Sitting of 11 July 1890

QUESTIQNS.

  THE AMERICAN TARIFF.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what action the German Government proposes to take in response to the representations of German traders as to the effect of the new American tariff; and if, having regard to the certain injury the proposed prohibitory rates will inflict on this country, advantage can be taken of the present friendly relations to develop free trade between the United Kingdom and Germany, as also between the United Kingdom and the colonies, as a set off against the hostile tariffs of America?
  *THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON, Manchester, N.E.): It is not likely that any such representation as that proposed would be attended with success.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the attention of the Government has been called to the public declarations of Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State at Washington, to the effect that he is willing to propose to free American ports to nations of the American Continent, giving free trade to the products of the United States; and if, having regard to the free market accorded in the United Kingdom to competing American goods for the past 40 years, while the heavy duties imposed on British goods have nearly extinguished the National Debt of the United States, Her Majesty's Minister can be instructed to invite the American Government to refrain from pressing the prohibitory tariff proposals now before Congress, and to give Great Britain and Ireland fair commercial reciprocity?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have reason to believe that the German Government do not propose to take any action at present in the matter of the United States Tariff Bill. I do not clearly understand what species of arrangement my hon.

  1465
  Friend proposes in the second paragraph, but, as far as I can see, it would be inconsistent with the fiscal system of this country.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government by any of the self-governing colonies as to the termination of the clauses in the commercial Treaties with Foreign Countries, expiring in 1892 upon 12 months' notice, which preclude the colonies from extending preferential fiscal treatment to the products of other portions of the British Empire; and whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake that the Governments of these colonies shall be formally consulted before such clauses are renewed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): I am not aware of any such representation. It is the practice to consult the self-governing colonies before any commercial Treaty is made applicable to them.

  FLASHING SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is at the Admiralty any letter or other document, signed by Admiral Colomb, reserving or claiming to reserve the right of supplying his night-signal apparatus to Her Majesty's Fleet; whether the Admiralty have taken the supply out of Admiral Colomb's hands and put it out to public contract; whether Admiral Colomb is now reaping any pecuniary benefit whatever from the use of his system of signals in Her Majesty's Fleet; and whether, in 1867, when the apparatus and system of flashing signals were adopted by the Admiralty, Lieutenant (now Admiral) Colomb's patent secured him any rights whatever against the Crown?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): There was no such formal reservation, but Admiral Colomb was the sole contractor with the Government for the supply of his patented signal lamps. He was not restricted from supplying
  1466
  his lamps to the public or foreign navies. The Admiralty propose for the future to place their orders for this apparatus by public contract. I am not aware that the gallant Admiral is deriving at present any direct pecuniary advantages from the use of his system of signals in the Navy. The patent taken out by Admiral Colomb secured him no rights against the Crown.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office, during the continuance of Admiral Colomb's patent for signal apparatus, took the supply out of his hands and put it out to public contract; and whether Admiral Colomb is now reaping any pecuniary benefit whatever from the use of his system of signals in the Army?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): It is not admitted that more than a small portion of the apparatus used in Army signalling is attributable to Admiral Colomb's inventions, and it has been held that his rights over that portion have been fully purchased by the award of £500 which was made to him. Beyond that payment in the past I am not aware that Admiral Colomb is reaping any benefit on account of the system of Army signalling.

  THE SUPERANNUATION ACT.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is out of his power, in the case of a pauper lunatic, being also an Army pensioner, to hand over the whole of the man's pension to his wife, with the guardian's consent, or whether he is bound, by the "Superannuation Act, 1887," Section 7 (2), to make a deduction of 4s. a week; and whether, in this latter case, he proposes to take steps, to alter the Law?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The action of the present law is as stated in the question. My attention was not specially directed at the time to the effect which the legislation of 1887 would have; and I will now take an early opportunity of consulting the Treasury whether any remedy can be applied.

  TRADE MARKS.
  MR. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board

  1467
  of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the Greenwich Police Court on 28th June, when Messrs. Kearley and Tonge were convicted for selling tea with a false trade description, under the name of "Pure Ceylon Tea, Blackmoor Vale Estate. Imported by Kearley and Tonge," it was stated in evidence that although there was no such estate in Ceylon as the "Blackmoor Vale Estate," the Registrar of Trade Marks had allowed the name to be registered; and whether steps will be taken to remove the name from the register, and to prevent the registration in future of names calculated to mislead?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): Messrs. Kearley and Tonge are the successors to a firm trading as Heseltine, Kearley and Tonge, who were registered prior to the passing of the Merchandise Marks Act, as owners of certain two marks which exhibit as "added matter" the words "Blackmore Vale Estate." Under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883–88, it did not devolve on the Comptroller to satisfy himself that the words claimed to be registered as "added matter" were a bonâ fide address. Since the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, came into operation, however, the Comptroller has, under the directions of the Board of Trade, made it a practice in cases of the kind to require an explanation of the appearance in connection with a trade mark of an address or name of a place other than that given as the address of the person claiming the registration of the mark, and an application for another tea-label bearing the same words "Blackmoor Vale Estate" has been withdrawn in consequence.

  THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC SCHOOLS.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, on the occasion of the presentation of prizes at the Royal Patriotic Schools, Wandsworth Common, on Tuesday, newspaper reporters were refused admittance; and what objection there is to such a matter of public interest being reported in the newspapers?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There was no desire to exclude the Press, but admission was by ticket, and probably the repre-
  1468
  sentatives of the Press who were refused admission had omitted to ask for them. In future all reporters who wish to attend will be provided on application with the necessary orders for admission.

  MARGARINE.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in the case stated by the Magistrate at the Wandsworth Police Court, "Crane v. Lawrence," which was to the effect that margarine (which was not labelled) not exposed to the view of the purchaser was therefore not exposed for sale, and consequently it was not necessary that the same should be labelled as required by Section 6 of the Margarine Act, it is the intention of the Government to take steps to amend the Act, so that it shall express the meaning of the Legislature?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): In the case referred to the purchaser at a retail shop asked to be served with margarine, and he was served with the article in a paper wrapper upon which was printed the word "Margarine" in all respects as required by the Statute. At the time of the purchase the margarine was placed on the counter behind a screen similar to those used in butter shops for the purpose of the butter, &c., being prepared for sale. The margarine when behind this screen was not open to the view of any of the customers, and in the case which came before the High Court it was desired to obtain a conviction because the margarine when not in the view of customers had not attached to it a label marked "Margarine." The Magistrate held that no offence had been committed, as a label upon the margarine when it could not be seen would be useless. The Queen's Bench Division held that the Magistrate was right. Mr. Justice A. L. Smith said—
  "If the margarine is put in the shop for sale, and put in a place where it is visible to customers, then it is exposed for sale within the meaning of the Act and must be labelled, but unless it is thus exposed to view the Act does not apply."
  I see no reason for considering that this decision is not in accordance with what was the intention of the Legislature, or

  1469
  that it affords any ground for an amendment of the Act.

