been stated that a number of evicted farms have been taken, and that the country is settling down to peace, happiness, and contentedness. But when we ask for more definite information, we are met with the answer, "No; to give you names would be to subject persons to moonlighting and outrage." If we deny that any body of tenantry have broken from the Plan of Campaign, the right hon. Gentleman says—"Yes, a certain; number of tenants have paid their rent, but we cannot give their names lest these people should be subjected to outrage and perhaps murdered." Now, I asked a question a few weeks ago in reference to the conduct of a policeman down in Portumna going about on the Clanricarde property with a list from which he was telling the tenants who had paid their rents. Now what does the right hon. Gentleman mean? Here is a policeman going about the country giving the people just that information which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is calculated to rouse the people to frenzy and lead to the perpetration of outrage and perhaps murder. Are we to understand that he wants an outrage campaign started at Portumna? He must defend his policeman for this conduct, going about and making known
  1378
  the names of paying tenants, or else he must condemn the police for doing that which he in this, House, said would be attended with danger and possible loss of life to paying tenants. Another instance I give of the manner in which the authorities in Ireland give themselves away to the landlords. I asked a question a short time ago about the two emergency men of Lord Clanricarde's who were caught in the act of stealing turf from the cabin of an evicted tenant. The evidence was too conclusive, but the men were dismissed because the tenant has his remedy by civil process. Now, will the Committee be surprised to learn that these turf thieves were on the occasion accompanied and actually guarded by policemen—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Much of what the hon. Member has been saying would have been pertinent to the Police Vote, but does not properly belong to this Vote.
  MR. SHEEHY: The manner in which I wish to apply it is this: I assume that the Chief Secretary is responsible for the government of Ireland and for the handling of the constabulary, to a certain extent, and I assume that these universal practices could not take place if they had not his sanction and support.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not enough; the administration of Ireland is divided into several Departments, and upon each there is the opportunity for debate. Matters of policy are cognate to the Chief Secretary's Vote, but the hon. Member is raising a matter which is pertinent to the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. SHEEHY: The Chief Secretary defends the action of the police in this House. He gives us answers to our questions, which answers we have not the opportunity of replying to until we have these Votes before us in Committee. But I will not press the matter if you Say, Sir, that it should be raised on the Constabulary Vote. But I may be permitted to draw the attention of the Committee to the manner in which the Chief Secretary uses his position as representative of the landlord class, to give all the support he can to the landlords of Ireland as against the tenants of Ireland. This is the charge we bring against him, and I regret that I have transgressed the Rules of the House in bringing forward instances. But I am satisfied

  1379
  with having put these few facts before the Committee, and I will leave the Committee to judge if the right hon. Gentleman is earning his salary by an honest use of the power in his hands.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This Vote, I understand, is challenged because, under the administration of the Chief Secretary, there are certain districts in Ireland where very sad things are occurring and where the Police Force is used in a way in which it is contended that it ought not to be used. If we were to take the statements given by hon. Members below the Gangway, one would imagine that the whole of Ireland is in a state of confusion and disorder. I do not think that it is possible for the Committee to accept any such statement. As a matter of fact, the whole of Ireland with the exception of certain well-defined areas, is in a state of profound peace and quiet. I quite admit that there are areas which have long been subject to the Plan of Campaign which are in a state of disturbance, such as Youghal, Woodford, and Tipperary, but I traverse the statement that the whole of Ireland is in that state. On the contrary, I repeat that with the exception of these districts Ireland is in a state of profound peace, and I am glad to say is prosperous. Now, I want in the short space of time I shall occupy, to direct attention to one of these areas to which I have referred, where a considerable number of people are subject to intimidation, from which I think that the Government ought to strain every nerve to protect them. I had some doubts whether this matter would more properly come under the Police Vote, but I made up my mind that it would come more appropriately under the Chief Secretary's Vote. I take the case of Tipperary. I heard the hon. Member for East Mayo state that what is going on there is simply the same thing that goes on in a Trade Union strike in England, and he drew a comparison with the dockers strike in London.
  MR. DILLON: No; the comparison and the contrast I drew was between the action of picketing in the dockers' strike and in the Leeds gas strike and the practice of shadowing in Ireland.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What I complain of is that there are people in Tip-
  1380
  perary who have been coerced, and for whom no adequate protection is found. It may be urged that the action of the League is the same as that taken in a Trade Union strike, as far as picketing is concerned. The first objection I urge against that is that in the case of the dockers' and the gas strike the people conceived that they had a grievance to strike against. I submit that it is impossible to prove that the people of Tipperary consider that they have a grievance. On the contrary, I am prepared to prove by documents and by evidence that the people of Tipperary conceived that they had no grievance, but were coerced into this fight, and therefore the cases are not upon all fours. In the second place, the dockers were allowed and were free to strike, but they were not free to intimidate others who did not wish to strike. My complaint is, that the claim is put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway that those who strike should be free intimidate those who do not wish to do so. Now, I wish to bring several cases under the notice of the Chief Secretary, for he alone has the power to put this matter right. I wish to bring several cases to his notice where I think the people have been grossly coerced and abused. And, first, I take the case of the Presbyterian minister of Tipperary and his family.
  THE CHAIRMAN: So far the hon. Member appears to be leading up to an arraignment of the police. If that is so, he will not be in order; but perhaps before the hon. Member enters into details, he will state what his line of argument is.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am going to bring under the notice of the Chief Secretary, the responsible Minister for Ireland, certain cases of individuals in the town of Tipperary who are being injured and fired at, and I am going to urge the Chief Secretary to give them adequate protection. I conceive that this would be in order, and it would be very hard if those people were debarred from having their case stated.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have prevented hon. Members arguing the other side of the question, and I think that inaction as well as excessive action on the part of the police should be discussed under the Police Vote.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman voted for the Closure the other night?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I stated, probably before the hon. Member entered, that I had some doubt whether I ought to bring on this matter under the Police Vote, but I considered it would be more pertinent to this Vote. What I wish to bring under the Chief Secretary's notice on the Vote for his salary, is the position of five or six individuals who have not received adequate protection from the right hon. Gentleman. If I am not at liberty to do that, Mr. Courtney, I will immediately resume my seat, but I invite a direct instruction from you whether I should be in order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it ought to be brought on upon the Police Vote.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for South Tyrone seems to have been "hoist with his own petard." His grievance is against the Chief Secretary, who has, no doubt, misled him. The Chairman of Committees knows his duty, but the Chief Secretary distinctly led us to believe—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Chief Secretary is not the controlling power. As I have already said, the hon. Member is not entitled to go back on that matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I was only about to remark that the right hon. Gentleman has deceived his follower into the impression that the one speech would do for either Vote. I see the area of the right hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation is spreading, and has affected even the hon. Member for South Tyrone. However, Sir, accepting your ruling, I address myself to the general policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his dealings with Ireland. The fourth year of the administration of Her Majesty's present Government has now been reached, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has now any other policy than shadowing and coercion? The right hon. Gentleman told us here the other night that we ought not to put so many questions to him. He said if we will insist on indulging in that luxury, he can only give us official information placed at his disposal. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, "It is open to you to avoid being galled by my statements, and you may avoid being troubled by
  1382
  my answers by not putting questions." Why did not the right hon. Gentleman go further, and suggest that if we come here at all, we should spend our time on the Terrace or in the Smoking Room? Yes, we have asked many questions, but in no single instance has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to give a satisfactory statement in answer to questions. I deny the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has given the House all the information sent him by the police. My belief is, from comparison of facts and replies to secondary questions, that the right hon. Gentleman deliberately inverts the information he gets at the Irish Office, and does not give us even the information supplied by the police. His manner and his method have been reduced to a system. His first object is to insult the Irish Members, and his next to irritate and annoy the questioner, and thirdly, he endeavours to provoke a laugh on his own side of the House. If anybody was to ask him whether on a certain date the sun shone in Ireland he would begin with his accustomed formula, the Constabulary report to him that from the complaints made as to the potato blight or the inability of farmers to pay rent or from the natural humidity of the soil it was very doubtful indeed whether on a certain day the sun shone in Ireland. But we intend on this Vote to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions even at the risk of getting some very unsatisfactory replies. What has become of his great drainage scheme? During 1887–8–9 we heard a great deal of the enormous damage which was done to Ireland through want of drainage of, the Shannon, the Barrow, and the Bann, and we were told that all Ireland wanted was arterial drainage. But nothing has been done to promote that great drainage scheme. Then the right hon. Gentleman had another great policy, which was that of light railways. I supported that scheme in the innocence of my heart. But where are the light railways? Not a pick has been put into the ground, and not a barrow-full of earth has been turned. There was another great policy of the Government, and that was the conferring of University education on the Catholics of Ireland. I ask the Chief Secretary what has become of that now? Has the money for light railways been

  1383
  diverted to erecting a Catholic University, or has the money for the drainage schemes been used for that purpose? Nothing of the kind, and the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester, Leeds, and also at Glasgow and Edinburgh, where he tried to convert the Scotch people to his views, a difficult task for the author of "Philosophic Doubts," have had no result at all. No, while declaring that the Catholics of Ireland were entitled to University education, the moment a ripple of dissent appeared among the right hon. Gentleman's Protestant friends and the Orange lodges of Belfast, the Catholic University passed out of the policy of Her Majesty's Government like the baseless fabric of a vision. To-day another blow has struck their hearts; the Land Purchase Bill has been dropped. That fourth blossom of the four-leaved shamrock of the Irish policy of Her Majesty's Government has been withered and blighted by the heat of July. It was on the Land Purchase Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord uttered his famous "Certainly, Sir," and that "it never, no never," would be dropped. And now we hear it is gone the way of the Tithes Bill and the Compensation Bill. What has become of that other great branch of Conservative policy—the extension of Local Government to Ireland? The Unionist Party came in on a number of planks somewhat unskilfully nailed together. The points of some of the nails appear to be sticking out, and are making the seats of some Members of Her Majesty's Government rather uncomfortable. What has become of the great policy of extending Local Government to Ireland which was promised in the Queen's Speech? We all know how ardent a supporter of Local Government the right hon. Gentleman is. We do not ask him inconvenient questions as to the unhandsome corpses of murdered Irishmen, which ought not to come between the wind and his nobility; but we do ask him what has become of his policy in regard to light railways and Catholic University education. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be much better pleased if we were to confine ourselves to questions upon which he can begin with the prelude to his well-known litany, as to what the estab-
  1384
  lished Authorities have reported to him. But those Authorities are not responsible for the non-passage of the Local Government for Ireland measure, announced in the Queen's Speech, nor for the dropping of the Land Purchase Bill, the Drainage Bill, and a number of other dropped schemes and broken pledges of the Government. The person responsible for these things is the right hon. Gentleman himself, who has a seat in the Cabinet, and who is put forward as the spokesman of the Government on all occasions such as this. We want to know on what cry the Conservative Party propose to go to the country at the next General Election? [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh now, but by-and-bye they may have to laugh on the wrong side of their mouths. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman hopes that he and his Party may keep together for a considerable period longer. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: "Hear, hear!"] That statement is received by the feeble duty cheer of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, which, however, does not obtain the resonance which might have been expected from the other supporters of the Government. I claim that we ought to be allowed, after the Session which is about to close, to go about and inform our constituents what they have to expect from a Conservative Government. If I go to Ireland to address my constituents on subjects relating to rent, or to shadowing by the police, I shall have to do so at the risk of having my head batoned; but what I desire is to inform the Irish people of all the good things that are in store for them. I do not desire to say a harsh word of the Government. On the contrary, I desire that the Government will, so to speak, fill my bag with gifts, so that when I go back to Ireland I may be able to eschew all the troublesome subjects relating to battering rams and prison clothes and ejectments, and the other nasty topics which are so burdensome to the right hon. Gentleman. These are the subjects the right hon. Gentleman desires to avoid. They have been referred to by him as "squalid details." Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman includes the Resident Magistrates among these squalid details, I can have no objection. What I desire to know is, what is the programme of the Government, and

  1385
  what it is they propose to do in the next Session to make good the promises and pledges they have broken in the past? I will give one slight illustration of how little confidence is to be reposed in Her Majesty's Government, even by those who profess to be their great supporters, in Ireland. There is at present a belief in Ireland that the Attorney General for Ireland is about to vacate his seat, in order to secure his well-deserved reward as the occupant of a seat on the Irish Bench. But that appointment will inevitably create a vacancy in the representation of Trinity College, Dublin, hitherto supposed to be the one secure paddock in which the Government palfrey might amble at will. Among the persons composing the electorate of that ennobled and enlightened constituency, which is said to contain all the wealth and intelligence and education of the community—even in that calm and peaceful abode of learning and crudition—a rift has occurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has written a letter in favour of the candidature of Mr. Carson, but the landlord party have put forward a candidate of their own, Mr. Lowrie, so that the present Government, who have declared that one of the main portions of their Irish policy is to be found in the Land Purchase Bill, are now being opposed even in Trinity College by a Representative of the landlord interest. Thus the Government are met by a declaration that the constituency of this hitherto pocket borough will support not the Government candidate, but the candidate of an independent party. Well, Sir, we claim to know what satisfaction are the Irish people to have in future. We have had four years of Conservative policy in the administration of Ireland, and we are told that during that time Ireland has progressed. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech the other day, in which he spoke of the enormous prosperity of the Irish people, and he was backed in that by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). I find, however, from statistics that in all those matters which may be taken to denote the condition of the wealth and prosperity of the people there has been instead of an advance a decline and falling off. Whether we take the imports or exports, or the money in the
  1386
  savings' banks, I assert that in every single item which may be regarded as an index of the prosperity of the country there has been a distinct decline. For example, if you take the tonnage entering the Port of Dublin, and if you go from that to the figures given in the Returns of the Registrar General, every single index points to a fall.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.): Will the hon. Gentleman give the entries for the Port of Belfast?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Belfast, Ireland?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Yes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes. But let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that Belfast is increasing, and I am delighted to hear that it is increasing. But increasing Belfast does not compensate me for decreasing Ireland. Much as I like Belfast, I love Ireland more. An infinitesimal increase in Belfast is no compensation for the steady decline over the rest of Ireland of every element that constitutes the prosperity of the country. I will give the tonnage of the country as a whole. I find from the Registrar General's Return that the inward bound tonnage increased from 2,000,000 tons in 1841, to 3,200,000 tons in 1881, and to 6,000,000 tons in 1887. That proves that articles of commerce formerly manufactured in Ireland are now bought elsewhere. It is the outward bound tonnage which shows the true prosperity of the country. It is needless to quote the figures, but any hon. Gentleman who thinks he can traverse my statement need only refer to the Registrar General's Returns, or to the figures of Mr. Grimshaw, during the past 12 months, and he will find my assertion, that Ireland under a Conservative Government has declined in prosperity in every single element that constitutes prosperity, is a correct assertion. What have we got upon the other side of the ledger? We have got the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and the increase of his police. The cost and number of the police go on steadily increasing. The population keeps falling off. The number of prisoners in gaol goes on increasing. The Chief Secretary tells us that the number of outrages is decreasing. The number of emigrants going to America continues at the same rate, and the country which some years ago had a population of