  POLITICAL MOVEMENTS IN INDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in May the Agent to the Governor General for Central India issued a circular, directing that—
  "No Maharajah, Raja, Nawab, or Thakore, within the jurisdiction of the Central Indian Political Agency shall subscribe to the Amrita Bazar Patrika, without the permission of the Agent or Sub-agent;"
  and that
  "If any of their subjects holds communication with the Amrita Bazar Patrika, or any other newspaper hostile to the Government, they should make inquiry as to the name, address, age, caste, &c, of the party through the police, and communicate the result to the Resident's office in the course of a month;"
  and that
  "On the least intimation of a public meeting or a political movement taking place in their States, the police should make inquiry into the matter;"
  and that
  "If anybody is suspected of being an Agent of the Congress, or a secret spy of a Bengalee newspaper, he should be turned out from the State within 24 hours, and the fact should be communicated to the Political Agent; no matter about their States to be communicated to any newspapers;"
  and requesting the Native Chiefs not to help the Congress movement, on the ground that
  "The future results of the Congress will be prejudicial to the interests of the Country, as it is an enemy to the British Government;"
  and whether such circular was issued by his direction; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiries to be made on the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): No, Sir; the Secretary of State has no information of any such circular as that referred to in the question of the hon. Gentleman. The question of the hon. Member will be sent to the Government of India.

  INDIAN AND COLONIAL POSTAGE.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (Wick, &c.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the reduction in the rates of Indian and Colonial
  1470
  postage, as stated in his Budget speech, will take effect?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): I am informed that the majority of the Australian colonies have agreed to the reduction, while New Zealand and the Cape Colony have given their assent, subject to certain conditions. Some important points have been raised by the Indian Government which are still under consideration. It is impossible to say when the negotiations will be finally arranged and a date fixed when the reduction of the rate will take effect.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that his explanatory Memorandum on the Indian Budget was last year issued on the 15th of May, if he will state the cause of the delay this Session in the issue of such Memorandum; and when will it be circulated to Members?
  SIR J. GORST: What the hon. Gentleman is pleased to call an "explanatory Memorandum" is a personal statement which I have been in the habit of circulating for the last year or two for the purpose of shortening my speech on the Indian Budget. It was issued early last year—on the 20th of May, I think—because an earlier discussion of the Budget was expected. It will be circulated this year a few days before the Committee on the Indian Budget is taken.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in regard to what he says I am pleased to call an "explanatory Memorandum," he did in print not so describe it himself last year?
  *SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.

  CULTIVATING RYOTS IN JUMMOO.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of cultivating ryots in Jummoo; and how many of them are, respectively, Moslems and Hindus?
  *SIR J. GORST: I am extremely sorry that I cannot answer this question. The last Census was held in 1873, and record has been taken since.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he has less information now than he had the other night, when he made a statement upon the subject?
  [The question was not answered.]

  ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL JUSTICE IN INDIA.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that the administration of Civil Justice in India costs Rs. 2,14,27,000, of which all but the small sum of Rs. 140,000 is obtained by taxation of the litigants, and that Bengal litigants are taxed Rs. 140,000 more than the total cost of Civil Justice in the province; (2) whether complaints have reached him that the litigants of Bengal who pay more than the whole cost, are unable to get their cases tried, and the zemindars, whom the Government sell up when they do not pay by sunset the appointed amount, cannot obtain the necessary facilities for the recovery of their rents, and that the munsiffs are terribly overworked, and try cases in ill-ventilated huts, and there is much sickness among them in consequence; and (3) whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table the correspondence on this subject since 1870 between the High Court of Calcutta and the Government of India upon the requirements of the Bengal Judicial Service, the Government of Bengal, and the Government of India, and the Government of India and the Secretary of State?
  *SIR J. GORST: My answer to the first paragraph of the question is that the administration of Civil Justice in India costs approximately Rs. 2,14,27,000 and is defrayed by fees paid by litigants. In Bengal, there is a surplus. In Madras the receipts and charges balance each other; and in the rest of India there is a loss. The total deficit exceeds 12½ lakhs. My answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the negative. In regard to the third paragraph, if the hon. Member will put himself in communication with me, the Secretary of State will consider whether any Papers can be usefully laid upon the Table.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that complaints have not reached him, because it
  1472
  appears on page 93 of the Blue Book on the Indian Financial Statement issued by himself this year, in the last paragraph but one from the bottom of the page, that there is a reference to this matter in the precise words of the question?
  *SIR J. GORST: The question was whether complaints have reached the Under Secretary of State. No complaint has reached the Under Secretary of State.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Have any complaints reached the Government of India?
  *SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Docs the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that a complaint made to the Vice-Regal Council and presented and circulated in a Parliamentary Paper to this House is a matter upon which he has no information?
  *SIR J. GORST: The question of the hon. Member was whether certain complaints have reached me, and my answer is in the negative. I do not know what complaints may have reached the Vice-Regal Council. If the hon. Member will give notice he shall have a proper answer to the question.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to give notice that I will take the opportunity of raising the question fully on the Indian Budget.

  MARITIME CONFERENCE AT WASHINGTON.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have yet received the full documents relating to the recent International Maritime Conference at Washington, and when the final Papers on the subject will be presented to the House?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Reports and Documents have been received and are being printed.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when any reply may be expected to the Petition of the officers of the Inland Revenue, forwarded early this year to the Commissioners, for transmission to the Treasury?
  MR. GOSOHEN: The Commissioners are at present engaged in an examination of the question.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is true that the Fishery Board for Scotland has given notice of dismissal to their recently appointed naturalist, Dr. John Beard; and, if so, whether the rumoured reason of economy is the only one?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am informed that Mr. Beard has received three months' notice from 1st June, in terms of his agreement, so that the Board may, if the state of their finances render it expedient, be in a position to terminate his engagement. There is, as I understand, no other reason for the notice being given.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great want of harmony exists between the Fishery Board and their officers?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: No, I am not aware.

  SIR JOHN WTLLOUGHBY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Captain Sir John Willoughby, Royal Horse Guards, has been seconded for extra regimental duty; whether this duty is connected with the operations of a Chartered Company in Africa; if not, what is the nature of the duty; whether, during the period that he is seconded, he receives pay as an officer of the Army, and the time will count towards his pension, and under what Royal Warrant he has been seconded?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Captain Sir John Willoughby has been allowed to accept the position of a Staff Officer in the service of the British South African Company. While thus employed he will not receive any pay from the Army Funds; and if he retires on a pension, a reduction will be made in respect of such extra Regimental Service.

  THE GUARDS.
  MR. E. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in the
  1474
  case of the Guards in London requiring re-inforcing in the future, he will consider the advisability of ordering up a battalion from Windsor or the Tower, or some station near at hand, and thus avoid expense to the public?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The movement of troops is necessarily dependent upon the requirements of the War Office.

  LIGHT SIGNALLING.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any objection to laying upon the Table of the House copies of the Correspondence between the inventor of the occulting system of light signalling, Mr. Charles Babbage, and the Admiralty, also that of Major General Babbage and the Admiralty?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in the Mouse, last night in reply to the hon. Member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire. The sum proposed to be paid to Admiral Colomb is not a reward for the invention of flashing signals, but in further recognition of the services of the gallant Admiral in the introduction and application of a system of flashing signals for naval purposes. I do not think, therefore, that there would be any advantage in the publication of the correspondence referred to.