  1387
  8,000,000 has now a population of 4,000,000. When the Chief Secretary tells us that the people of Ireland are more attached to law and order I challenge his statement, and invite him to use the police whose duty it will be to gather the Census Returns to ascertain the opinions of the people with regard to his administration. The right hon. Gentleman in the past has been famous, as I have shown over and over again, for creeping out of his pledges made to this House. It is idle to taunt the right hon. Gentleman with broken pledges. When we remind him that he promised appeal, he invariably replies that that was disposed of last year. If we show that he makes a statement this year of a different character to that which he made last year, his invariable reply is that this is 1890 and not 1889. The right hon. Gentleman has had four years' experience in his administration, and, now that there is one great English Party in the State opposed to the other great English Party on the question of Ireland, I ask him what are his hopes for the future. For the first time, Mr. Courtney, the Irish people are encouraged and are enabled to look forward to an amelioration of their condition. As a statesman the right hon. Gentleman must know that his policy will be reversed if he is beaten at the polls. What epitaph will be written on his policy, and upon his statesmanship? Can he look back with any satisfaction to the fact that practically he himself has borne the whole burden of this entire experiment of coercion in Ireland for the last four or five years, and that when it is reversed the verdict will be a verdict expressly against him and his policy, and that it will be for ever practically impossible for any future Conservative Administration ever to return to the lines which have been rejected? Therefore, his entire policy is dependent for success at the polls at the next General Election. But if we, the Irish Members, are beaten at the polls, we will carry on the contest as before. Defeat will mean very little to us. The Irish have been like a toad under the harrow for centuries. But it is essential to the Chief Secretary and his Party that they should succeed at the polls. What is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman for the future? The Liberal Party have
  1388
  put a distinct policy before the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman has brought forward a policy of land purchase as his sole policy. And what is the verdict upon that in the North of Ireland? Nothing more clearly denotes the feeling of the North of Ireland than the Resolutions that have been passed with reference to compulsory purchase. They know very well that the tenants of the South and West of Ireland will be able to carry out the purchase, because they know that in the South and West the tenants can squeeze the landlords out. The hon. Member for North Armagh makes speeches in Ulster during the July fever. Do you find him praise compulsion? No. "King Billy" is trotted out as of yore. The feuds of 200 years ago, dead and buried, are revived; the bands play "Protestant Boys" and "Croppies lie down." But will this fill the stomachs of the frieze coats who have votes? Even in the loyal corner of Ireland the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is fruitless and barren. The hon. Member for South Tyrone will go about talking of the Land Purchase Bill, but what is the good of introducing that measure to the loyal farmers, if the loyal landlords will not sell to the loyal farmers? The loyal landlords are very glad to get the loyal farmers' pounds, shillings, and pence, paid quarterly or half-yearly as the case may be. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to squalid details, and does not like the corpses of Mitchelstown brought between the wind and his nobility, we are entitled to soar to the higher regions of Conservative statesmanship to track the pathless waste for some glimmer of the pilot balloons which are supposed to be sailing through the azure. Let the Chief Secretary throw his grapnels into the sure ground of Conservative statesmanship, and, throwing aside all these miserable details about plank beds and prison clothes, leaving the gaol corpses in their quicklime, let us have from him some statement about that basis of Constitutional statesmanship upon which his glory as a future Governor of Ireland is to rest.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess to have listened to this Debate with feelings of considerable satisfaction, and even of complacency. This is the occasion on which all the pent-up wrath

  1389
  which gathers in the bosoms of hon. Gentlemen opposite is legitimately poured forth upon the Chief Secretary, whoever he may be. But to-night the particular allegations that have been brought against me have chiefly had reference to ancient wrongs. They are grievances that have been trotted out year after year, and Session after Session, and, as far as the 12 months are concerned which have elapsed since we last passed this Vote, very little that is new has been brought forward against the Irish Government. The hon. and learned Member for Longford has travelled over a wide field of Irish politics. He has discussed among other things the diminishing prosperity of Ireland under the present Administration. I think the discovery which he made is one confined entirely to himself. I have heard this subject discussed by persons of very different views—by politicians and statisticians; but never till this evening have I heard it suggested that during the last three years the wealth and the prosperity of every class in Ireland have done other than increase in a most remarkable and satisfactory manner. When I heard his amusing paradox I listened for the method by which he would sustain it. He said—
  "It is true that the imports into Ireland have doubled during the last three years, but, at the same time, the exports have diminished."
  But on what does the prosperity of Ireland depend? On what does the comfort of the people depend? Does it depend upon what they send to other people, or upon what they import for their own consumption? Has it not been agreed by all political economists for the last 30 years that their welfare depends upon the imports?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figures of the Registrar General. During the period of five years from 1851 to 1855, just after the famine, the annual value in Ireland of the crops was £58,537, and of the stock £39,348, making a total of £97,885. In the five years 1884 to 1889 the annual value of the crops was £35,952, and of the stock £55,839, making a total of £91,791, or a decrease of £6,000.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; but what has that to do with the argument which was addressed to the Committee based upon what the hon.
  1390
  and learned Gentleman said? I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument. He said, "Your imports have increased; but what of that when your exports have diminished?" I say it is very important that the imports have increased to the extent which the hon. and learned Gentleman indicates. It is a conclusive proof—if proof were required of so obvious a fact—that the prosperity of Ireland during the last three or four years has greatly augmented. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks what is our policy—is it coercion and coercion alone? He says, "Where are your Railway Bills, your Drainage Bills, your Land Purchase Bill, and your Local Government Bill?" And the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to ask, in anxious tones, what he was to say to his constituents as to the good things given to them by the English Government. It would be a great impertinence on my part to suggest a speech to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is one of the most fluent and prolific of the orators who address the House. But I think I could give him the headings of such a speech. [An hon. MEMBER: Early marriages.] He might say, "The Government have brought in Drainage Bills for Ireland. I regret to say that your great rivers produce much damage in the districts where the floods occur. But the Drainage Bills were brought in by a Conservative Government, and we, therefore, were glad to accept the assistance of the English Radical Members in obstructing these Bills and in preventing them from becoming law. We admit the disasters that will consequently accrue to you, the population of Ireland, but your sufferings are in the cause of Home Rule, and you must bear them cheerfully." Then the hon. and learned Gentleman can say, "The Govern have also brought in a Bill for making railways in the poorer parts of Ireland. The Bill was framed in terms more liberal than any English Government have ever given to Ireland. We did our best to stop it; we did succeed in embarrassing the Government; but unfortunately they have been able to pass it. Unfortunately there seems every chance that the Government may be able to carry out these great and beneficial works in Ireland. They would benefit

  1391
  you, but you ought to regret that, because if the Bill had been rejected, and if the railway which they propose to give, and which you could never give yourselves, had not been built, the cause of Home Rule might have been furthered." The hon. and learned Gentleman may go on to say, "The Government have brought in a Bill for carrying out a policy which we advocated in earlier days—a policy of land purchase. They propose to give, in the first instance, a sum of £33,000,000 upon English credit, money which could never be raised upon Irish credit, and this sum, as it is repaid, will be re-lent, if Parliament desire it, to carry out that policy." "We all know," he may say, "that agrarian discontent is the very backbone of our policy in Ireland. This policy of land purchase may diminish that discontent, and therefore in the interests of Home Rule we have used the whole powers of our minority, a minority which rules the Gladstonian minority, and have been enabled triumphantly during the Session of 1890 to reject the Bill which, however beneficial to you and whatever peace it might have brought to Ireland, might have indefinitely postponed the consummation of your political wishes in the direction of Homo Rule." Now, it seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman might well make such a speech to his constituents as I have just sketched the outlines of.
  MR. MACNEILL: Why do you not go and make it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not an Irish Member, and I have not to address an Irish constituency, but I was under the impression when I was interrupted that I was doing my best to supply the hon. and learned Member for Longford with materials for a speech to his constituents, a speech setting forth the views and desires anxiously expressed by him and his colleagues. Now, the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal denounced me this evening for, among other things, depending for the information I give to the House upon official sources. When a Minister is asked for information on particular matters he is bound to give official information, and if persons want information from other sources, say the daily Press, let them go to the daily Press for it. I do not wish to repeat the
  1392
  argument I used on Monday night; I wish to put the matters on a broader issue. Is there any real, any substantial difference between hon. Gentlemen opposite and us upon any of the leading facts of contemporary Irish politics? I admit, of course, that there are controversies as to whether a particular policeman did this or that, as to the treatment of this or that prisoner in gaol, and as to the sentences of this or that Resident Magistrate in cases of boycotting. But is there any substantial difference between hon. Members opposite and us upon the real and more important facts in Ireland? Is it denied, for instance, that the Plan of Campaign exists on many estates in Ireland, and that the plan is an illegal conspiracy?
  An Irish MEMBER: That is a thing of the past.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is very extraordinary that hon. Members opposite cannot control themselves and desist for a short time at least from interruption. I have no difficulty in controlling myself while hon. Members are speaking. I assert, then, that it cannot be said that there is any difference of opinion between us to the facts that the Plan of Campaign exists on certain estates in Ireland, and that it is an illegal conspiracy, that boycotting exists, and that boycotting is illegal, that intimidation exists and is illegal, and that meetings are called in Ireland which, by the common law of England as well as Ireland, are illegal. It is not denied that hon. Gentlemen are using what has been described as the land war to interfere with the rights of property in Ireland, property which its possessors hold by laws common to England, Ireland, and every civilised country. These facts cannot be denied. The only men who have been mentioned to-night as bad landlords in Ireland, or as; obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen opposite, are Mr. Olphert and Mr. Ponsonby. It is admitted that an illegal conspiracy exists on the estates of both these gentlemen. We do not differ, then, as to the fact that by these means—by these illegal conspiracies, by this illegal intimidation, by illegal boycotting—it is sought to carry out a political object in Ireland. It is admitted. Now, every man, English or Irish, has an absolute right to hold what views he pleases upon the subject of Home Rule. He has the right to advance those views

  1393
  by what means he pleases so long as they are legal means. But to attempt to advance those views by the illegal methods to which I have alluded is not and cannot be tolerated by this Government, and I believe could be tolerated by no civilised Government in the world. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down talked as if the present r°gime, as he described it, was going to end with this Government, whose demise he anticipates will occur at the next General Election. I take his hypothesis. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the present Government comes to an end at the next General Election, and I ask whether the Government who are going to succeed them will tolerate illegal conspiracy? I ask whether they are going to tolerate the Plan of Campaign, whether they are going to tolerate boycotting and intimidation? Let the gentlemen who think they are going to succeed us at the next General Election get up and say that that is so. If it is not so, what right has the hon. and learned Gentleman to draw a distinction between the policy of this Government and a policy which he thinks will be pursued by our successors? So long as you mean to maintain civilisation in Ireland, under Home Rule or British rule, or any other rule, you will, whether you like it or not, be forced to carry out the policy of the present Government—a policy which is not yet, thank Heaven, a monopoly of the Conservative or Unionist Party, but is approved by every civilised country. And if he asks me what would be the epitaph written over the policy of this Government when our existence shall be brought to a summary termination, the answer I give him is this—"While we held office and power in Ireland we did our duty." We protected the weak; we defended the rights of every citizen; we saw, in so far as in us lay, that every man who desired to fulfil his lawful avocations should be allowed to fulfil them, in spite of the action of a political party, and the fact that we did so to the best of our power is the best epitaph that can be given us, and the only epitaph, so far as I am concerned, which I desire to have writen over the administration of the Conservative Government.
  MR. DILLON: We have just listened to a speech which I
  1394
  venture to say will bring home to the mind and heart of every Nationalist in Ireland the feeling and the sense of the coming triumph of our case. The Chief Secretary has asked whether if the Liberal Party come into power they will1 tolerate boycotting and criminal conspiracy and intimidation in Ireland. I will answer that question, and I think I can answer it conclusively when I tell the Chief Secretary that on the day when the Liberal Party come back to power, the very advent of that Party into power will do what all the Coercion Acts of ten generations have not been able to do, namely, to exorcise from Ireland for ever the spirit of conspiracy of outrage and of crime. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has protected the weak. Why, it was only a day or two ago since we heard a wail from the right hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding all his police shadowing and despotism, intimidation rages triumphant in Tipperary. After four years of coercion in Ireland we have the hon. Member for South Tyrone standing up in the House this evening and appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to protect certain people in Tipperary from intimidation and boycotting.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to order. I object to any discussion on my speech which I was not allowed to make.
  MR. DILLON: I congratulate the hon. Member, who has just perpetrated one of the finest of Irish bulls. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in the course of his eloquent peroration? He said their consolation would be when they were driven from office that they had done their duty in Ireland, and that they had endeavoured to protect the weak. But, Sir, it is we who have been endeavouring to protect the weak against frightful odds—against the armed forces of the Crown, prostituted by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of a class who, with their ancestors, have been for generations the persecutors and oppressors of the weak in Ireland. Our organisation placed in the hands of a defenceless and helpless tenantry the means of resisting an intolerable oppression. The idea of protecting the weak entertained by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh is planting his foot on the neck of the people.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I rise to order. I am sorry to interrupt the ton. Member, but I certainly have not expressed any such view.
  MR. DILLON: The hon. Member's view is to wage war to the death with three-fourths of the people of Ireland. I maintain it is we who have the right to boast that we have protected the weak, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-night will have the effect of making still more popular our organisation; for has not the Chief Secretary spoken of the landlords as the weak class, and has he not admitted that the policy of the Government has been to champion them? Now, the right hon. Gentleman is a very self-satisfied man, and I have no belief that anything we may say against the Government will have the slightest effect. I congratulate him on having a mind of that character, because it is a very necessary qualification for anyone who has to work the present system in Ireland, and I have always said that I do not think there could be a more ideal Chief Secretary than the present Chief Secretary. I think he has made the Irish Government more unpopular than all his predecessors have succeeded in doing. In this respect I feel a considerable debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman, because ho is playing our game in some ways in Ireland more effectually than we are playing it ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a notion that we have no complaint to make against him. I have heard a good many complaints made against the right hon. Gentleman this evening, but I have noticed that whenever a case is made out against the right hon. Gentleman, and he is unable to dispose of it, he always says it is a matter of the most trifling importance. About a week ago, at the Crystal Palace, the right hon. Gentleman declared that the importance of the Licensing Clauses of the Local Taxation Bill was greatly exaggerated, and that, in his opinion, they constituted a matter of the most trifling importance. We may be permitted, I think, after the Barrow election, to hold a different view, and the Conservative Party throughout the country holds a different view. I now come to some of the complaints I have to make against the right hon. Gentleman. My first complaint is of the character
  1396
  and tone of the right hon. Gentleman's answers to the questions we put to him in this House. The right hon. Gentleman, when charged on this point the other day, said that if we did not like the tone and the nature of the information which he gave in his answers we had an easy remedy, and that was to abstain from asking questions. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) pointed out, we have an easier remedy than that, and this is to stay at home in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial side.] I am extremely obliged to hon. Gentlemen opposite for that cheer; but in 1886 when it was proposed that the Irish Members should stay in Ireland, in order to transact the business of their country, Member after Member of the Tory Party rose and said that they would never consent to it. I recommend this fact to the attention of the Committee and of the people of the country, that the Irish Members are now considered to be a nuisance, and out of place in this House; but that when it comes to be a question of going home to Ireland, and attending to the business of our country in Dublin, we are told that our presence in this House is necessary for the unity of the Empire. Do hon. Members opposite suppose that by dragging us from our homes, and then insulting us, they are contributing to the unity of the Empire? This statement of the Chief Secretary that if we do not like his answers we can refrain from asking questions is an excessively impertinent and insolent one. I go further, and say that it is utterly unworthy of a Minister responsible for the Government of a country like Ireland. Surely the Irish Members are entitled, as the Representatives of the people, to ask questions dealing with the administration of their country.
  MR. A. J. BALEOUR: I do not wish to interrupt, but I was speaking not of the tone, but of the substance of my answers. The hon. Member surely knows that when a question is asked of a Minister the Minister, of course, gives the information which he obtains from official sources.
  MR. DILLON: I was coming to the question of the substance of his replies, and I think I shall show the House that in his speech just now the right hon.