  SAVINGS BANK CLERKS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether 70 established clerks in the Savings Bank Department sent him, on the 5th of June last, a Memorial objecting to their being placed in the Second (or Lower) Division of the Civil Service; whether, no reply having been sent them, they forwarded another Memorial on the 3rd of July, to which no reply has been received; whether, notwithstanding these protests, he has presented the names of these officers to the Civil Service Commissioners for appointment to the Second Division; and when they may expect a reply to their Memorial?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The facts stated by the hon. Member are substantially correct. The clerks to

  1475
  whom he refers were appointed to the "second," not the "lower" division—no "lower" division exists—on April 16 last, and the arrangement is one which, in my opinion, is beneficial to their interests. It would not, in my judgment, be compatible with the public interest to take these officers out of the Second Division, and, after this answer to the hon. Member's question, I hope that no further reply to the Memorials wilt be necessary.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it not a most unusual thing for the head of a Department not to send a reply to a Memorial couched, so far as appears, in proper terms?
  *MR. RAIKES: The matter has been explained more than once.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it the usual course?
  *MR. RAIKES: I do not think it is unusual.

  SCOTCH FISHERY HARBOURS.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the admitted necessity for improved Fishery Harbours on the coast of Scotland, the Government will consider the advisability of devoting part of Scotland's share of the taxation specified in the Local Taxation Bill to the construction of such harbours?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The suggestion of the hon. Member will be considered by Her Majesty's Government, together with very many other suggestions on the same subject.

  THE ACT OF UNION.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will explain under what authority "Great Britain" only is no constantly employed in official documents, as in Articles I., II., and XI. of the Agreement with Germany regarding Africa and Heligoland, and in Consular Reports, although it was agreed under the Act of Union that the Power theretofore known as "Great Britain" should in future be known as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"; whether he is aware that the use of "Great Britain" in the double sense of "Great Britain" and of the
  1476
  "United Kingdom" is often misleading in matters of trade and statistics; and whether there would be any objection to issuing orders to persons negotiating on behalf of Her Majesty, and to persons representing Her Majesty abroad, properly to designate in their official communications the Kingdom over every portion of which Her Majesty's reigns?
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Before my right hon. Friend answers this question I should like to ask him whether, having regard to the fact that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland represents only one seventy-fourth part of the area of the Queen's Dominions, and contains less than one-eighth of Her Majesty's subjects, the style of the British Empire would not be more correct in Treaties and communications with Foreign Powers, than either Great Britain or the United Kingdom?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have always been of opinion that the United Kingdom implies the dependencies of the United Kingdom not properly dependencies, but subject to the Queen, wherever they may be found. If by any chance in any public document the United Kingdom is not specified, the phrase Great Britain used as a short title is by no means held to imply that Her Majesty's Government, or those who are acting on their behalf, are unconscious of the claim of Ireland to be included in her proper place in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  *MR. WEBB: Is it not a fact that the practice tends to lower the prestige of Ireland abroad?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that it is now acknowledged that the consent of France is necessary before effect can be given to the protectorate of Great Britain over Zanzibar, and that negotiations are now pending between Great Britain and France on this point, Her Majesty's Government will postpone further proceedings as to the Anglo-German Agreement Bill until the negotiations with France are concluded, and the terms on which France will assent to the protectorate are made known?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The question of the hon. Member refers to matters on which communications are going on between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government, and I am, therefore, unable to say anything concerning them. But I am not able to give the undertaking suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  IRELAND—CORONERS' SALARIES.
  MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Judges in a case reserved by Mr. Justice Andrews at the Spring Assizes of 1889, for the County of Down, whereby they decided that the annual salary payable to every Coroner ought to be calculated anew in each year, according to the average amount of fees upon the inquests held by him, or his predecessor in office, during the five years then last past; whether he is aware that it was contended on behalf of the Coroners of Down, that the third section of "The Coroners' (Ireland) Act, 1881," which substituted an annual salary in lieu of the fees formerly paid to Coroners, provided, or was intended to provide, that the annual salary was then to be fixed once for all, on the calculation to be first made after the passing and pursuant to the third section of said Act, and an annual salary, so calculated, was paid to Coroners in Ireland from the passing of the Act up to the time of this decision; and whether, considering that this section of the Act was intended to prevent unnecessary inquests, and that it so operated before the decision of the Judges was given, and considering also that, by this decision, Coroners in Ireland have now a pecuniary interest in holding the greatest number of inquests in every year, he will make inquiry into the matter with the view to have their salaries fixed once for all, as was intended during the passing of the Act?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have considered the papers which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me bearing upon this question. I am disposed to agree with Slim that the construction which the Judges were compelled to put on the language of the Coroners Act, 1881, is
  1478
  probably at variance with the framers of that Act. I cannot promise to deal with the matter during the present Session, but I hope to consider it during the recess, which is now rapidly approaching.

  SHADOWING.
  MR. BYRNE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Leinster Leader, of the 5th July instant, which states—
  "That Mr. P. J. Healy, Baltinglass, still continues to be the subject of more persistent police surveillance. At Tinahely Fair, on Wednesday, the police were on his track wherever he went through the town in the transaction of his private business. Not only did they follow his every movement in the public streets, but when Mr. Healy had occasion to enter private houses to make visits to friends in the town, the police forced an entrance after him and refused to leave while Mr. Healy remained in the house;"
  whether he is aware that this Mr. Healy was acquitted by two Resident Magistrates of any criminal act; whether he will cause the police not to interfere with this man in future; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to following persons into private houses?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that, at the fair held at Tinahely on 25th June, the movements of Patrick Healy were watched, there being reason to believe that he is engaged in conjunction with the local branch of the National League, in endeavouring to promote the boycotting of a man who took the farm from which Healy had been evicted. But that it is not the case that the police followed him into any private house, the only places they entered after him being licensed premises. It is the case that Healy was subsequently charged at Petty Sessions with having committed intimidation on the 21st May, and that the Magistrates dismissed the case. In doing so, however, they stated that the case was a very suspicious one, but that they had given the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reports in the Cork papers, from which it appears that two brothers,

  1479
  Edmond and David Kent, were at Fermoy fair on 6th instant, engaged in selling some lambs, when a constable came and "shadowed" David Kent for a considerable time; that this man, David Kent, then went and stood beside District Inspector Ball, and followed the Inspector about the fair, he himself being followed meanwhile by the constable; that District. Inspector Ball spoke to Mr. Kent, and said, "If you persist in following me I will have you arrested;" and that Kent replied that he had been prevented from doing his business by the constable shadowing him, and that if the Inspector withdrew the constable he would not follow the Inspector; if it is true, as reported, that the Inspector thereupon ordered the shadowing constable to arrest Mr. Kent, who was kept in custody from 9 a.m. until 3.30, and then summoned under the Crimes Act; and whether he can state under what authority was Mr. Kent arrested, and why was he shadowed in the manner described?
  *MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question. The matter is sub judice, and, therefore, I am unable to make a statement.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that James Fenlon, a National school teacher of Carlow Graigne, attended a meeting at Carlow Graigne on 1st June of this year, the meeting in question being held with the object of establishing a memorial to the rebels who fell in 1798, and that James Fenlon was member of the committee of said memorial; and whether attending such meeting, and being on said committee, incapacitates him from retaining his position as a National school teacher?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question, and that the matter is under the consideration of the Commissioners.
  MR. SEXTON: Have not the Irish people as much right to remember 98 as Englishmen have to remember the 5th of November?
  [No answer was given.]