  1397
  Gentleman absolutely and completely gave the go-by to all the complaints we have made in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any real, substantial difference as to contemporary facts in Ireland between him and the Members of the Opposition. A more extraordinary question has never been asked. The question rather ought to be, "Can you find any fact on which we agree?" The right hon. Gentleman says that the facts in regard to the contemporary state of Ireland are admitted on all hands, and then he plunged into a long string of statements of opinion. But we have not asked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether the Plan of Campaign is in force on estates in Ireland, whether boycotting is illegal, or whether intimidation prevails. Those are questions of opinion. The objections we have to the substance of his answers are to this effect, that when we bring forward statements of fact, involving certain conduct on the part of the police, the gross misconduct of Magistrates and other officials in Ireland, we receive false and misleading information in reply from the right hon. Gentleman. We have convicted him, over and over again, out of his own mouth, of making statements that were inaccurate. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman says he can do no more than give the official information placed in his hands. This seems to me to be the reductio ad absurdum of the whole process. In reply to a question incriminating a Magistrate in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman reads out, without inquiry or investigation, an answer concocted, perhaps, by the Magistrate himself, or by some of his subordinates. By this method of procedure the right hon. Gentleman declares to the country his incapacity to be at the head of an Administration like that of the Irish Government. Where a, serious charge is brought against the officials of a district in England no Minister would dare to burke that charge without some investigation. When an Irish Member charges an offence against some official in Ireland, giving all the particulars, the Chief Secretary telegraphs to the district where the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the official, or his comrade, sits down and invents any lie
  1398
  he likes, and the right hon. Gentleman reads it out to the House of Commons, and absolutely refuses to make any further inquiry. Take the case of Mitchelstown. When I brought forward that case, gave my own experience, and produced two English Members of Parliament to corroborate all I said, and several independent English visitors, besides several newspaper correspondents, the right hon. Gentleman read out to the House the account furnished by the Magistrate in charge, Captain Segrave, and deliberately refused an investigation. He then, and on a subsequent occasion, made himself the champion of Captain Segrave. What was the result? After some time we discovered Captain Segrave to be a man of a character so scandalous that the right hon. Gentleman himself was obliged to dismiss him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Captain Segrave was not on the spot during the riot.
  MR. DILLON: Captain Segrave was in command on that occasion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member accuses me of having given my account of what occurred at Mitchelstown on the authority of Captain Segrave. I did not. He ought to have been on the spot, but he was not.
  MR. DILLON: The account was given on the authority of Captain Segrave and his comrades. Captain Segrave, I am informed, was on the spot before the shooting, and he was certainly on the spot immediately afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Mitchelstown Debate, and on subsequent occasions, championed Captain Segrave, who was afterwards proved to be a man who ought never to have been appointed to the magistracy, who was absolutely incompetent, and of a shockingly bad character.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not Captain Segrave's account that I gave. Of course, I gave the official information at my disposal, but my account was largely based on the account in the Freeman's Journal.
  MR. DILLON: I am perfectly content to leave that circumstance to the judgment of the Committee. Then there is another case—a charge of moonlighting was made against a constable, named Palmer, one of the 150 armed constables

  1399
  who are trying to keep order in Tipperary. One night Palmer left the barracks in a state of intoxication. He met some girls dancing round a bonfire, and, having grossly insulted them in the foulest manner, and struck two of them across the breast, came to the house of an old widow, and, after smashing every window, tried to burst in the door. Failing in that, he went to the next house and smashed some windows; but the owner of the house, who was a courageous man, jumped out of bed, and succeeded, with the assistance of his dog, in holding the constable till help came. The man was caught red-handed moonlighting. Surely if ever there was a case in which care ought to have been taken to bring the offender to justice this was one. But what was done? On the opening of the Inquiry before a Bench of Magistrates to-day, the District Inspector said that rather a long look would have to be made for Palmer, as he had a telegram from him stating that he had left Queenstown yesterday.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As this is a matter affecting the conduct of the police it should have been discussed on the Police Vote.
  MR. DILLON: I would point out, Sir, that it is not a question of the conduct of the police. It is a question of the conduct of the Executive Government. The man to whom I am referring is no longer a policeman, for he has been dismissed. The question is, Is he to be allowed to escape from justice because he has been a policeman? I charge the Executive with having allowed this man, caught red-handed in a felony, to escape from justice because he has been a policeman. Evidence was taken in the case, and the Magistrates, I suppose by way of a joke, inflicted a fine of £1. One of the things we have to complain of is that, when specific cases of violence by the police are brought before the right hon. Gentleman, he has always replied that the sufferers have a remedy at law. What remedy had the sufferers in the case to which I have just called attention? The police in Ireland are constantly violating the law, and the Executive systematically refuses to punish them, and when people seek a legal remedy the Executive places in the way every obstruction which a complicated legal machinery
  1400
  renders possible. I say this deliberately, that if the police in Ireland have committed a great many acts of violence their conduct is largely due to the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's answers to questions. The right hon. Gentleman says if we do not like the tone of his answers we had better not ask questions. I say we are entitled to ask questions, and we are entitled to get civil answers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt, but I never attempted to discuss the tone of my answers. What I have referred to is the substance of them. For the tone of my answers I am, of course, responsible, and I have not made any excuses for it.
  MR. DILLON: We complain of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's answers. I think Gentlemen opposite will admit that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman is irritating in its character, and the tone of his answers aggravates the position. Hon. Members opposite affirm that the Irish Members in this House are on a footing with the English and Scotch Members. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; that is your theory, but your practice does not accord with it. An Irish Member in this House does not obtain the same justice as an English or Scotch Member. We are met by the Chief Secretary with gibe and insult, and a tone and character of answer which is never adopted by any English Minister. I think this is cause for complaint. It is still more a cause for complaint when we see reflected in the tones and the acts of his subordinates the spirit he displays at that Table. I never feel the least difficulty in restraining myself when I am attacked by the right hon. Gentleman. But it is a totally different matter when we cross the Channel. The gibes and insults of the Chief Secretary in this House may irritate Borne of my Friends; but it is a totally different matter when they are translated, as they are in Ireland by his underlings, into the batons and bayonets of his police, and the short sentences and hard labour of his hireling and profligate Magistrates. With the honourable exception of a few men, who are not allowed to sit on Crimes Act Benches, there is not a Resident Magistrate in Ireland who does not read and study every word spoken by the right hon. Gentleman,

  1401
  and hence the insolent remarks and offensive tone of the right hon. Gentleman mean, to our people, additional suffering.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [8th July] reported.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

  CLASS III.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £889,490, 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, 1891, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
  Resolution read a first and second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: When this Vote was before the Committee the other day I raised a question as to the Charleville shooting case, and was surprised when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he could not accept the statement of myself and the hon. Member for North-East Cork that no further action would be taken against District Inspector Concannon. I have now received this telegram—
  "Action Nolan against Concannon won't be proceeded further with.—Wm. J. Fitzgerald, plaintiffs solicitor, Mallow."
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take that as authoritative. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposes to take with regard to the police who were guilty of wantonly and illegally shooting at an innocent, unarmed, and orderly crowd? There were about 70 citizens on the platform of the railway station that night. Four shots were deliberately fired with intent to wound or kill. The right hon. Gentleman told us to-night that the epitaph he desires to be written on his administration in Ireland is that he defended the rights of every citizen. How does the Chief Secretary propose
  1402
  to vindicate the rights of those citizens of Charleville, and what course does he propose to take with regard to the expenses of the police in the trials in Dublin?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Now I know, for the first time, that no further proceedings will be taken, I shall, of course, examine into all the facts connected with the trial.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon Gentleman must not suppose that the matter is to be disposed of in that way. He tells us below the Gangway that we need not ask him questions. He has been asked a question now, not by an Irish Member, but by the son of an ex-Prime Minister and of a future Prime Minister, and we have heard what answer he has given across the floor of the House, on the pretence that it was never the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to examine into the brutal and blackguardly conduct of Concannon, or to bring his mind to bear on the declaration of Chief Baron Palles, or Mr. Justice Murphy. That is a specimen of the right hon. Gentleman's answers to questions on a matter of the most vital importance in regard to Ireland. What, under these circumstances, can the obscure Irish Members, who are taunted with poverty, and with not being good enough to sit in an assembly of this kind, what are mere creatures like us to expect? Sir, we shall insist upon having something like a definite statement before the Report of this Vote is agreed to. The Lord Chief Baron told the Jury that the gathering was not an illegal assembly. The Jury were unable to say whether, as a matter of fact, the injury to the plaintiff was inflicted by Concannon's bullet; but it was admitted that the police fired upon this unarmed and inoffensive crowd, with the view, as they swore, of taking life. The Jury were told that they were not entitled to consider whether the police were justified in firing, but it is a question for the Government and for the House. If it had been a case of batoning the people in Trafalgar Square, the Home Secretary would not have professed in the House of Commons that he had not considered what had been said by any London Magistrate, or he would not have held his place 40 minutes. We have a right to know whether Concannon's

  1403
  expenses are to be paid by the Government or not. There is no device too mean or contemptible for the Government to resort to. In the case of Father Kennedy, who obtained a verdict for £100 against the police, for breaking into his house, application has been made for a new trial, which cannot be argued until November, solely in order to put the case over the present year's Estimates. We know that the police expenses will be paid in that case, and that Concannon's expenses will be paid. The Government will not have the face to put them in the law charges, but they will pay them out of the Secret Service, Fund. If a policeman were to stab the Leader of the Irish people in Sackville Street, Dublin, and the Government did not back up the man and pay his legal expenses, that moment the entire system would crumble away. The right hon. Gentleman is tied to a system which I do not hesitate to describe as an infernal system. I denounce that system which puts into the hands of every drunken braggadocio who is in the service of the Irish Government the right of firing off his weapons as he will, knowing that the greatest intellects at the Irish Bar, and the virtual Leader of this House, the rising hope of a stern unbending power are bound to defend him through thick and thin. As the right hon. Gentleman tells us he cannot answer to-night, we tell him we cannot give him this Vote to-night. We shall be prepared to discuss the Vote as soon as the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of information, and, in the meantime, I have the honour to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That this Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already addressed the House, and I suppose I should be out of order if I discussed the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will withdraw the Motion if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss what I have said.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I only speak by the leave of the House, and what I say shall be put in the most uncontroversial language. I do not think the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Gladstone) could complain of the tone of my answer to his question, though, of course, he has a right to complain, if he likes, of the substance of it. Let me remind the House of the exact position in which we stand. I have learned to-night, at a quarter past 12 o'clock, from a telegram sent not to me, but to the hon. Member for Leeds, that the case which all the Irish papers have agreed in stating would be proceeded with has come to an end, and I am now asked, at 20 minutes past 12 o'clock, to state the exact course the Government intend taking in reference to it. It is perfectly true that I have read the charges of Mr. Justice Murphy and Lord Chief Justice Palles, but not with the care I should have done had it been a question of taking judicial proceedings. It is quite true, however, that both those learned Judges appear to have said that the meeting in question was a perfectly legal one, and that there had been no probability of a rescue being attempted. But what course should be taken on these facts I must absolutely decline to deal with at five minutes' notice. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. Healy) has said that if the Home Secretary had been asked a similar question he would have given a reply at once. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend would have absolutely declined, unless he had time to weigh the facts and to consider the whole of the circumstances, to decide what course should be taken with regard to the costs. It would be a great dereliction of duty on my part if, after a Debate which has now gone on, as far as I am concerned, since four o'clock this afternoon, and which in my case was preceded by a no less heated Debate between 12 and 3,I were to say I was in a condition to give a judgment to the House which may affect the future of all the policemen concerned. I am sure the House will see that, in refusing to give a decision now, I am not only acting with no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Leeds, but I am taking the only course which every impartial Member of the House will not condemn.
  MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): To a large extent I agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not to be expected from him that he should be prepared to state the course that the Government will take in this matter, which admitedly is one of considerable importance, at five minutes' notice. But if it is impossible for the Government to determine what course they will pursue in reference to the matter at this short notice, certainly the House of Commons cannot be expected to part with their control of the subject until the decision of the Government is announced. The matter was brought forward with every particularity and circumstance by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, on Monday last, and all the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary then said, was, that he could make no further statement respecting it because it was sub judice. The right hon. Gentleman appears now to know no more about the circumstances of this important case than he did on Monday last.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not over.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not care whether it was over or not. It was the right hon. Gentleman's duty, in my opinion, during the four days that have elapsed, to make up his mind on the primâ facie case, at all events, and to acquaint himself with the circumstances, so that he might have been enabled to say more to-night than that he will make inquiry. It is monstrous to ask the House of Commons, by passing this Tote, to part with the whole subject, and to leave it entirely to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman whether we are ever again to have an opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I say I believe the question would more properly come up on the Law Charges Vote?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As a matter of order, I wish to say that we were told by the right hon. Gentleman, as a reason for closuring the Vote the other night,
  1406
  that we could discuss everything we wished to discuss on the Police Vote upon the Vote for his own salary. Now he tells us we can discuss on the Law Charges Vote what we want to discuss on this Vote. We have to reckon with the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I submit, with all respect for the right hon. Gentleman, that this is a topic which concerns the conduct of the police. It is not a point which entirely affects the law charges. This is the way that Irish subjects are always dealt with. Any occasion is fit to discuss a charge except the present occasion. On Monday the right hon. Gentleman could not deal with it because proceedings were then going on. To-night he cannot deal with it, first of all, because he has not yet received the necessary information, and secondly, because we are able to discuss it at some other time. Why was the Vote closured on Tuesday night? I can understand what may have been in the minds of the Government, but, having availed themselves of the Closure on Tuesday, it is rather too bad to come down now and say that this Vote must he passed without the question being raised upon it. I feel this so strongly that, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Longford has done, I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to insist on the Vote. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has taken this course, but, perhaps, it would be better if I put off the Vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 214.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

COURT OF CHANCERY OF LANCASTER BILL [LORDS].—(No. 363.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee, read.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I object.
  MR. BRUNNER: I trust my hon. Friend will not object. The Bill is desired by all commercial communities in Lancashire as well as by the legal profession.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 167.)
  Order for Bill, as amended, to be considered read.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. BRUNNER: I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his objection.
  DR. TANNER: I protest against important Bills being proceeded with at this time of night. I shall continue my objection.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

  NEW LICENCES (TRELAND) BILL. (No. 249.)
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In view of the opposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I beg to move that the Order be discharged. This is a Bill for the promotion of temperance in Ireland; but it is objected to by the temperance advocate, the Member for South Tyrone.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I may be permitted to say I oppose this Bill because the 3rd clause makes it a Licensing Bill.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 342.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hope my hon. Friend will not object to this Bill going through. This is a very small Bill indeed; it is
  1408
  merely to secure that the 28th of May shall be the uniform removal term.
  DR. TANNER: I have laid down a rule, otherwise I should be very glad to withdraw my objection.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I appeal to the hon. Member to let the Bill go through. It is important that a uniform date should be fixed, and the Bill has the approval of the whole of Scotland.
  DR. TANNER: I do not like to object to a Bill that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in, but, having made a rule, I must adhere to it.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 53)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hope the Lord Advocate will now say what course the Government intend to take in regard to the fisheries proposals of themselves and myself?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The Government Bill has not yet passed through the House of Lords. I may say the question has been considered by the Secretary for Scotland, and he does not think it would conduce to prompt legislation if the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were adopted.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Vernon, Bill to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Vernon, Mr. Baird, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Haldane, and Mr. Williamson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 376.]

  SHREWSBURY AND HOLYHEAD ROAD (ANGLESEY AND CARNARVON) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to make further provision concerning certain portions of the Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 377.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

LORD CARBERY.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of William Charles Baron Carbery to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
TRUSTEES APPOINTMENT BILL.(No. 84.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
BANKRUPICY BILL.—(No. 188.) METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 189.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
A Bill for the promotion of physical education in elementary schools—Was presented by the Lord Chaworth (E. Meath); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 190.)

INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 117.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment), according to order.
Clause 23.
LORD LAMINGTON: There is an Amendment on page 8, after line 35, to insert—
"The reference in this Act to Section 120 of the Public Health Act, 1875, is to be taken to a be a reference to the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1878."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Should it not be "reference also"? Otherwise you exclude the English Act. If you make it a reference only to the Irish Act will not that exclude the English Act?
LORD LAMINGTON: I understand it takes them both together.
THE EARL Of KIMBERLEY: What I mean is this. Certain provisions are made as to Section 120 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the object of the noble Lord is to apply them also to the
1250
Irish Act; but the words he proposes would, in point of fact, limit the reference to that Act. If it is a reference only to the Trish Act, it will not effect its object as regards the English Statute.
LORD LAMINGTON: If it is a question of words that can be done on the Third Reading. I look upon the Amendment as consequential upon the Amendment made by the Standing Committee in Clause 5.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think the noble Lord quite sees what I mean. Clause 5 says that Section 120 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall be repealed for certain purposes. This Amendment proposes that the reference to Section 120 of the Public Health Act shall be taken to be a reference to an Irish Act; it follows, therefore, if it is a reference only to the Irish Act, you will not repeal Section 120 in the English Act. Of course, what the noble Lord means is, that the reference to the clause shall include the English Act as well as the Irish Act. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point by the next stage.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received to morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL.—(No. 170.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which has received the assent of the other House, and its object is to make some Amendments in the proceedings of our Courts of Justice, which have been suggested by the experience gained since the Judicature Act came into operation. I need only detain your Lordships for a minute or two in., explaining the changes which it is proposed to make. The main charge is this. At the present time, if a case is tried by a Judge without a Jury, all questions of law go at once direct to the Court of Appeal, and are determined there. If the case is tried by a Judge with a Jury, then any questions as to the law, as laid down by the Judge at the trial, or the finding of the Jury, goes to a Divisional Court, generally consisting of two Judges, with an appeal

  1251
  from their decision to the Court of Appeal. I need hardly point out that a double appeal of that description, in the cases in which it takes place, causes very considerable expense to the parties, in addition to some amount of delay. The proposal made by this Bill is that, in future, all applications for a new trial, in eases tried by a Judge with a Jury, shall go direct to the Court of Appeal, instead of only going to the Court of Appeal after passing through the Divisional Court. I think there can be only one possible objection of substance to such a proposal, and that would be that the Court of Appeal would be too much occupied with its existing work to be able to attend in due time to the additional work imposed upon it by this Bill. But I may tell your Lordships that, happily, the Court of Appeal has of late got so well forward with its work that it has been able at times to assist the Courts of the Queen's Bench Division in the disposal of the cases that come before them. I think experience has shown that the additional work that will be cast upon the Court of Appeal by this Bill is not such as they will not be able satisfactorily to deal with. The only other matter with which I need trouble your Lordships is a proposal to enable certain cases which hitherto could only be heard by two Judges forming a Divisional Court to be heard by one Judge. There will, of course, still be an appeal to the Court of Appeal; but there does not seem to be any reason why certain cases should be heard only by two Judges which can be equally well heard by one. There are other matters dealt with in the Bill, but, as they are only matters of detail, I need not detain your Lordships further with them now.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD ESHER: My Lords, the Court of Appeal finds itself in the usual happy position of people who work hard. The Court of Appeal has worked extremely hard, and reduced the arrears before it, and the result is that they are asked immediately to take a great deal more work. I shall not object to the Second Reading of this Bill, as far as the first clause is concerned, which will send the new trials, of which my noble and learned Friend
  1252
  has spoken, directly to the Court of Appeal. As to the other parts of the Bill, I have a strong objection to them, for I cannot agree to the statement that it would be advisable that special cases which are intended to be taken before a single Judge by the Bill should be so taken. But that is a matter which may be discussed in Committee. I am sorry this Bill is pressed, for a particular reason. I think it is very much as if you were to put a patch on one corner of a large counterpane. This Bill will not satisfy anybody. There are discussions and complaints about the administration of the law in a dozen other points even much more important than this. But I do not think this is an occasion upon which it would be advisable for me to make a speech with regard to law, for I suspect if I did it would not be very agreeable to the House in its present position, therefore I propose not to talk any more law to-night; but, if I may be permitted, I will give notice that I shall, on this day week, call your Lordships' attention to alleged defects in the administration of the law, and ask Her Majesty's Government whether, after hearing that statement, they will not grant a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring into those defects, so that with regard to such of them as shall be found really to exist, the Commission may propose remedies, with the object of bringing forward immediate legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I heartily concur with the proposal of my noble and learned Friend who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill. There is no sense or reason in preventing a case from going direct to the Court of Appeal after being tried by a Judge and Jury, and thus causing additional expense. It seems to me very reasonable that it should go immediately to the Court of Appeal, and that it should be there decided whether there should be a new trial or not. With regard to the other points of the Bill, I am not quite sure that I approve of them.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 151.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  Clause 5.
  *EARL BEAUCHAMP: This clause gives power to the County Council, or any Committee appointed under this Act, to make use of any public elementary schoolroom, that is to say, where the school is receiving a grant for the purpose of elementary education. The purposes described are three-fold: one is for the purpose of an inquiry under this Act; and another is for the purposes of this Act by the County Council or any Committee appointed under this Act. Those are two of the purposes for which the schoolrooms may be compulsorily used; and if the clause had rested there I do not think I should have troubled your Lordships with any Amendment. But the clause goes further, and says that the schoolroom may be used for the purpose of holding public meetings to discuss any question relating to the subject of Allotments under this Act or the principal Act. That is a wholly novel use to which our schoolrooms are to be applied, and I think your Lordships should consider well whether you will give the powers asked for. I should explain that my Amendment ought to come, not in line 31, but in line 32. I do not propose to interfere in any way with the use of the schoolrooms for the purposes of this Act, either by the County Council or by the Committee, but when you go further than that and say that they are to be used for the purpose of public meetings being called by persons who are in no degree responsible, I think the power should not be given. It does not say who the meetings are to be convened by, or under what limitations the schoolrooms are to be used, and I think your Lordships will see you would be making a grave innovation on the rights of property. These schools may be assisted with public money, but many of them have been built under trust deeds for the purpose of education, and they are limited in that way in regard to the purposes for which they may be used. There are, of course,
  1254
  discretionary powers for the purpose of enlarging the use of those schoolrooms by particular persons and under proper safeguards. Those safeguards are wholly wanting in the clause. Therefore, I propose that the consent of the freeholder should be required when the schoolroom is used not under the authority previously mentioned, but by irresponsible persons for public meetings. It is a notorious fact that many schoolrooms which receive grants of public money for the purpose of elementary education are still the property of private persons, and I do not see why, where benevolent persons have built schoolrooms, free of any charge upon them by way of rent, for certain definite purposes, they are to find those purposes suddenly enlarged, and the buildings which were intended for the purpose of education, should be applied to purposes wholly dissimilar, without any consent of theirs, and without any proper limitations or safeguards. Therefore, I move that in line 32, after "Act or," these words should be inserted "with the consent of the freeholder." That will ensure that proper care will be taken in so using the schools, because the freeholder will, of course, not give his consent unless he feels satisfied that the persons holding the meeting are responsible persons. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will assent to the addition of those words, which will ensure proper care and afford a safeguard that our schools shall not be left, without any control or limitation, in the hands of irresponsible persons. The words, if inserted there, will not interfere in any way with the legitimate operation of the Act; they will only tend to prevent the holding of possibly disorderly meetings.
  Amendment moved, in line 32, to insert after the word "or," the words "with the consent of the freeholder."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  *THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY): I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, though certainly the altered position in which he proposes now that it should be placed in the Bill would somewhat limit its application. I am afraid that if the consent of the freeholder had to be obtained, it would, in some cases, defeat the intention of this clause. The

  1255
  object of this clause is to enable the people in the locality to hold meetings in village schoolrooms in reference to allotments. Now, the freeholders may be represented in various ways; they may be represented sometimes by the School Board, sometimes by Trustees. In rural places, the School Boards seldom meet more than once a month; and Trustees may be scattered all over the country, so that there would be great difficulty in obtaining their consent. However, as, on the Report, I propose to add some words with reference to the meetings to be held, perhaps it may meet the convenience of the noble Lord to postpone the consideration of this proposal until the Report.
  *EARL BEAUCHAMP: As I understand, from what the noble Lord has said, that he looks with considerable satisfaction upon the proposed alteration, I will not trouble your Lordships with it further on this occasion, but raise it on a later stage.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn; Bill reported without amendment.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) DIED.—(No. 155.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CEANBKOOK): I need not detain your Lordships very long in respect of tin's Bill, which will rather, I think, depend upon consideration in Committee than upon its principle. My noble Friend opposite, Lord Granville, introduced to me early this year a deputation upon this subject which followed upon a Royal Commission which went carefully into this subject, both in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and had also, in fact, studied its position in foreign countries. Their recommendations were, in fact, that blind and deaf children should be placed in the same category as children possessing ordinary faculties; that is to say, that they should be liable to come under the Elementary Education Act, and subject to the same law as to education as other children in the country. At the same time, it was found that the expense necessary for the education of the blind and deaf is
  1256
  necessarily on a very different scale to that which is necessary in the case of ordinary children. Therefore there has been some difficulty in England in endeavouring to frame a measure to deal1 with that point; and, in reference to calling upon the School Boards or County Councils, or the School Authorities in connection with the County Councils to find funds for the proper education, of those children, I need not say, my Lords, how important it is that these poor children should be educated. There are now a great number of blind who are perfectly unable to support themselves in any way; there are, I think, some 4,000 or 5,000 who have no means of support of any kind. It is, therefore, an important question whether it is not better for the State to do something for them in the way of education, in order to enable them to use the other faculties they possess, which they are often well able to use in spite of their deprivation of sight, hearing, or speech. We have seen how many have been able to more than overcome their disabilities, like the late Postmaster General, Mr. Fawcett. We can, therefore, see how important it is that they should have a thorough education. With regard to deaf mutes many of them having no organic defect but deafness, possessing even the means of speech, only that they hear no sound, and, therefore, are of themselves unable to speak on that account, or utter intelligible sounds, it is almost necessary that they should be educated in separate institutions. With regard to the blind, it is-not always the case, but in their case, also, it is necessary that they should have a special education. This Bill will give power to send them to institutions for that purpose. I have received very few communications with regard to the Bill, and very few Amendments. But there is one point which I think is very reasonable, that is, that in the case of parents, who would, if they could, use the ordinary elementary schools they should not be called upon to pay a higher fee for the education of these afflicted children than in the case of ordinary children. The necessity of spreading the expenditure, by not confining it in narrow limits or in particular localities, would, I think, become evident to your Lordships if you