  MOONLIGHTING.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Evening Standard of the 7th instant, that on the previous day, while the people were attending mass at Scartaglin, a party of moonlighters visited the house of a farmer, named Patrick Nolan, of Knockour, and severely beat a little girl, who was the only person in the house at the time; and whether any of the persons engaged in this alleged outrage on this little girl have been arrested?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that three men armed, and one of them partly disguised, came to Nolan's house on Sunday during Mass. The man's daughter was not beaten. She ran out of the house when she saw the armed party approaching. They fired shots into the house, breaking a clock and other articles. The motive is believed to have been to compel Nolan to leave the service of a person by whom he has been employed. No arrests have been made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to use his influence to get the newspaper that supports him—the Standard—to withdraw the blackguard attacks it has made on Members of this House?
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Is it not the fact that there was nothing but the statement of the child to warrant the story?
  [No answer was given.]

  POLICE PROTECTION TO LANDLORDS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the practice of the Irish Government to give police protection to landlords who, instead of resorting to the ordinary legal processes, attempt to collect their rents by making distresses with their own bailiffs?
  *MR. MADDEN: It is not the practice to give police protection in the circumstances mentioned in the question. Several applications for such protection have been refused.
  MR. M. HEALY: If a landlord levies a distress on a tenant, and intimates to the Executive that he wants police projection, is such protection given?
  *MR. MADDEN: No, Sir.
  MR. M. HEALY: Is it not the fact that whenever a landlord makes a distress there is a policeman on the spot to see it carried out?
  *MR. MADDEN: No, Sir.

  CORK LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can now state what decision the Irish Government have come to with regard to the recent Report of their Inspectors, as to the overcrowding of the Cork Lunatic Asylum, and the necessity for additional accommodation for the inmates?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Report of the Inspectors is receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Governors of the Asylum. The Report itself shows that at the date of the Inspectors' visit the contractor was at work on the foundation of an additional block of buildings. The Governors have directed the architect to furnish plans for the erection of additional baths, as recommended, and they have also referred to their architect the question of enlarging the laundry.

  CHARGE AGAINST AN IRISH POLICE CONSTABLE.
  MR. CAREW (Kildare, N.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, No. 39, F Division, named Richard Hewett, and at present stationed at Kingstown, is the same man who was arraigned before the Magistrates at Newbridge, County Kildare, in criminal charges on two occasions, namely, on the 6th December, 1888, and in July, 1889, and who was convicted and fined on each occasion; and, if so, whether Richard Hewett will be retained any longer in the Dublin Police Force?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Commissioner of Police reports that this constable, before appointment to the Force, appears to have been fined for an assault which, he stated, was committed in his own defence. With a knowledge of the whole circumstances of his case, he was highly recom-
  1482
  mended for appointment to the Dublin Police by two local Justices of the Peace, by two clergymen, and by the local Constabulary Authorities. He also receives a good character from the officer under whom he is serving. It is, therefore, the intention of the Commissioner to retain him as a member of the Dublin Police.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in July last this man Hewett was charged with presenting a revolver at a man on a road near Kildare, and threatening to put the contents of six chambers into him? Is it also the fact that Hewett appeared to have been in a state of delirium tremens at the time?
  *MR. MADDEN: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed as to the facts of the case.

  RAILWAY FROM STRANORLAR TO GLENTIES.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Finn Valley Railway Company, that they are prepared to work the extension railway from Stranorlar to Glenties at cost price, and, in view of his statement that the Government attach great importance to satisfactory arrangements for working being made, if possible, with existing railway companies, now that this company have proposed satisfactory arrangements for working this extension, the Government are now prepared to forward the Stranorlar and Glenties scheme?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): The proposals are receiving consideration; but I am unable to say at present whether the arrangements will be found to be satisfactory or not.
  MR. DALTON: Is not the company who have undertaken to make the extension exactly the same company who have undertaken to work the Killybegs extension?
  *MR. JACKSON: No doubt it is the company that works the West Donegal line; but I think the hon. Member will see that the arrangements for working the line may be very different.

  BUNINNADDEN BOYS' NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland why it is that, since the 30th of June, 1888, the teacher of the Buninnadden Boys' National School has been denied the assistance of a monitor, although the average attendance during the year, which commenced on that day, was sufficient to entitle the teacher to that assistance; whether the average attendance at present is sufficient; whether the Commissioners have been frequently asked by the Very Rev. Canon MacDermot to appoint as monitor a boy who passed in the 1st stage of the 6th class at the last results examination; and will the appointment be now made?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Commissioners of National Education report that the school is not one in which the Inspector would be justified in recommending the appointment of a monitor, as the teacher, who had to be censured upon the result of the two last annual examinations of the school for its very inferior condition, could not be considered qualified to instruct and train monitors. The average attendance is now sufficient, but this is one only of the conditions under which a monitor may be appointed. The Very Rev. Canon MacDermot has never asked the Commissioners to make the appointment, but the Very Rev. Canon Stenson, manager of the school, wrote a letter on the 6th instant to the Commissioners applying for the appointment. The candidate monitor, John Henry MacDermot, however, even if the teacher were thoroughly efficient, could not be appointed, for at the examinations he failed in spelling, in grammar, and in geography, and the ordinary scholar's course.

  CAVAN, LEITRIM, AND ROSCOMMON LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by a body entitled the "Belturbet Railway Tax Committee," and supported by the Grand Jury of the County Cavan, calling upon the Government to relieve the severe pressure upon the cess payers on account of the Cavan,
  1484
  Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railway by a further Treasury guarantee of three per cent, instead of two per cent., combined with a reduction of the interest guaranteed from five per cent, to three per cent.; whether he is aware that a strike against the extra cess has been contemplated in the district; whether he is aware that in parts of Leitrim the extra county cess on account of this railway amounts to 1s. 10d. in the £1; and whether, considering the burden on the people, Her Majesty's Government will propose any measure to meet the difficulty, or will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, consisting of the Members from the district and the Member for North Armagh, with power to draw up a scheme, to be embodied in a Bill, dealing with the question?
  *MR. JACKSON: I have not seen the resolution referred to, nor have I heard that a strike against extra cess is contemplated in the district. The burden is one which was voluntarily assumed by the district four or five years ago, with the object of obtaining railway communication.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen the Report of the proceedings of the Rathmore (County Kerry) Petty Sessions, on the 14th June and subsequent days, from which it appears that a number of men were charged with having assaulted the police, that two of the police assaulted (Constables O'Connor and Lett), who were at the time carrying rifles, admitted that they had been drinking previous to the occurrence, and that the two policemen, Burns and Cullinane, concerned in the case of the disturbance at Timoleague,. County Cork, on the 3rd September last, in which Daniel Donoghoe lost his life by a revolver shot fired by Constable Cullinane, also admitted that they had been drinking previous to the occurrence; whether his attention has been called to the increasing frequency of cases of this kind, pointing to the spread of drinking habits among the Irish police; and whether any of the constables referred to were on duty on the occasions in question?
  *MR. MADDEN: As regards the case referred to in the first paragraph, all the charges against the police were dismissed at Petty Sessions on the 7th inst., and the charges made by them against the defendants were sustained, and all the accused, with the exception of one, who was fined, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, against which they have lodged appeals. The case against the two constables on disciplinary grounds will be inquired into by the Constabulary Authorities, as soon as it can be done without prejudice to the appeals pending. With respect to the case referred to in the second paragraph, although Constables Burns and Cullinane admitted that they had taken drink on the evening of the occurrence at Timo-league, it was proved that they were sober, both before going on duty at the time of the riot and after their return from that duty, and the Judge expressed a strong opinion in favour of the police. As already stated, the Inspector General reports that there is no ground for the suggestion that there has been a spread of drinking habits among the police. The four constables were on duty on the occasions in question.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen the report that two constables were stoned on the evening of 6th July at Tipperary, whilst engaged in ordinary police duty; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this case?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that while two constables were engaged in arresting a man at Tipperary on the charge of being drunk and disorderly they were set upon by a crowd of some 200 persons, who struck the constables with stones, and kicked them, inflicting injuries of such a nature as to necessitate the removal of one of the constables to hospital on the following day, and to render the other unfit for duty for the present. One arrest has been made, and others are expected to follow.

  ATHLONE UNION WORKHOUSE.
  DR. COMMINS: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland on what grounds the Local; Government Board refuse to sanction the appointment of Mr.Peter Keogh, as master
  1486
  of the Athlone Union Workhouse; what are the nature of the convictions alleged against Mr. Keogh; and, previous to their appointment to the position now held by the Magistrates, what was the judicial experience of those who acted as Magistrates on the occasion?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Local Government Board have refused to sanction the apj ointment of Mr. Peter Keogh as master of the Workhouse of Athlone Union on the grounds (1) that he has had no experience whatever of the duties of the office, and (2) that he was convicted and fined for an assault in September, 1886, and was also sentenced to imprisonment for two months with hard labour in August, 1887, for taking part in a riotous and unlawful assembly. In the latter case, the decision of the Magistrates was affirmed on appeal by the County Court Judge. For the reasons mentioned above the Local Government Board do not consider Mr. Keogh a suitable person to fill the office of Workhouse master. The Resident Magistrates before whom the charges in question were heard were all Magistrates of experience, and two of long service.

  TELEGRAPH STATION AT EYRIES.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from the inhabitants of Eyries, County Cork, praying for the establishment of a Telegraph Station and Savings Bank at the village of Eyries: whether said Memorial has also been signed by 200 fishermen from Alklow and the Isle of Man; and whether, in view of the facts that Eyries has become a very important fishing and curing district, containing seven curing stations, the harbour of Ballycrorane, which is convenient to Eyries, is frequented by a large fleet of foreign fishing vessels, and that the harbour referred to and the fishing stations are eight miles from telegraphic communication, he will take steps to establish a Telegraph Station and Savings Bank in the interests of the fishing industry of the district?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): The Memorial to which the hon. Member refers has not yet reached my hands, but I understand that it has been received at the Post Office in Dublin, and that careful inquiries

  1487
  are being made with a view to a Report being submitted to me on the subject.

  CASTLEISLAND.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the coastguards at Schull, County Cork, are compelled to give boat attendance to emergency men and policemen who reside at Castleisland; and whether it is considered part of their duties to do so; and, if not, will the boat attendance referred to be discontinued?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: When no country boat is available and the immediate duties of the coastguard admit of it, on the requisition of the police for conveyance to any of the islands, it is the duty of the coastguard to give such assistance, and it has been given at Castleisland, but will not be given if country boats are available.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I had intended to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any moneys are due to the Board of Public Works, Ireland, on the farms from which Messrs. James Leahy, Jeremiah Nugent, and Michael Donovan have been evicted at Castleisland, County Cork, and of which Mr. Thomas Henry Marmion is now in occupation; if moneys are due on them what are the amounts; and what steps have been taken, if any, to recover them; but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I will postpone the question until Monday.

  MR. HUME DICK.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can give the grounds on which Mr. Hume Dick has been given a seat on the Irish Privy Council?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am informed that the name was submitted to Her Majesty by the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Lieutenant being of opinion that the gentleman is well qualified to be appointed.

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been called to the resolution passed recently by the Cork Chamber of Shipping and Commerce, asking that the jurisdiction of the Local Court of Bankruptcy should be extended
  1488
  to the Counties of Cork and Waterford; whether the staff necessary for the Court as at present constituted would be quite adequate for the additional work thus provided, so that no additional expense would be involved; whether the Local Court is at present worked at a loss to the Treasury, but would pay its way if the two additional counties were added; and whether, in view of the close commercial relations which exist between the Counties of Kerry and Waterford and the City of Cork, and the great resulting advantage to the commercial community of the district, as shown by the excellent manner in which the Court has worked within its present limited jurisdiction, the Lord Chancellor will now, by Order in Council, bring the counties mentioned within the jurisdiction of the Court?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Lord Chancellor of Ireland informs me that his attention has been called to the resolution referred to in the question, and that the subject of the development of the local jurisdiction conferred by the Act of 1888 on this Court is engaging his careful consideration. He is, however, of opinion that it would not be wise to take the step suggested in the question until we have had further experience of the working of the Courts constituted by that Act.

  THE QUIN BEQUEST.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Attorney General what has been done in the case of the "Quin Bequest" to Newry?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am informed that the Chief Clerk's certificate containing the scheme for the Quin Charity will be completed in a few days, and that before the Long Vacation an order will be obtained directing funds to the value of £120,000 to be transferred to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland. The carrying out of the scheme will commence as soon as the £120,000 has been transferred.

  THE POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the unfortunate state of affairs

  1489
  existing in the Post Office, he will not appoint a Committee, departmental or otherwise, to inquire into the grievances of the men?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Although the condition of affairs is unfortunate, and although the Government very deeply regret that a number of most valuable public servants should have placed themselves in a wrong position, they think it would not be for the public interest that the responsibility of the head of the Office should be interfered with under circumstances of this character by the appointment of a Committee.
  EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley): Might not this matter be referred to the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Commission is not now sitting, and it was not constituted with a view to dealing with questions of a character such as this. I trust the House will maintain the responsibility of the heads of Public Departments and call them to account if, in their judgment, they think they have done wrong.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a letter from Mr. George Shipton in respect to the dispute now going on in the Post Office; whether his answer, as published in the Daily News, is correct; and whether, in view of the disorganisation of the Service, to the great inconvenience of the public, he will consent to receive from any other quarter representations of the real grievances of which the men complain?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have not seen the Daily News, but I perceive that the answer to Mr. Shipton is correctly given is several of to-day's newspapers. I have nothing to add to the statements therein made.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, although he has nothing to add to his letter, he will be willing to accept the intervention of a Member or Members of this House who might be authorised by the postmen to introduce a deputation to him personally, in order that he may personally receive the views of the men?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have had the pleasure of receiving a deputation of postmen to-day, who, I think, are much
  1490
  better judges of their own affairs than the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the letter received by him from Mr. Shipton was not a letter authorised by the Representatives of the Post Office?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have no knowledg about that. I received a letter from Mr. George Shipton, who, I understood, represented a body called the London Trades Council.
  MR. CONYBEARE: In consequent of the unsatisfactory character of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House. ["Oh!"]
  Subsequently,
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what was the result of the deputation of postmen?
  *MR. RAIKES: I was waited on by a deputation of some of the postmen of the East Central district. They put before me various points, which I promised to consider after carefully listening to them, and I explained to them various matters as to which, up to the present time, I think they have been imperfectly informed. I think the interview is likely to lead to very good results, but in the circumstances of the case I do not think I should be justified in laying details of the conversation before the House on the present occasion.
  MR. CONYBEARE: In view of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, Sir, which is of a very much more satisfactory nature than his previous one, I do not feel I should be justified in trespassing upon the time of the House with a Motion for the Adjournment.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. SEXTON, Mr. HEALY, and Mr. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne),
  *MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: I think it would be for the convenience of the House that we should proceed on Monday and Tuesday next with the Irish Votes in Supply. I propose to make a Motion on the subject of Wednesday sittings next week. I hope it will be possible to take the Report of the Constabulary Vote on Monday. If not, notice will be given.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Report of Supply to which he has alluded will be taken at a convenient hour?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I will consider the question with a view to meeting it.