  1257
  were to look into the question and see how unfortunately, by the intermarrying of people of this class, there is a perpetuation of deaf-mutism, and sometimes even of blindness, in the most remarkable manner, and, therefore, the burden would fall with exceeding heaviness in some places when there were many afflicted. To give your Lordships an instance. I received a card the other day giving particulars of a case where two deaf-mutes had married, and had produced five deaf-mute children, who would, of course, require to be educated in some institution. That is a lamentable state of things, but possibly there may be means by oral instruction of bringing a readier communication between the deaf and hearing people. Making provision for educating them in this way will, we may hope, lead to that result, so that marriages shall not so frequently take place as they now do between deaf-mutes. We cannot, of course, interfere in that matter by this Bill, but by means of education we may hope that something will be done in that respect. I am sure your Lordships will feel that these unfortunate children have some claim upon us, and that they need provision for their education quite as much as other children in the country. Those of your Lordships who have looked into the matter, will, I am sure* approve of the measure, and I think I shall meet the wishes of the House on the present occasion by not offering further remarks upon it. I know I have the approval of my noble Friend opposite, and I now leave the matter in your Lordships' bands.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: As the noble Viscount has referred to mo, I am anxious to state that the Bill, the objects of which he has so clearly described, will have my warm support. There are two or three Amendments of mine, one of which lie has already mentioned, which I had thought of bringing forward on the Second Reading, but as there is other business of importance before your Lordships, I had better reserve them for Committee. In the meantime, no doubt, the noble Viscount will permit me to communicate with him on the matter.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT BILL. (No. 180.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill for the purpose of confirming a portion of the Agreement which was signed at Berlin on Tuesday week—that portion of it which provides for the cession of the Island of Heligoland to the German Empire, and, as the Bill is exclusively concerned with that island, I will make some remarks with reference to it; but I hope your Lordships will not consider mo out of order if I go afterwards for a few moments into the general provisions of the Agreement in regard to other places than Heligoland. Perhaps, in strict order, I ought not to do so, but in this House we are indulgent in that respect. The island of Heligoland, as your Lordships are aware, is about three-quarters of a mile in extent, in the bay formed by Germany and the peninsula which ends in Denmark. It was taken in the year 1807, at a time when we were at war with Denmark, to whom it then belonged. Denmark was then the owner of the Frisian territory of Schleswig, to which this island naturally and by population belonged. It was of value to us in that great war for a reason that would not occur at first sight. The year when it was taken was the year following the issue of the Berlin Decrees by Napoleon, of which; the aim was to ruin England by the exclusion of her manufactures and commodities from the Continental markets. It was natural that this strange and unprecedented policy should be met by efforts to break through the line which he had set up, and Napoleon's policy was, to a great extent, fought by the smuggler. Heligoland was of great use, lying within 20 miles of the nearest German coast. It was of great use as a store for goods afterwards to be in that manner intro-

  1259
  duced into the Continental markets in spite of Napoleon's Decrees. Towards the end of the war, but before it had concluded, and while Napoleon was still fighting gallantly in the Eastern Provinces of France, in January, 1814, a Treaty was concluded at Kiel, of which the main object was to provide that Norway, which had previously belonged to Denmark, should thenceforth belong to Sweden. In that great contest Denmark had the misfortune to take the wrong side, and Sweden had the good fortune to take the right side, and the transfer of Norway from Denmark to Sweden was the expression of that fact. Heligoland, which also had been taken from Denmark, was by the same Instrument transferred to the British Crown. I do not think there were any further stipulations with respect to it. It remained part of the territory of this country by virtue of the Treaty of Kiel. No doubt the motive for retaining it was partly the natural wish to retain territory, and partly that, as our contest was not then concluded, the value of the island was still considerable. It was held as a military post for some years. Up to the year 1821 there was a military establishment in the island; but in that year—not a year when peace theories were in vogue, but when the military spirit was very strong in this country—it was determined to withdraw the military establishment, and since that time the island has remained unoccupied by any considerable force, unfortified and practically unarmed. It has remained entirely undefended, and I believe there has been no attempt to defend it. Certainly there has been no indication of any intention on the part of Parliament or the Executive Government of the country to undertake the arming or defending of it; and I believe there is no doubt that the recommendation of the Colonial Defence Commission was expressed strongly against any such course. In truth, the value of the island is generally recognised for any strategic purposes as very small. It has no harbour. It has an open roadstead, which is untenable in a northwest wind, which is the prevailing wind. The commercial value of the island, again, as far as this country is concerned, may be expressed by very minute figures. I believe the import of British goods into the island in the course of
  1260
  the year amounts to £50 in value, or not quite that. The population are, as I have said, Frisian. They speak Low-German, the language of the coast opposite. I believe there are only 5 per cent, that are not of that nationality, and they have not materially altered—they have increased in numbers, not much during the intervening period. Now, the point that we have to consider on the present occasion is, Is this islands of any strategic value to this country? I have shown that commercial, value, from the want of a harbour and for want of a market, it has none. Has it any strategic value? In time of peace, of course, the question of strategic value does not come up, but it may just be mentioned that even in time of peace it is apt to be a slightly inconvenient possession, because I think it was found during the late Franco-German War that its proximity to the German coast was sufficient to invite attempted breaches of neutrality, which are very convenient to belligerents, but which we know to our cost are apt to be exceedingly onerous to neutrals. But I will not dwell upon a consideration of that kind, which is not of paramount importance; I will ask, what would be the value of the island to us strategically in case of war? There are two cases—one a great deal more probable than the other, or rather less improbable than the other. One is the case of our being at war with Germany. Well, as I have said, the island is entirely unfortified. It lies within a few hours' steam of the great arsenal of Germany. If I am to suppose what I imagine is so utterly improbable a case as a war with Germany, I presume that if this island remained in our possession, the very day of the declaration of war a sufficient force, with all necessary materials and guns, would be despatched to it, and would arrive at the island probably considerably before any relieving fleet could arrive from our side. Experts differ a good deal as to its value in the case of war with Germany. Some think it of no value at all, while others think that it might be useful as a coal depôt to a blockading fleet; but a coal depôt, when England is so near, though it may be a convenience, can hardly be called a great advantage. The case, therefore, in respect to a war with Germany would be that it would

  1261
  expose us to a blow which would be a considerable humiliation, and it would not confer upon us any great advantage, if any advantage, in the conduct of the war on our side. But let us take the much less improbable supposition of our being at war with somebody else. This island is undefended, and can be defended only by a sufficient Naval force. If we were at war with any other Power it would be, therefore, necessary for us to lock up a Naval force for the purpose of defending this island, unless we intended to expose ourselves to the humiliation of having it taken. My Lords, our fleet is a largo one, and I am happy to say it has recently been augmented, but it is none too large for the work it has to do, with our extensive and extending Empire, stretching into every corner of the globe, and meeting with new rivalries at every turn. I think all who have studied the subject will say that in defending our dependencies, and in defending our line of trade, our fleet, great and powerful as it is, would be taxed up to its fullest energies. I think we should labour under a distinct disadvantage if we have a position contributing in no degree to the defence of the Empire without commercial or other value, and which yet, in order to avoid a humiliating blow, would require a certain Naval force to be locked up and kept useless for every other purpose. On these grounds, my Lords, we have come to a conclusion, which I imagine is the conclusion held by many persons, and has been held for a long time, that this island, unfortified and undefended, is not an advantageous possession, but that it is one which for a proper consideration it would be well for the Empire to be divested. But the consideration has been raised by noble Lords opposite and others who deal with the question from a different point of view. It is said that the inhabitants of the island are opposed to the cession, and that their veto ought to be conclusive. My Lords, I do not think that the inhabitants of the island are opposed to the cession. There is no reason that they should be. They have not a long descended ancestral connection with the British Crown. There may be men there, living now, who were alive when the island was originally taken. They are related by the closest bonds of language, of race, of religion, with those who live almost
  1262
  within site of their shores. Their pecuniary interests, to come down to motives which are less noble to dwell upon, though they are often powerful in these cases—their pecuniary profit in no way is increased by the connexion of the island with this country, nor can they look with any advantage to the continuance of that connexion. On the contrary, their whole prospect of gain depends on the large number of German bathing excursionists who go there in the summer, and that source of wealth would not diminish, but would, if anything, increase, if the island formed part of the German Empire. And it is probable, though the island is worthless to us from a strategic point of view, it will not be thought to be worthless to those near whose coasts it lies, and the military expenditure which would be the result of any determination to fortify it will form a large addition to the resources of the islanders, and I have no doubt has already been discounted by them. I am informed, and your Lordships, I think, have been generally informed, that a very enterprising nationality have already purchased up most of the land in the island. But while I say this, I cannot admit the doctrine that tin; decision of a population of a position that has been occupied for military and belligerent purposes is conclusive with respect to the uses to which that position should be put or the destiny which shall attend it. You must draw a line between two sorts of possessions—those possessions which you rule for the benefit of the population that is in them, and those possessions which you hold in order to contribute to the defence of the Empire as a whole; and that latter class of positions, of which we have several, cannot complain of any injustice if it is said that Imperial considerations must occupy a place of paramount importance in the mind of the Government of this country with respect to them, just as local considerations would occupy a place of paramount importance with respect to positions of another kind. My Lords, cession is a very uncommon event, and it is not very likely to be repeated; but this doctrine, which has been rather insinuated on the present occasion, may stretch much further than cession. A hint was given that we ought to have taken the opinion of the people in

  1263
  some form or other, and we could only take it by way of plebiscite. Well, if people are asked to vote by pl°biscite on a question of Imperial policy like this, they may also claim to vote on the question whether their country shall not be ceded; if their opinion is to weigh so heavily on the question whether they are to be ceded, it ought to weigh equally heavily in the other direction. But there is another case—a case which might become practical and important, having nothing to do with cessions—I mean the case where it is necessary to get rid of, or to induce the inhabitants to depart when the danger of war is imminent, and the possibility of actual siege arrives. My Lords, most of you who have paid any attention to these subjects know that a problem of a very serious kind attaches to one of our most important positions in that respect, and you would be very unwise to admit that posts which are occupied, or have been occupied, for belligerent purposes, Imperial purposes—that the paramount disposition of them can be affected because the population which has grown up upon the position has interests in a different direction. My Lords, I said we have come to the conclusion that this island is one which it would be not only, no disadvantage, but an advantage to this country to transfer, if we could obtain for it a satisfactory consideration. The consideration for which we look lies on the East Coast of Africa. There we have obtained, as will have been seen from the Treaty which has been laid on the Table, an undertaking from Germany that she will not oppose our assumption of the protectorate of Zanzibar, and likewise a similar engagement with respect 4;o the Sultanate of Witu, and the long line of coast dependent on Witu to the north. The objects of these stipulations are, of course, to make our influence predominant in these countries. With Witu we have had no ancient connection, but it has become a position of considerable value in consequence of the large tract of country which has been acquired by the British East Africa Company, reaching up from the coast to the Victoria Nyanza Lake. As long as the Sultanate of Witu was in the hands of another Power, there was a possibility of annexations and expeditions to the north of us, which would have cut off British influ-
  1264
  ence and British dominion from the sources of the Nile, from the Lake Albert Nyanza and the valley which lies at the base of the mountains of Abyssinia. The advantage of the acquisition of Witu is that it cuts off any rivalry in this respect, and that, save for the Italian dominion over Abyssinia and its dependencies, we have no rivalry to fear from any European civilised Power until we reach the confines of Egypt. I do not, by any means, say that is an advantage of which all the results will appear immediately, for, as we know, the valley of the Nile is occupied by another Power which is not European and which just at present is not very much inclined to make room for us. But the advantage of limiting our rivalry to an Asiatic or African tribe is one which those who are engaged in these enterprises appreciate very highly. But, in addition to this, we have obtained the promise that Germany will not resist our assumption of the protectorate of Zanzibar, including the Island of Pemba. Zanzibar has 300,000 of a population which has very close commercial connection with our fellow-subjects in India, and the more closely it is brought under our influence the more that commerce is likely to flourish. It lies in the pathway from the Bed Sea to Southern Africa; it must always be a commercial place of the first importance; it maintains an enterprising population and has a fertile soil; and there is no spot in all those waters more valuable to a maritime and commercial nation than Zanzibar and Pemba. But it has also to us a very special interest—that, with the exception of what goes on in the Red Sea, I think all the living slave trade, all the slave trade which is now actually in operation, goes upon that sea and is fed by the Arab traders from Pemba and Zanzibar, and the closer our influence over the Government of the Sultan becomes, the more we may hope we shall succeed in that great effort for which this country has sacrificed so much—the effort to destroy the slave trade and gradually to extirpate domestic slavery. I believe that in that effort we shall have a thorough support from the present enlightened Sultan of Zanzibar. We have every ground to believe that he sympathises with us in this respect, and the relations in which we will now stand under the new

  1265
  arrangement to that ruler will very much facilitate our task. But what it is important your Lordships should observe is that the only impediment to our complete influence in Zanzibar was the counter influence of Germany. Germany had a power in the Court of Zanzibar owing to the settlements it occupied on the mainland and the rights it had acquired over the Zanzibar coast; and however friendly the relations of the two Governments have always been, it nevertheless must inevitably be the case where two nationalities are struggling for the mastery that the struggle is not entirely destitute of the elements either of irritation or of danger. It has been said that in taking back our influence at Zanzibar we have only undone what we ourselves had previously done—that we gave to Germany her power over Zanzibar and are taking it back again, and I think that in the observations of Lord Rose bery the other night there was a considerable trace of that impression. [The Earl of ROSE-BEKY: Hear, hear!] That is not the case. I think it is well that anybody, in considering the recent history of Africa, should take notice of the enormous change which has taken place in the attitude of this and other countries towards it during the last 10 years. Up to 10 years ago we remained masters of Africa practically, or the greater part of it, without being put to inconvenience by protectorates, or anything of that sort, by the simple fact that we were masters of the sea, and that we have had considerable experience in dealing with the native races. So much was that the case that we left enormous stretches of coast to the native rulers in the full confidence that they would go on under native rulers, and in the hope that they would gradually acquire their own proper civilisation without any interference on our part. Then suddenly we found out that that position, however convenient, bad no foundation whatever in international law. We had no rights over all these vast stretches of coast both on the West and East Coast of Africa. We bad no power of preventing any other nation from coming in and seizing a portion of them, and the noble Lord opposite, Lord Granville, was suddenly confronted with a demand on the part of Germany, first on one part of the African coast and then on another part of the African coast, to be allowed to occupy
  1266
  enormous stretches of territory which, up to that time, had been looked upon as practically under the protection of England. I do not mention this as complaining of the noble Lord for the decision he took. On the contrary, I think it was a necessary decision. It was impossible that England should have the right to lock up the whole of Africa, and say that nobody should be there except herself; and I think that the noble Lord opposite arrived at a correct solution of the difficulty, when he frankly allowed that Germany as well as England should take part in the task of developing the vast untrodden fields of Africa, making them into new outlets for colonisation by the excessive population at home, and new fields of industry and trade. But I only demur to the statement made that I did it. It was entirely settled before we came into office. I may be allowed, as the noble Earl cheered what I said just now, to read a passage bearing on this point. On May 5, 1885, Count Müns'er makes this Report on the occasion of Count Bismarck's last visit to London. I am reading from a Parliamentary Paper—
  "The English Government, on their part only expressed a wish that we should not call in question the sovereignty of the Sultan over the coast. They further admitted that there was no intention of opposing or running counter to our claims for colonisation in the interior opposite Zanzibar."
  That was what happened. A large portion of the interior opposite Zanzibar was occupied during the early part of that year. Then came the question of what the territories of the Sultan of Zanzibar on the coast really were. There was considerable discussion upon this point, and it was resolved to appoint an International Commission, which should report what the Continental possessions of the Sultan of Zanzibar were. They went out, they examined, and they reported. On some things they were all agreed; on others they were disagreed; and the noble Earl Lord Rose bery was asked whether he would accept the decisions upon which they were all agreed. He declined to do that, but he said that he was very well disposed towards them. Lord Iddesleigh came into office in August of the same year, and in October of the same year he signed an Agreement practically confirming the unanimous