  REVENUE, 1889–90.
  Return ordered—
  "Of all Taxes and Imposts from which the Imperial Revenue of the United Kingdom was raised, together with the gross Revenue, in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1890, with the cost and charge of collecting the same under each head, these charges being deducted and leaving the net amount of Revenue."
  "And of the aggregate Revenue collected in each of the previous ten years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 289, of Session 1889)."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 297.]

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 264.)
  Lords' Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged Mr. Staveley Hill from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Edward Stanhope.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Orchards Rating Exemption Bill; Superannuation (War Department) Bill, without Amendments.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, the sum of £11,850,436 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Management of Voluntary Schools, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland, Mr. Robert Reid: Mr. Fuller, and Sir Matthew White Ridley.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 378.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

    CLASS II.
    1. £26,394, to complete the sum for the Chief Secretary for Ireland—Offices.
    MR.DILLON (Mayo, E.): When I was interrupted last night I was pointing out the grave cause of complaint that we Irish Members have against the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary on account of the tone of his answers. I said that the acts of violence committed by the police in Ireland were in large measure due to the tone and temper exhibited by the Chief Secretary in this House. The complaints of the sufferers from police brutality at Cashel and Tipperary have been brushed aside by the right hon. Gentleman as contemptible, on the ground that no cases were treated in hospital. I proved that at least 30 or 40 men were struck down, and numbers of men came up to me who had had their heads broken open by police batons, and who had blood streaming down their faces. The right hon. Gentleman said they were trifling cases. What I complain of is that deliberately in this House, in words that have been read by every policeman in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the knocking down of peaceable citizens by blows on the head which caused blood to flow freely as trifling matters. I do not wonder that the Irish policemen draw their batons, and use them continually without the slightest compunction, when the right hon. Gentleman talks in that way. I put three plain and specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman as to the legality of the proceedings of the police on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer me on any one of those questions,

    1493
    and his only reply to me was a statement that every charge of the police in Tipperary on that day was provoked by some outrage of the character of stone-throwing. I proved clearly that in numberless cases there was nothing of the kind and no resistance to the police, but the right hon. Gentleman abstained from giving any expression of opinion which would have acted as a check on the police in future. On the contrary, he stated that the police were justified in everything they did. It is a remarkable and interesting fact that no prosecutions have been undertaken by the Government inconsequence of the Cashel and Tipperary meetings. I believe the reason is that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of the evidence that would have been given at the trials. A Debate in this House is had enough, and he does not want to have sworn testimony as to the conduct of the police on those occasions. I think it constitutes a serious and great grievance against the right hon. Gentleman that during the three and a half years he has been responsible for the Government of Ireland, while he has always been ready to shed crocodile tears over the sufferings of land-grabbers who, it is alleged, are boycotted, he never has expressed any sympathy for the people whom the police dragoon and injure. Another charge which I have to bring against the Irish Executive is that they are in the habit of deceiving this House by means of cooked and unreliable statistics. The officials in Ireland, knowing what the right hon. Gentleman wants at any given time, supply statistics to order. I believe the statistics as to boycotted evicted farms are utterly unreliable and false. I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman personally with this, but I do charge his officials with it. No doubt since the year in which the Coercion Act was passed, there has been a diminution in the number of boycotted farms, but that is due to the fact of our having replanted dispossessed owners in their old farms. That operation has been going on all over Ireland. I was amused by reading the other day a letter from a League Secretary in the County of Louth with regard to the decrease in boycotting. He said—
    "I have read Mr. Balfour's speech, hut really, Sir, what can we do in this parish,
    1494
    seeing that last week we had bonfires on all the surrounding hills to celebrate the reinstatement of the last evicted tenant in the last boycott td farm in our parish? What can we do, as we have no farm to boycott?"
    This enthusiastic Secretary thought it was a matter of reproach to his parish that they had no boycotted farm in it. Well, then we are furnished with a list of boycotted individuals in Ireland, which swells or dwindles in accordance with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman. We have, on more than one occasion, pressed the Chief Secretary to give ns the only means by which the statistics can be tested, namely, the names and particulars of each case. What was the answer I He would not give us the names of the persons because they might become known in the district, and be subjected to annoyance. Of all the grotesque arguments ever brought forward in the House that is the most grotesque. The boycotted farmland persons must he known in the different districts already. The fact is there is a monstrous system of falsification and dishonesty practised in the preparation of these statistics. I have here a judgment of Mr. Justice Monroe, which affords an illustration of the extraordinary system which prevails in some parts. The judgment has reference to King's estate, in County Leitrim. The people of the district were very poor, and, on their own responsibility, resisted the payment of rent. The agent of the estate had under him a gentleman named Cooke. In the judgment it was shown that Cooke put in a claim for £76 4s.,£44 10s. of which was charged for the use of two horses and carts in carrying provisions and coal to the men in the protection huts. Mr. Cooke alleged that the men in his employ were boycotted, and could not buy any provisions, and he was, therefore, obliged to take them provisions twice a week a distance of 16 miles. Two of the labourers alleged to be boycotted came up and swore that they could buy provisions, and that Cooke never brought them any at all. These labourers have been returned, I have no doubt, as boycotted individuals, but when the case came before the Court in Dublin it was found the whole thing was-a monstrous and gigantic fraud, the subagent of the estate plundering his prin-