  1267
  decision of those Commissioners. Of course, I am not now speaking in respect of the line of influence as between Germany and England; I am speaking of the demarcation of the territories of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and in respect to them I maintain, though I am not complaining of what was done, that we had no special responsibility. Now, my Lords, I have pointed out the advantages which I think will come from the closer bonds which, under the proposed arrangement, will bind the Sultan of Zauzibar and the Sultan of Witu to us and the coast that is depandent on them. But that is not the whole of the African question. It is not the part of it which first gave rise to these negotiations. I think our negotiations arose, in the first instance, from a number of disputed points, but really the matter which occupied the greatest attention, both in Germany and in England, was the decision as to which Power was to inherit the territory which lay inland—the territory South of Lake Tanganyika and the territory to the North of that Lake. I need not describe to you, because I have sufficiently described it in a Despatch which was laid on the Table, the decision to which we ultimately came. The German Government reposed themselves entirely on the doctrine that the interior of the country belonged to those who had the coast. We had, at all events, in regard to the country South of Lake Tanganyika, claims resting upon Livingstone's exploration, resting on the work of a large number of mission stations where our missionaries had worked devotedly for a great number of years, and resting also on the efforts and struggles of commercial companies who had done their best to develop trade and to keep the slave trade at bay in those regions. The result, as your Lordships know, is that Germany gave way to us on the South of Lake Tanganyika and we admitted her claims on the North of Lake Tanganyika. On the North of Lake Tanganyika we had nothing to advance in answer to the argument which she based on the possession of the coast. We had no settlements, no experience of missionaries, or of merchants, and, therefore, the argument advanced by Germany was not easy to be refuted, and we could not have resisted it without abandoning the Agreement altogether. I think there
  1268
  has been only one strong criticism adverse to that Agreement. It has arisen from a very curious idea, which has become very prevalent in this country, that there is some special advantage in having a stretch of territory extending all the way from Cape Town to the sources of the Nile. Now, this stretch of territory North of Lake Tanganyika could only have been a very narrow one. It could not have been obtained without absolutely breaking off the agreement altogether. Germany absolutely declined to be hemmed in by our territories to the sea, and insisted on communication at some point or other with the Congo State. But what possible advantage should we have derived from the possession of, or rather the claim of possession to, a narrow strip of territory stretching for a hundred miles from the North of Lake Tanganyika into the territory that is under British influence? It is said that it would have been the trade route. I cannot imagine any trade going in that direction. Trade seeks either for a navigable river or the sea; trade does not willingly go across a continent. If there was trade coming up from the Congo district, across to the north of Lake Tanganyika, it would make for the sea as rapidly as it could. But if yon look beyond the merely commercial considerations to those which are of a strategic character, I can imagine no more uncomfortable position than the possession of a narrow strip of territory in the very heart of Africa three months' distance from the coast, which should be separating the forces of a powerful Empire like Germany and the Congo State, which is, at all events, in the hands of another European Power. Without any advantages of position we should have had all the dangers inseparable from its defence. We should have had merely those advantages of situation which may be supposed to belong to the function of a buffer. The only other objection to our arrangement in the interior of Africa is rather of a similar kind. Ear away from the country of which I have been speaking, in the south-west, in the year 1885, I think it was, or 1884, Germany had taken possession of a vast territory called Namaqualand and Damaraland, of which the inner boundaries were only imperfectly determined. As far north, I think, as latitude

  1269
  22°, they were determined, but north of that there was no fixed line. They claimed to go as far east as longitude 24°. In these matters we can only deal with latitude and longitude as indications of frontier. We have, in the course of the negotiations, induced them to accept longitude 21° instead of 24°, hut it was accompanied by a condition to which a certain amount of exception has been taken, and that is, at the very north of this Damaraland territory they should have a strip of territory going along the Portuguese border, and giving them direct access to the River Zambesi. It was not an unnatural demand, but I never was able to understand what the objections were that have been raised on several sides. Again, we are told that it would interfere with the progress of trade; but it is the last route in the world by which trade can pass. It is at the head of the waters of all the affluents of the Chobe and the Zambesi, over an impracticable country, and leading only into the Portuguese possessions, into which, as far as I know, during the last 300 years there has been no very eager or impetuous torrent of trade. I think that the constant study of maps is apt to disturb men's reasoning powers. Certainly the enthusiasm which has been evoked for this desolate corner of Africa has surprised me more than anything else in this controversy. "We have had a fierce conflict over the possession of a lake whose name I am afraid I cannot pronounce correctly—I think it is Lake Ngami—our only difficulty being that we do not know where it is. We cannot determine its position within 100 miles, certainly not within 60 miles, and there are great doubts whether it is a lake at all, or only a bed of rushes. I am very anxious that full scope should be given to the enterprise of men who have undertaken concessions in that country from a well-affected chief named Moremi; and I think that the whole country of Moremi has been retained within the British sphere. But when I hear the language that is used, the hopes that are entertained, and the extraordinary reasoning as to the future which is based upon them, I cannot help thinking of similar language and similar dreams entertained by our ancestors some 300 years ago connected with the well-known projects for reaching the land of E1 Dorado. I
  1270
  hope and believe that this is only language, and that the practical sense of our countrymen will not lead them to take for absolute gospel all that has been said on the subject of these countries; for the last few months. I will not trouble your Lordships now with one or two other arrangements in other portions of that part of Africa or the delimitations of territory which have been made there. If I were to do so I believe my noble Friend opposite, Lord Aberdare, would be the only person who would understand me, and I think I may therefore venture to pass them by. But I will say that during these negotiations it occurred tome more than once that it might be wiser to break them off altogether and to allow the years to pass over us until the natural progress of emigration and civilisation and the struggle for existence should have determined in a far more effective way than can be done by Protocols and Treaties who are to be supreme, and in what part of that vast continent each nation is to rule. But, on reflection, we could not convince ourselves that that, though far the most comfortable course, would be our duty, because in the front of this advancing tide of colonisation there are-numbers of men of both nationalities—men of energy and strong will, but probably not distinguished by any great restraint over their feelings—who would be urging, in every part where rivalry existed and the two Powers touched, the claims of each nation to supremacy in each particular bit of territory, pressing them upon the natives, getting from native chiefs Treaty after Treaty, each Treaty conflicting with the other, and trying to establish by means which must constantly degenerate into violence the supremacy of that nation for which they were passionately contending. In such circumstances, whatever the friendliness of the Government at home, some friction and collisions could not be averted. The Governments of Germany and England have been on the most friendly terms, and I think have been able to impart at least a considerable portion of their own friendliness and moderation to those who served under them, but it is impossible to impart it to those not under their control, though they share-our nationality, and are keen for the object which we also desire. It is im-

  1271
  possible to restrain them. It is impossible to prevent the danger of collisions, which., might be murderous and bloody; and then when those collisions took place, the echo of them would be heard here, they would be recounted and magnified in newspapers in both countries, they would be pressed upon popular passion until even the Governments themselves might not be able to resist the contagion of the feeling evoked. The happy sympathy and agreement which exist between the two Governments, and which I trust may long exist, would naturally be exposed in no limited time to very serious risks if we had allowed to remain undecided the many causes of conflict and the many questions of territory and right which had arisen in various parts of the continent between the two countries, and especially in the island of Zanzibar, where we should have been brought to close quarters, and where many questions of difficulty would have arisen. I fear that if the existing state of things had gone on the harmony of the two countries might not be long maintained. My Lords, I commend this Agreement to your approval, not as pretending that we have gained or that Germany has gained any great advantage. I believe we have gained on both sides advantages, because each has obtained what suited its own purposes, and of which it could make the most valuable use. I think we have each obtained what is most advantageous to us, but I do not pretend that either country has gained any advantage over the other. What I believe is that we have come to a common agreement which will remove all danger of disunion and conflict between us, and which will cement, I hope for a long time, the good feeling of those who by sympathy, by interest, and by descent, ought always to be friends.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I am sure it is the wish of those who sit beside me on this Bench to acknowledge in the fullest and the freest manner the fair and conciliatory statement which the noble Marquess has laid before the House, and certainly it is not our wish to pick small holes in an Agreement of this Fast character. If it were, as the noble Marquess said in his concluding remarks,
  1272
  a one-sided Agreement, in which: one side had got all the benefit and the other was conscious only of loss, that Agreement would have no chance of being permanent, and, in my opinion, would be a greater misfortune than no Agreement at all. But perhaps it may be permitted when one looks back a few years to envy, for a moment, the powers of pungent sarcasm enjoyed by the noble Marquess, and to reflect without acrimony on what would have been said if Mr. Gladstone's Government had submitted an Agreement of this description to the House. I do not wish, however, to pursue that subject, and in all that I desire to say—and it will not be long—I only wish to put forward one or two points of not, I hope, unfriendly criticism of the Agreement, and not to carp at or cavil with an arrangement which must in any case, to whomsoever falls the advantage, conduce so largely to the present and future friendship of two great countries. Now, my Lords, I take it that the noble Marquess has put the case very clearly before us in stating that in exchange for the cession of Heligoland, which, of course, in itself is a strange and unusual incident, the main compensation we have received is in connection with Zanzibar. It is with those two points that I propose mainly to deal this evening. I do not wish in any detail to deal with this vast Agreement for mapping out and apportioning Africa, which, to many, forms the central point of interest. My feeling as regards this Agreement is this: that, as the noble Marquess said on a former occasion, we should have larger maps in order to appreciate their importance, and also that on this vast continent there is ample room for all the colonising nations of the world. But I would make two remarks with respect to these Agreements, and the first is, that whatever their merits may be, they are an entirely new feature in European diplomacy, or rather, they are a revival of that form of apportionment by which Pope Alexander VI. mapped out the new world between Spain and Portugal. Of course, such Agreements may be necessary; they may, as the noble Marquess said, be better than no Agreement at all; but, at the same time, they have their bad side too, and they cannot but produce in many quarters a certain feeling of jealousy and discontent

  1273
  among those nations who are not party to them. I confess I believe it would be to the advantage of all parties if Agreements as to apportionments of this kind could be submitted to some formal Conference or Congress, so that they might receive the sanction of the communities of Europe at large. The second point I would call your Lordships' attention to in connection with them is this: that these apportionments ought not to be taken for more than they are. They bind only the two Powers that are parties to them. If I am right in so thinking, they are rather in the nature of influence than in the nature of possession; they confer rather protection than dominion; and, in that respect, I think some misleading language has been used with regard to this Agreement. I think it was the right rev. Prelate who spoke the other day of the policy which had added an Empire to an Empire, but I think even the noble Marquess would disclaim such language as that; and though the great explorer to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of so much of this territory has used language of that character, I presume it is not to be taken as either diplomatic or exact or political. But I will say this, I do not wish now to deal with the large African questions involved in this Agreement. I desire rather to deal with the two points which are practically before us—the cession of Heligoland and the counter balancing advantage which we are supposed to have received in Zanzibar. With regard to Heligoland, the noble Marquess gave us a most picturesque view of our acquisition of that island, but I think that in some respects his subsequent remarks tended a little to contradict themselves. He is against, as I understand him, consulting the inhabitants of a place which we hold for belligerent purposes; and, on the other hand, he tells us there are no belligerent advantages in Heligoland. I do not quite understand how he can reconcile those two statements. But I come to the point of what the strategic value of Heligoland really is. I do not think that we on this side have any theoretical objection to the cession of territory, quâ cession of territory, if the general advantage of the Empire results there from. But I think we have a right to demand that one or two con-
  1274
  ditions shall be fulfilled, and one of those conditions is that in an island which, after all, is so near our shores, we should be quite sure that we are not giving away any military or naval advantage which is essential to us. Well, I confess I never meddle with the opinions of naval or military experts. Those opinions of naval and military experts must rest upon their own foundation and be judged according to their intrinsic merit. But we have never seen the opinions of the naval and military experts on this occasion. I believe they have been confided by the First Lord of the Treasury in another place to an indiscreet follower, who only gave us an appetite for more by alluding to them on a postcard to one of his constituents. At any rate, I think we may refer back to a Despatch written by Admiral Russell in 1807 when he took the island. He said that—
  "With a small expense this island could be-made a second Gibraltar; it is a key to the Rivers Ems, Elbe, Weser, Wesel, and Meuse."
  I do not say this convinces me in the slightest degree, but I say that, in the absence of opinions of existing naval and military authorities it is almost all we have to depend upon. But we have other opinions, not exactly naval and military, but traditional in their character, which may help us in this connection, and, as the noble Marquess has chosen to unite the questions of the belligerent importance of Heligoland and the wishes of the inhabitants, I must say I am not aware that any of us on this side of the House would wish that a plebiscite should be taken of the wishes of the Heligolanders in regard to this cession, whether they wished to be parted from this Empire or not. But we do hold as a condition of the proper consideration of a question like this that the opinions of the inhabitants of any part of the Empire which we think it necessary for Imperial motives to dissever ourselves from should not be so absolutely disregarded as they have been, so far as we know, in the present transaction. The noble Marquess the other day, when pressed upon this point, said that he had ascertained the wishes of the inhabitants. I do not pretend to have ascertained the wishes of the inhabitants myself, but we have as yet failed to find out exactly how the