    1495
    cipal on the plea of having his men boycotted. That is a sample of what is going on. There are other cases in which men make a good income out of the hiring of their own cars to take their own police escort with them. Such a system is a disgrace to the Chief Secretary. We have no means of knowing to what extent the fraud has been practised. So long as the right hon. Gentleman pursues this system of secrecy in connection with alleged statistics this country and the House have every right to complain. I may be told that we Irish Members are very persistent in our questions. It has been constantly charged against us as a grievance that we ask so many questions, and that we pursue the Irish Minister so keenly. It must be recollected that we who represent four-fifths of the people of our country have no influence, direct or indirect, on the Executive Government of our country. To be a Nationalist means that a man is absolutely denied all influence on the Executive Government. It is only natural that an amount of friction should arise unknown to a nation like this. What is the philosophy and reason of the questions asked? Questions are the natural channel by which friction, which will arise in the freest nations, between the Executive and the people, is removed. In this country all minor cases of friction are adjusted peaceably in conversation between the Representatives of the constituents and the Ministers of the various Departments. We in Ireland have but one Minister, and that Minister represents but one-fifth of the people, and that one-fifth composed of an unpopular class. It is only natural, it is inevitable, that as long as you allow the Irish Members to appear in this House at all there should be evidence of friction, which is furnished by the number of questions we ask. Anyone who has considered the question in a broad and philosophic spirit will admit that one of the chief, if not the chief, functions of Members of this House is to act as links of connection between the Government and the people of the country. Now, after four years experience of the present system of administration, it is well we should take a survey of the general policy of the Government. The Chief Secretary
    1496
    boasted in the House yesterday, and he has boasted in the country on various occasions, of his great remedial measures, of the liberal policy which his Government has endeavoured to inaugurate in Ireland. I say that policy is a policy of bribery in regard to public works, a policy which has always been characteristic of Governments that were not free Governments. I know there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst my Radical friends at the attitude of the Irish Members towards the Railway and Drainage Bills of the Government. Many Radicals thought we ought to have opposed those Bills, I have never maintained that very high level of public virtue. But I have never voted for such Bills without standing up and warning the House of the value of their action. I have never asked the Government to introduce such legislation, but I maintain that if the Government will persist in squandering these large sums, we, who represent very poor districts, are justified in voting with them. I noticed the other day that even the staunch and unbending Radicalism of the Liberal Representatives of London was not proof against similar considerations in regard to the subvention to the London Police. But while we in Ireland have accepted these grants of public money, we have not asked for them. We have warned the right hon. Gentleman, by referring to the failure, waste, and scandalous jobbery that have characterised these operations in the past, what will probably be their fate in the future. I have no doubt that, under the Light Railways Bill, railways will be constructed which will not pay for the grease for the wheels. I have no doubt jobbery will be rampant. I have no doubt the loyal minority are enthusiastic for the Light Railway schemes of the Government, because they know much of the expenditure will find its way into their pockets. Personally, I do not think you will get value for your money. I should be the last man to oppose a rational scheme of public works. We in Ireland need public works. We have needed them for long years, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman, and whoever may succeed him, that if you really want an economical and rational system of public works in a country like Ireland, you can only

    1497
    have it under Local Government, a Government which will he responsible to the public opinion of the country. I come now to another portion of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, the portion which I should like to describe as the Catholic University and the Rome Rule portion. It has been said against us, and used as an argument against our cause, arid as against the establishment of an Irish Parliament, that an Irish Parliament would inevitably he a slave to the Pope, and subservient to Rome. I would like to know what Tory Member will now get up and use that argument. We shall hear no more about Rome Rule in Ireland, since the Government, finding their own efforts unavailing, invoked the aid of His Holiness the Pope of Rome, and appealed to religious prejudices to crush a national political movement. No more humiliating, more disgusting, political spectacle was ever exhibited in this generation than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary standing before a Manchester audience and rebuking the Catholics of Ireland for net showing sufficient deference to the head of their Church. We understand how to show that deference, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I and my co-religionists are as independent of Rome, and of the agents of His Holiness, in all political matters, as any Nonconformist on these Benches. I can tell him that we are far more independent in political matters of the Court of Rome than he and his uncle, who have debased the character of Englishmen by crawling to the Pope, and offering bribes to His Holiness to aid in crushing the Catholic people of Ireland, and to inflict an intolerable wrong. To some extent it succeeded, when an agent was brought from Rome to go among the people, and to trade on their reverence for the Church to crush their political aspirations. I do not think we shall hear much more of Rome Rule in Ireland, not even from the hon. Member for North Armagh, for I am told that at a meeting of an Orange Lodge a cheer was raised for Monsignor Persico and his Mission. A strange idea seems to have hovered in the mind of the Chief Secretary that he could buy the assistance of the Court of Rome, that when he found himself "driven to the ropes" he could come
    1498
    forward and offer to the people of Ireland a Catholic University. The right hon. Gentleman evidently thought that, by an alliance with certain Bishops and Monsignor Persico, he would be able to bribe the Irish people from their desire for liberty by offering us the long delayed measure of justice to the requirements of Catholic education. I tell the right hon. Gentleman we scorn his offer, and I never felt more confident that I speak the feeling of the Irish race, of Irish Catholic people throughout the world, when I tell him that we will not allow his Catholic University, or his promise, meant to deceive and corrupt certain Irish Bishops, we will not allow his promise to intervene for an hour between us and the goal upon which we have see our hopes, or allow him to use this to sow discord between us and English Radicals, now our fast and sworn friends. We scorn his offer; we want not a Catholic University, but liberty to regulate our own Irish affairs. We have been denied this justice for two generations; we can afford to wait for our University until we have Home Rule. When we have our own Parliament we shall have our University, but we have waited so long we can still wait for a year or two. By his promise and his intrigues the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in capturing two Bishops for the support of the detestable policy he is pursuing in Ireland. The right rev. Dr. O'Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick, has gone so far as to write one of the most infamous, cowardly, dastardly letters ever penned by ecclesiastical hand, and he does this as the servant of the Government of Ireland. I am not afraid, although I am an Irish Catholic, to characterise in its true terms that letter, which appeared in the Press of Ireland on the same day that a number of wretched people were evicted.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I rise to order. The hon. Gentleman may attack me; that is germane to the Vote. But in attacking an Irish Bishop, who has nothing whatever to do with it, the hon. Member appears to me to be travelling beyond the Vote, though his remarks would, no doubt, be appropriate if the salary of the Irish Bishop were under consideration.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt if the hon. Gentleman went on to attack in detail the action of the Bishop it would be irregular. But I understood him to attribute the Bishop's action as being possibly inspired by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentle man springs from his seat to defend Dr. O'Dwyer—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot allow that statement to pass. I sprang from my seat because I thought—wrongly as it now appears—that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Vote. I did not intend to defend the Bishop.
    MR. DILLON: I will say nothing more on that subject. But I am glad to see the Tory Party so enthusiastic in support of the Bishop. He has done his best for their policy in Ireland, but his worst for the Church in Ireland. I am exceedingly glad that he stands alone among the episcopate of Ireland in his scandalous line of conduct. But I dismiss that. I ask the Committee what progress has been made in solving the Irish question? The right hon. Gentleman tells us he has inaugurated all kinds of liberal schemes of Irish policy. Well, I may be pardoned if I hold the faith I have always held that the people of the country are the best judges of what is for their benefit. If he and his uncle have been such benefactors, what kind of a people must they be who live in Ireland, single he cannot get one single vote from the three southern provinces or the western half of Ulster? For four years ho has had arbitrary rule, and though he claims to have exercised it so beneficently that the country overflows with prosperity, jet the people continue to vote steadily against him. I think we may now ask, after this trial of his policy, Where is it going to end? Where is it going to stop? We see the consequences of all his coercion and strong Government. He has ruled Ireland now for four years, he has had from this House all that he asked for in the nature of strong legislation, he has had a free hand in the administration of Ireland, and I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman has produced absolutely no result in reconciling the people to his Government. On the contrary, politically, the Government
    1500
    is weaker in Ireland to-day than it was when the right hon. Gentleman accepted I the post of Chief Secretary. It cannot I be denied. Anyone can see that if two policemen are placed by the side of a Nationalist the expression of that man's Nationalist opinions may be prevented. And this is the great triumph of the Government. It cannot be pretended that the system of intimidation the right hon. Gentleman professes to be so anxious to restrain extends even to the vote at the polls. We heard from the hon. Member for South Tyrone, the official supporter of the Government, in a speech that unhappily was cut short, that over the greater part of Ireland absolute peace and contentedness reigns, and that there never were more friendly relations between the police and the people. Then I say in any of those district's where peace and contentment reign, where the people and the police are fraternising, where the people are reaping the golden benefit of your beneficent rule, start a Government candidate against one of our Party. There is not a man on these Benches who would not willingly vacate his seat to-morrow if the right hon. Gentleman would give us the satisfaction of contesting the seat. I represent one of the poorest districts in Ireland, where it is probable the Light Railway policy of the Government should attract support; let the right hon. Gentleman send a man there to stand on the Light Railway platform, and I will stand on none; I will remain in England and never open my mouth during the contest, and let him see what would be the result. That is a fair test. You profess, in your speeches, that your object is to make Ireland contented to remain, as you say, an integral part of the United Kingdom, and you claim success. Then, I say, put it to the test and see if you have reached the people. The right hon. Gentleman has indeed succeeded in elaborating a hitherto unheard-of system of police persecution and espionage. The right hon. Gentleman talks most glibly of Irish social matters, and recently spoke about an auctioneer at fairs. For my own part, I never knew it was the custom of Irishmen to sell cattle by auction. The right hon. Gentleman has never addressed an open-air meeting in Ireland, except on one occasion, when he sallied forth into