  1275
  noble Marquess arrived at the conclusion which, he has confided to us. All the rumours which we have heard are adverse to the notion that the wish of these people is that they should be dissevered from this Empire, under which they have enjoyed such great benefits. I know it is said that they are only a population of 2,000, and what does the feeling matter of a population of 2,000 in a transaction of this kind? I want to know what is the test of population which you are to apply to the patriotism of the various peoples of this Empire. If you say that 2,000 is a limit which is not to be considered, you have two of the Channel Islands, one of which has a smaller population than 2,000, and the other hardly reaches a quarter of that population. But I go a little further than that, and I say, whether you have 2,000 souls or one soul, you have some right to be considered in the transfer of your person and the territory in which you live from the flag under which you were born. I venture to say that the noble Marquess himself, great as is his power and his abilities, is only one person and one soul, and I do not think that he would very much care to be transferred against his will with the territory in which he lives to the dominion of a foreign Power. But I do not wish to dwell at all upon or to bandy words with the noble Marquess as to what he thinks the wishes of the Heligolanders may be in this matter. I think we have information of a character which the noble Marquess himself will admit to be authentic with regard both to the strategic value of Heligoland and the wishes of the Heligolanders. In a speech which was delivered in 1885 a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government said—
  "He had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) with some surprise"
  —the Government was apparently rather divided upon the question at that time.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We were then in opposition.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Quite so; but evidently the present Members of the Government, unless they have since very much changed their opinions, were very much at issue on that point—
  "For there was a most extraordinary omission in that speech. The hon. and learned Member
  1276
  had spoken of the ardent desire of the German people to have possession of Heligoland, but he had quite forgotten to refer to the feelings of the Heligolanders upon this point. He was satisfied that there was no desire on the part of the people of Heligoland for the proposed annexation. They had prospered and thrived under English rule, and he was certain they did not desire to come under German rule or German Law, including conscription for military service. He was not prepared to sacrifice these people for the purpose of pleasing and conciliating the German people, however desirable it might be to do so. The hon. and learned Member had stated that from a strategical point of view Heligoland was no use to this country. He was disposed to contradict that opinion even upon the hon. and learned Member's own statement as to the position of Heligoland, but he had the honour of having served on a Royal Commission on Colonial Defences and the Protection of Trade, and although their proceedings and the Report were strictly confidential, yet it would be no breach of that confidence to say that, at all events, some persons of experience entertained contrary views to that of the hon. and learned Member."
  I am not prepared to go so far as that speech, but that is the speech of the present Secretary for the Colonies, under whose amiable and genial rule Heligoland is at present existing, and I hope that at some later moment of the Debate he will give us some explanation of what it is that has caused him to change his views, both as to the strategical importance of Heligoland, and as to the wishes of the Heligolanders. On the same occasion we have another Member of the present Government, Sir M. Hicks Beach, to the fore, saying—
  "He was much astonished when he saw the notice of Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, which appeared rather as a trap for Her Majesty's Government,"
  —if Sir Michael Hicks Beach could have foreseen the present condition of things, he would have known what Government it was a trap for—
  "And he congratulated them that they had escaped the snare. He was very glad that the proposal had practically received no support in the House. As to the point that the island was of no use to us, it had been shown by the noble Lord and others, who had taken part in the Debate, that Heligoland was of great importance to our fisheries in the North Sea. As to the feelings of the people of Heligoland, when he was at the Colonial Office, so far from there being any desire on their part to sever themselves from the British Empire, they were exceedingly well pleased to be connected with England rather than with Germany."
  My Lords, I do not think I can add anything to the weight of those opinions, or

  1277
  to the pungency and force with which they are expressed. They are all, I venture to say, practical upon the point whether the island of Heligoland is of strategical importance, and as to whether the wishes of the Heligolanders should he in any degree consulted on the subject of their transfer. There is another condition which I think, in the opinion of the people of this country, would attach to any such cession of territory as has been made in this instance, and that is, that there should be no breach of faith on our part. Now, I cannot say whether there has been any breach of faith here or not; but it is asserted that by the 10th Article of the Capitulation of 1807 it was provided that the natives of Heligoland should be permanently exempted from any naval service in the future. Whether that pledge has been given, and whether, if given, it has been safeguarded by the noble Marquess in the present Agreement, is a point upon which we shall no doubt receive information farther on. As to that Capitulation, I may say that my interest in it is not newly sprung from the incidents of the cession. I moved for a copy of that Capitulation in this House in 1876, and I remember that my noble and lamented Friend Lord Carnarvon—whom I cannot mention on a subject like this without expressing what I am sure has been the feeling of the whole House during the past fortnight as to the loss this House has sustained through his untimely death—refused to give me that Capitulation, because he said it contained much perilous matter. In consequence, I have never been able to trace or see that document. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will be more liberal now that Heligoland is about to pass away from us. I suppose the least condition that any Parliament would be disposed to attach to a cession of this kind is that we should receive adequate and ample compensation for a sacrifice not so much of territory as of amour propre. Well, the equivalent for the cession of Heligoland is to be found, we know, in Zanzibar. The noble Marquess has devoted some attention to what I have said on the subject of Zanzibar. I insinuated something and I cheered something else the noble Marquess said; and from that the noble Marquess drew something of a most portentous kind.
  1278
  Let me see what I really did say. I said that "the Sultanate of Zanzibar, which the noble Marquess is now acquiring by the cession of Heligoland is not by any means the Sultanate of Zanzibar which we left behind us when we left office in 1886." I must complain a little, I confess, of the language of the noble Marquess on this subject. We were left until the day these Papers appeared with nothing but the Despatch of the noble Marquess to guide us with regard to the Agreement into which he had entered. In that Despatch to Sir E. Malet of the 14th of June, 1890, the noble Marquess says—
  "England will further assume, with the consent of the Sultan of Zanzibar (which has been given), the exclusive protectorate over that Sultanate, including the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba."
  That I felt to be good news. I did not know much about the rest of the Agreement, but I ventured, in order to make assurance perfectly sure, to place a question on the Paper asking exactly what was meant by the "Sultanate of Zanzibar," but being oh that afternoon occupied with the more august duties of the London County Council, I had to ask my noble Friend Lord Kimberley to put that question for me. The question was this:—
  "The exact meaning of the expression 'Sultanate of Zanzibar' used in Lord Salisbury's Despatch of June 14th, 1890?"
  The noble Marquess answered that
  "The word 'Sultanate' bears the same relation to Sultan as the word 'monarchy' does to monarch. The protectorate of Zanzibar means the protectorate over the territory which is under the government of the Sultan of Zanzibar or under his suzerainty."
  Well, that is a perfectly clear statement. That means Zanzibar and Pemba and some 500 or 600 miles of coast, though only of a depth, it is true, of 10 miles on the mainland, which are all under the suzerainty of the Sultan of Zanzibar. The noble Marquess made this more clear in a subsequent answer, in which he said that this sovereignty of the Sultan of Zanzibar over these hundreds of miles of mainland was perfectly clear and undisputed, but, by a somewhat unfortunate metaphor, as I think, he added that for a part of it the Sultan of Zanzibar had in the German Empire a tenant who understood his relations to the Sultan somewhat more in the way that tenancies are

  1279
  understood in the Sister Island than as they are regarded in this country. Then, my Lords, we had arrived at this point. From the Despatch we knew that we were to take over the protectorate of the whole Sultanate of Zanzibar, and also from the noble Marquess we had got a definition that the word "Sultanate" implied everything over which the Sultan of Zanzibar had sovereignty or suzerainty. We had, further, this concession from him—that the whole of the coast line opposite to Zanzibar was held under that Sultan's suzerainty. Surely the conclusion was irresistible—we came naturally to the conclusion that all that line of coast which we left under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Zanzibar when we left Office in 1886 was to be transferred to the protectorate of the British Crown by this Agreement. My Lords, what is the case? We gain information only by instalments, and though we thought the information satisfactory as far as it went, our anxiety was rudely put an end to by the publication of the Treaty. Not merely does the Treaty not give us anything of the kind; not merely does the Treaty in a most emphatic way contradict the statement of the noble Marquess in his covering Despatch, but it actually makes out that so far from assuming this protectorate, we are to assist in every way the transfer of the whole of the territory of the Sultan of Zanzibar on the mainland opposite the island to Germany. What are the words of the Treaty? Article 11 of the Treaty says—
  "Great Britain engages to use all her influence to facilitate the friendly arrangements by which the Sultan of Zanzibar shall cede absolutely to Germany his possessions on the mainland comprised in existing concessions to the German East Africa Company and their dependencies, as well as the Island of Mafia."
  No protectorate; but he "shall cede absolutely to Germany" his possessions on the mainland. I venture to say that, under those circumstances, the expression used by the noble Marquess in his Despatch was not one that was accurate, or that was calculated to convey a real impression of Article 11.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Have you a copy of the Despatch?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Yes, I have marked the passage. Therefore, I think under these circumstances it
  1280
  is not an illegitimate conclusion to arrive at that the sultanate of Zanzibar has suffered material detriment since we left Office in 1886. But the noble Marquess resents that conclusion. He says—
  "I do not think any diminution of the prestige or the power of the Sultan of Zanzibar can be laid to our charge."
  The diminution of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, as far as it is diminished on the coast at all, is, I am afraid, rightly or wrongly, entirely the work of the noble Marquess, and, therefore, I cannot understand his using the language of injured innocence with regard to that transaction. But I am not disposed to rest this matter entirely on figures or Treaties alone. We have had the advantage of the indiscretion of one of the most remarkable Members of the Government, though he has since ceased to be a Member of the Government—the noble Lord who was leader of the House of Commons at the time this course of policy was inaugurated, and who has given us a full, free, and candid, but I think a somewhat indiscreet, revelation of what has taken place in a speech delivered at Birmingham in July, 1889. Lord Randolph Churchill said—
  "Now the price we have paid all along to the German Chancellor since we occupied Egypt for the support of the German Government in our policy there has been one concession after another to the colonial policy of Germany. Now the colonial policy of Germany is essentially an aggressive policy. I will give you one instance of the price which we paid for the support of the German Government in Egypt. It happened at a lime when I was in the Government, and in saying what I do I do not wish to blame the Government; or if the Government is to be blamed, I take as much blame on myself as being a part of it as may be necessary or proper. But this is what took place. The support of the German Government in Egypt was necessary to our policy. The German Government had designs on Zanzibar. Our position there at that very moment was one of immense value and strength."
  That was when we left Office in 1886.
  "The whole of the tribes of that part of Africa were under our influence, and were looking up to us, and were determined to be guided by us. We held at Zanzibar the key to all the commercial development of the great African territory. Well, in order to gain. Prince Bismarck's support for our Egyptian police we had to give up our position of predominance at Zanzibar. We practically ruined almost, but certainly most seriously damaged ourselves with that part of Africa, the commerce of which, at that time, was valued at

  1281
  upwards of.£3,000,000 a year. And we know perfectly well that the state of that part of Africa at the present moment, owing to German designs and owing to German enterprise, is one of utter confusion, utter insecurity, and one where commercial relations cannot, possibly tranquilly prevail. Now that is one price we had to pay for the Egyptian policy."
  He goes on to make some remarks with regard to the Government policy as to Samoa which I will not read at this moment, but which are not devoid of interest to those who have followed the course of events in that island. I think I have proved, out of the month of the noble Marquess himself, from his own Treaty, and out of the mouth of his own Colleague the Leader of the House of Commons at the time of the Treaty concluded by Lord Iddesleigh in October, 1886, that there has been a considerable diminution in the prestige and influence of the Sultan of Zanzibar under the auspices of the present Government. And I think I will go a little further than that. I will lay down this position—that if, by the cession of the island of Heligoland, we are as the noble Marquess has told us, receiving as our equivalent the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, we are only by this cession of British territory—which is, with Malta and Gibraltar, our only remaining European asset from the great war with Napoleon and France, which cost us about a thousand millions and, innumerable lives—we are only re-acquiring a small portion of what the Government of Mr. Gladstone left behind them under the full control of Great Britain. I do hot 'think that this is of itself an overwhelming position, but it certainly puts the concession in a grave light. But I will return to the phrase of the noble Marquess, to which I attach so much importance, and take this Agreement from a different point of view. He says that—
  "England will further assume, with the consent of the Sultan of Zanzibar (which has been given) the exclusive protectorate of that Sultanate, including the islands of Zanzibar and pemba, and that this assumption will he made with the full concurrence of Germany."
  What I have to ask about that is—When did France disappear from the position of a Guaranteeing Power with regard to Zanzibar? We are told that Germany has given her consent and that the Sultan of Zanzibar has been pleased to give his consent, but neither the Sultan nor Germany are the guaranteeing
  1282
  Powers at Zanzibar. The two Guaranteeing Powers are England and Francer: and the solemn pledges that we made by the Mutual Declaration which was signed at Paris, on March 10th, 1882, to respect the independence of the Sultans of Zanzibar and Muscat appear, as far as we can gather from the Papers laid on the Table, and from the expository speech of the noble Marquess, in which the name of France was not once mentioned, to be treated as absolutely non-existent. My Lords, I consider this to be rather a grave matter. I do not know whether the noble Marquess is negotiating with France or not for her consent. I only know what I read in the papers, and it is no part of my duty to believe implicitly all that I read. But I think it would have been more graceful and more conciliatory to the dignity of a great Power, with which we have always been in the most friendly relations, if, in a transaction of this kind, transferring the protectorate of a territory with regard to which that Power and ourselves are the only Guaranteeing Powers, some mention had been made of that other Power in this transaction. So entirely was that position of France recognised in regard, to Zanzibar that the Commission of Delimitation to which the noble Marquess has referred, which was set on foot in order to ascertain the real dominions of Zanzibar, was really see on foot to enable Germany to become a third Guaranteeing Power, there being then only two. Therefore, my Lords, I must add this to my description of the exchange which has been effected of Heligoland for this protectorate of Zanzibar, that we are not only re-purchasing a portion of what we had in 1886, but that we are only re-purchasing it subject to the consent of another Power, which has not yet been given, as far as I know. But I am not sure that I have even yet done with the qualifications which I must attach to the triumphant announcement of the noble Marquess. By Article 11 he is going to facilitate the complete arrangements by which Germany is to get possession of the territory on the mainland. Germany will receive the acquisitions referred to in Article 11 of the Treaty in full and fair freehold, so to speak. Our protectorate, if I am not misinformed, will be by no means of this fair freehold description that attaches to

  1283
  the position of Germany. Our protectorate will be, more or less, subject to all the commercia£Treaties entered into by the Sultan of Zanzibar, and will be subject also to that extra-territorial jurisdiction of Foreign Powers which has caused us so much trouble in Egypt and elsewhere. We must, I am afraid, therefore, attach this further qualification to the description of the noble Marquess—that we are ceding Heligoland in order to obtain at Zanzibar partially now what we had altogether in 1886, subject to the consent of France, and subject to all the restrictions which have been placed by Foreign Powers, at different times, on the full and free action of that Sultan. I shall not ask your Lordships to consider this Agreement any further this evening. I have thought it right to lay before you the view I hold, that it is by no means the triumphant arrangement which it has been claimed to be by the organs of the opposite Party. There may be counterbalancing advantages for us in the "Empire that will be added to an Empire," in the 650,000 square miles which Mr. Stanley says are now open to the Anglo-Saxon race. Your Lordships understand that I am not now dealing with vast intangible regions; I am dealing now with very tangible interests. We have handed over Heligoland and its people, like chattels, to a Foreign Power, and in exchange we have received this extremely qualified and diminished concession, which I have described in detail. It may be thought that this is an Agreement to which we in this House and in the other House should offer open and persistent opposition. But I confess, for my part, I shall offer no such opposition. It would be futile, if I wished to do so, in the present condition of our Party in this House; but if there were behind me, instead of 30, 300 Peers, my attitude in this respect would be exactly the same. In the first place I believe that the Agreement might have been considerably modified for the better, but having been made, and having been accepted by Germany, it would plunge us into the worst possible relations with Germany if the arrangement were not now consented to, or if it were now to be cancelled or withdrawn. I set far more value and importance on our good understanding with a great Power than I do on points of detail, however important, that may be
  1284
  found in an Agreement of this kind. But I confess that, while I am one of those who have always most stoutly and persistently urged that this country should establish the closest and best relations with the united Empire of Germany, and I did so long before I was at the Foreign Office, I do not see that that precludes our paying due and friendly respect to that other great Power with which we nave always striven to be in the most friendly relations, and which, in my view, should have been consulted on this occasion. That is one other good reason for having nothing further to say in opposition to this Treaty. But there is a larger reason still to which I attach personally more importance than that; and it is this—I, for one, will never be party to dragging the foreign policy of this country into the arena of Party warfare. I attach infinitely more importance to our preserving a dignified and united attitude abroad, than to any petty advantage we can gain at home. 1, for one, will never raise my voice by the utterance of a syllable, I will never give a single vote, unless under a major force than any that exists in this instance, which might diminish by one jot or tittle the supreme influence and position of Great Britain in the world.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I should have thought it unnecessary, after the eloquent speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, to interfere with reference to what, after all, is an almost personal matter; but the noble Earl has directly challenged me to explain away a speech I made in March, 1885, in the House of Commons. In fact, he has offered me the tempting proposal to eat my own words; but I entirely decline the leek that is offered to me. Your Lordships will see that that speech was made on a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be good enough to induce Germany to take over Heligoland. There was no question then raised as to whether there should be any consideration for the cession of Heligoland, or whether it was to form part of a great arrangement for the settlement of difficulties with a foreign nation, to which the noble Earl and the noble Marquess have referred, and which might lead to grave complications. It

  1285
  was merely a question whether we should cede Heligoland to Germany, in order to please Germany, and to get rid, as far as we were concerned, of a certain amount of useless expenditure. In these circumstances I was of opinion that it was a case in which the Heligolanders might well be consulted. If the only object of giving up Heligoland was to please Germany, or to relieve ourselves of a certain expenditure, I thought, and venture still to think, it would only be reasonable for us to consult the wishes of the Heligolanders. But the circumstances of the present case are entirely different. I am also free to admit that I do not believe there is any strong desire on the part of the Heligolanders to make any change. They have thriven under our rule, and are content to remain under it. As I said on a former occasion, the main reason for my thinking that the Heligolanders would be unwilling to place themselves under Germany was that they objected to naval and military conscription. But, again, the conditions of things is entirely altered. Germany has now agreed to conditions by which any person living at the date of the Agreement will be free from naval and military conscription. We have also secured to the Heligolanders that there shall be no increase of their dues for 20 years. We have secured to them the observance of their customs and laws, as far as possible; and, looking at these conditions, I believe it will be found that the people will readily come under the German Sovereign whose subjects have already for many years been their best customers. One observation only upon another part of that speech. The noble Earl has pointed out that I, as a Member of a Royal Commission, had referred to persons of experience having expressed opinions different from those of Sir J. Gorst. I would observe in the first place that Sir J. Gorst said that Heligoland was of no value whatever, and could not be so in any circumstances. I ventured to differ from him; I thought that, under certain circumstances, it might be of some value; but, speaking on the spur of the moment, and without reference to books, I exaggerated, unintentionally, the evidence that had been given before the Royal Commission. I find, on closer examination, that there had not been
  1286
  several persons of experience who believed in the strategical importance of the place, but only one, and he did not come up to be cross-examined before the Commission, but his opinion was only stated in a letter. My Lords, I really feel that I ought to apologise to you for having made these remarks, but I was challenged by the noble Earl to defend what I said. I content myself by pointing out that those observations were made in circumstances altogether different from those which are now presented to your Lordships.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I observed when my noble Friend Earl Rosebery sat down, after his extremely able, and, at the same time, moderate speech, that the Prime Minister signed to my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies to get up; and he seemed to be a little reluctant to do so.
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: I am afraid that is not exactly the case. I asked the noble Marquess whether it was necessary that I should offer a few observations.
  EARL GRANVILLE: If that is the case, I can hardly believe that the noble Marquess thinks that the only answer it is necessary to offer on the part of the Government to the criticisms of my noble Friend is merely the explanation which has been given of a speech made by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. We have not heard one word of defence of the manner in which the Treaty has been made. My noble Friend quoted what Sir John Gorst said, what Lord Knuts-ford said, and what the present President of the Board of Trade said in 1885. Those are not quite the latest Parliamentary utterances on this subject. Lord Beacons field is quoted to have said that surprise was the great element of success in politics. This certainly has been a surprise to us, not so much as to the cession of Heligoland, as that it should be Her Majesty's present Government who have taken this course. How is it to be explained that, not five years ago, but some five weeks ago, in the House of Commons, the Representative of the Colonial Office made a strong speech exactly in consonance with that of Lord Knutsford in 1885? I have always pointed out the difficulty of the Foreign Secretary's attending to all the duties of Prime Minister; but I should suppose that when a question concerning the

  1287
  Foreign Office is to be asked or discussed in the House of Commons those who have to answer, for the Foreign Office would communicate in some degree with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office as to the answer to be given. Can any greater surprise be shown than that which has followed the argument of the Representative of the Government, forcing, as it were, a large majority of the House of Commons to vote against the principle which has so immediately been abandoned, and is now embodied in this Bill I No answer has been given to the comments made upon the point referred to by the noble Marquess the other day, when he said he had the means of knowing that the Heligolanders were not dissatisfied with the change. All the general information given to us is exactly the reverse. The noble Marquess did not adduce any facts, but said he had reason to believe that the Heligolanders were satisfied, and that, as reasonable people, they ought to be. There is one ground on which it strikes me they might object to their transfer, and that is that people who have been once English subjects do not like to cease to be English subjects. I think that is a reason which might have weighed with the Government. But as for supposing that the Heligolanders are satisfied, because, in the opinion of the noble Marquess, they ought to be satisfied, that appears to be an illusory way of arguing this question. No answer has been given with regard to the Capitulation. I observed that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Knutsford) when my noble Friend Lord Rosebery read out the words that are supposed to be in that Capitulation cheered, and I imagine that cheer signified that they were privileged not to be obliged to serve on board ship. It is said that these Heligolanders are protected, because the noble Lord opposite said that those who are now living are not to be subjected to the conscription. But what is to happen to the children of those living people? Do the parents consent to their children being subjected to conscription, from which they are free now? Reasons of State may justify this transaction, but one would have thought Her Majesty's Government would have felt the strongest possible stimulus to protect the Heligo-
  1288
  landers in the enjoyment of all the privileges that had been secured to them What does the Agreement come to? With regard to English fishermen, their protection is unlimited to all eternity; but with regard to the Heligolanders, the protection is only for a few years. I really think these are points which have a very great bearing upon the question, and call for a reply from the Government. However much we may rejoice, and I rejoice as much as my noble Friend does, that an arrangement has been made on colonial matters with Germany, I cannot but think that this Agreement has been come to in a sudden and impulsive manner. I have never felt any jealousy of German colonization; I believe they will colonise, and the noble Marquess has been good enough to say he thought I was right in conceding a right to Germany to colonise in Africa, and not claiming a monopoly of colonisation on our part. I really believe that the noble Marquess cannot have thought, of the Capitulation until it was brought forward on the present occasion. Nothing has been said in reply to what my noble Friend said about our ignoring the joint guarantee of France. The noble Marquess, gave us an explanation, and, so far as the mere facts go, it was, perhaps, an explanation; but the state of things was this: That when Mr. Gladstone's Government left office our influence in Zanzibar-was supreme, partly owing to our predominant maritime and commercial position, and partly owing to the character of Sir John Kirk, who was removed by the noble Marquess; and our position was supreme in a way of which neither France nor any other Power complained. But that position has been given up. We are now in this position, and I should like really to know whether we are to assent to the cession of Heligoland without being aware whether we can carry out the Treaty or not as to the Protectorate of Zanzibar which we have arranged with Germany. I think that it is a very important thing, if we give up the island, or are in any way deprived of it, to know whether the Government can say that we are in a position at this moment to carry out the guarantee which England and France have agreed upon. I think, considering how desirable it is that this case should stand as well as possible, it is a pity that

  1289
  the Secretary of State for the Colonies did not think it worth while to answer any of the criticisms of my noble Friend, but left the case exactly as it stoood after his speech, without any reassuring reply from Her Majesty's Government.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the reception which the Agreement has received from the noble Lords opposite, though their criticisms have been somewhat minute. The point to which the noble Lord directed attention most was the question of the assent of the Heligolanders, and the security that we were in possession of that assent. I thought that I had explained the other night that, in my judgment, there is no way of being absolutely sure of the assent of the Heligolanders, except by the mode of taking a pl°biscite, but taking a pl°biscite seems to me to be a plan not only singularly alien from all our practice, but also, what is more important, a precedent full of risk and difficulty with regard to other portions of the Empire. Without a pl°biscite it is impossible to know precisely what the people may think—you may form a guess at it, but pou cannot know it. I must say that I have no doubt myself that the population, as a whole, are well disposed towards this change, but the sources from which I have received that impression are necessarily confidential. I should quite agree with the noble Lord that he has no right to be satisfied with that assurance on my part if the assent of the population is an essential part of the agreement. I have tried to establish that a very strong line of distinction is to be drawn between those countries which were originally occupied for purely belligerent purposes and those countries which were occupied for settlement. In the latter case the veto of the population ought to have an enormous weight, but in the other case they must be subordinated to the general considerations affecting the welfare of the Empire where we are dealing with a possession which was originally acquired on purely belligerent grounds. After all, when we talk of the necessity for obtaining the sanction of the population to becoming German subjects, I would remind the noble Lord that they became British subjects entirely without their consent, by the application of pure force, and that, too,
  1290
  within the lifetime of many who are now alive; and, therefore, I think that the doctrine which the noble Earl asserts is exceedingly wide of any doctrine which has been hitherto laid down, and if it was accepted by authority in the first instance would, in regard to matters irrespective of cession, produce signal inconvenience in the administration of the Empire.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess will remember that on the last occasion he did not take ground quite so high as this. He told us that by means of confidential communications he had ascertained that the whole of the Heligolanders were satisfied, but he was not good enough to answer my question as to how that took place, whether those confidential communications were with the islanders or the Executive Council of the island. He did not tell us whom he had consulted, or whether it was the Governor. If so, I should be glad to know whether he consulted the Governor after the Agreement or before it?
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have simply to say in defence of my conduct on a former occasion that I tried very directly to answer the questions, and, therefore, I did not go into the whole ease for the Second Reading of the Bill. I maintain that the duty of the Government in this case is to consider, in the first instance, the Imperial interests committed to their charge; and, in the second instance, to do all they possibly can for the welfare of the population of the ceded territory. I think that we have fulfilled that demand; and, in the third place, we have to consider the circumstances which would determine the views of the population and the motives by which they are likely to be influenced. Absolutely to ascertain what populations think, I maintain, to be impossible except by a pl°biscite, and to imagine that you can obtain it by simply consulting the Executive Council I think would be a very illusory proceeding. The impressions which I hold have certainly not been contradicted by any trustworthy evidence. The manner in which I have arrived at the impressions I have stated, and which have not been contradicted by any trustworthy evidence, I regret to say I am compelled to treat as confidential. I do not know that there is

  1291
  any other point which my noble Friend has pressed upon me for consideration except only the allusions to France. I will briefly say that we have been in communication, and are still in communication, with France, and therefore it is impossible for me to discuss that question. I can only say that I do not put upon the document the interpretation which the noble Earl puts upon it. Then the only other matter is this. The noble Earl apparently maintains such a vigorous look out as to the communications which pass between my noble Friends and myself that it is impossible to conceal that a whisper did pass between me and jay noble Friend. I am glad that the noble Earl has so much detachment of mind and freedom from care that he is able to give so much study to our personal communications.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I thought the noble Marquess seemed to suggest a reply from the noble Lord.
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: As I was directly challenged I expressed my desire to answer.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With respect to the Capitulation in question I do not read it as conferring upon the Heligolanders a parmanent exemption from serving on board Her Majesty's ships, and I do not quite understand by what argument it is proved that if, when their allegiance was forcibly changed, they were told that they should not be forced to serve upon the King's ships, that therefore there is a promise for all time even after they have returned to the same allegiance as the neighbouring province.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Not "returned."
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They return to the allegiance of the ruler of Schleswig, which they were under in 1807, though several things have happened to Schleswig in the meantime. I can only say I do not read the Capitulation in that sense, and I do not think any person could do so. I do not in the least believe that any Heligolander will think that faith has not been kept with him in respect to that subject.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I think I said by accident that the Capitulation had not been printed. It was some time ago, and I founded my
  1292
  recollection upon a speech of Lord Carnarvon, who refused it to me. I have; since found out that it was printed, and the words of the Article are worth remembering—
  "As it is one of the privileges of the inhabitants of this island"
  —pointing to a privilege that they had enjoyed in the past, or in perpetuity—
  "Not to be obliged to serve on board a King's ship contrary to their inclination, that privilege is to be continued to them.—Agreed."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I only desire to make one remark, not to prolong the Debate, but I hope the noble Marquess will take one matter into consideration. He told us that he could not state what the communications between the British and the French Governments were. That Iquite understand. It is, of course, impossible to give Parliament information as to negotiations which are now going on; but what I wish to impress upon the noble Marquess and the House is that we shall be placed in an exceedingly strange position if we ratify the Treaty with Germany for the cession of Heligoland to her without having any assurance whatever that we can obtain the Protectorate of Zanzibar, because we shall not know whether France is willing, in face of the guarantee of the independence of Zanzibar which was entered into in 1862, to allow us to exercise that Protectorate which Germany is willing to give us. I do not in; the least desire to embarrass the noble Marquess in his negotiations with France, but only to point out that the position is one of serious embarrassment.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed" to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

  EDUCATION CODE (1890) BILL. (No. 157.)
  House in Committee (according to-order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.
ORCHARDS RATING EXEMPTION BILL. (No. 149.)
  SUPERANNUATION (WAR DEPARTMENT) BILL.—(No. 118.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  INLAND REVENUE REGULATION BILL.—(No. 166.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.