    1501
    the Phoenix Park and addressed the Royal Irish Constabulary. He addressed them as if they were a body of troops encamped in the Soudan, surrounded by dangers and savages, and praised them for their extraordinary courage. That is the only case which I remember when the right hon. Gentleman had the courage to address Irishmen, though it is true that about 18 months ago he addressed a meeting of the wealth and fashion of Dublin, backed up by the presence of the Government officials, in the "Antient Concert" room. But the rank and fashion of Dublin were careful that their names should not appear in the Press, and the right hon. Gentleman addressed his audience in camera. Such is the Government under which the people of Ireland have to suffer. They are governed by a man who knows nothing of the circumstances of the country, who utters gibes against the Irish people, and who never allows any consideration of after consequences to check him in sneering at, and insulting, the Irish nation. He must be a bold man indeed who would say that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman has been a success. In one respect, and one only, his policy may be said to have been a success—namely, that he has become the hero of the bitter high Tory, anti-Irish faction of the country. In conclusion, I may mention an amusing incident as an illustration of the high-water mark of the popularity to which the right hon. Gentleman has attained in Ireland. A few days since a poor man was charged at Castletown Roche Petty Sessions, in the County of Cork, with being drunk and disorderly. The Resident Magistrate asked the constable how the man was disorderly, and the witness replied that the man "was driving a donkey and cart and was abusing the animal by calling him Balfour." Immediately the Magistrate imposed on the man a fine of 5s. and costs. There is a moral in this ludicrous incident, because, if we look aside from its absurdity, it shows that the name of Balfour is the worst term of opprobrium that can be used in Ireland, and because it is, at the same time, an evidence of the appreciation entertained for the right hon. Gentleman's policy in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are two complaints brought against me by the hon. Gentleman, which I confess I was surprised to hear from him, one that I make too few speeches; the other, that I am not popular in Ireland. With regard to the speeches I have made at Dublin or elsewhere, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, so far from desiring to stump the country, I should be very glad if I could cut down the disagreeable task of making speeches in Ireland and elsewhere, to even smaller proportions than at present. Then as to my want of popularity in the South and West of Ireland, and the comment it affords on our policy, I do not know that the hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, who have great influence in these parts of the country, have done their best by speeches and by articles in the newspapers to increase that popularity. On the very day on which I was appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland, unless I am greatly mistaken, the Freeman's Journal, United Ireland, and other journals of similar complexion, immediately, without warning or experience, transferred to me every one of the epithets with which they had been plastering my predecessors, and when the Committee recollect that the sole estimate which the Irish people are allowed to have of the policy of the Government, and of my personality, is derived from such speeches and newspapers, they will not be Surprised that in some parts of Ireland I may not be as popular a man as the hon. Member for East Mayo. After the remarks I have already made on this Vote it will not be necessary for me to traverse the whole of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but there are one or two points in his speech which I think should not be passed over. One of the chief objections he urged against the Government was that they were in the habit of resting their case upon what he called "cooked statistics." Though he was good enough to say that I was not personally responsible for the cooking, he gave the House to understand that he did believe that whenever political exigency required that a case should be made out for the Government all available machinery was set to work to cook statistics for the purpose. I need not say that a more baseless or more

    1503
    absurd charge was never made in this House, even on Irish Estimates, where baseless and absurd charges seem the order of the day. The Hon. Member backed up his general accusation by referring to what he called the monstrous statistics I had produced about boycotted farms. I do not know what statistics he alludes to, for I have refused to give such statistics. I cannot bear in mind all the speeches I have made, but I do not believe I have myself given such statistics, though I cannot speak with confidence on the point. I have said, and I repeat, that the information which I have been careful to collect on this subject does prove that boycotted farms are now taken in Iceland, and in much larger numbers than they used to be. The hon. Gentleman asked why I do not give the names of persons boycotted. This is a very naive request. The immediate result of announcing the names of persons boycotted would be, as the hon. Member knows, to increase the stringency of the persecution to which they are subjected. There are cases, no doubt, in which the sufferings of the boycotted person are already so great, in which the persecution is so complete and the man so cut off from union with his fellows, and from the necessaries of life in the neighbourhood in which he lives, that his name might be mentioned without risk of doing much additional harm, and I have frequently given names in such instances; but there are many other cases in which the boycotting is in process of relaxation, and to announce names in connection with these would only have the effect of renewing the persecution. The hon. Member, in order to show the inaccuracy of the boycotting statistics produced by the Government, referred to the case of a land agent heard in a Court of Law in Dublin recently. The land agent pretended to his employer that the labourers on the estate were being boycotted and he fraudulently charged his employer with the expenses of procuring necessaries from a distance. This is conclusive proof that the land agent was a scoundrel; but what else it proves I do not know. How does it prove the statistics are wrong? The hon. Member says no doubt this was included in the list of boycotted persons. But this case does not necessarily invalidate the
    1504
    Returns, because a man might be boycotted or under police protection at one time, and not at another. As a matter of fact, this man had been boycotted and under police protection at one time; but boycotting had ceased, and police protection withdrawn, and the Returns counted before these fraudulent transactions of the land agent occurred. The most careful watch is kept over the Returns, and they are subjected to revision whenever boycotting is relaxed or ceases. The authorities responsible for the statistics are under the most stringent orders to criticise the Returns at relatively short intervals, to examine the condition of every boycotted person on the list, and where necessary, to remove a name from the list, so that the House may have a correct view of the general position of boycotting in Ireland. So much for the accusations which the hon. Member has been good enough to bring against me. With regard to the violent denunciation he was good enough to bring against the Holy See and Mon-signor Persico, I do not think it necessary to say anything. It is no business of mine to criticise the ultra-Orange speeches it may please hon. Gentlemen from time to time to deliver. The Government had nothing whatever to do with the Mission of Monsignor Persico; they were never approached or consulted on the subject, and if Monsignor Persico came, as I presume he did, to a conclusion which ultimately compelled the Pope, in obedience to the dictates of morality, to condemn the Plan of Campaign and boycotting, it certainly did not depend in any way on the action of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member then went on to discuss the policy of the Government with regard to public works in Ireland. He was good enough to say that I was in the habit of weeping crocodile tears—and I observe that that is a favourite metaphor of the hon. Member—over the fate of any emergency man who might fall a victim to the fury of hon. Members opposite, while I had no heart for the sufferings of the Irish people; and then he denounced the general policy of the Board of Works, and, therefore, of the Government. He told us, so far as I could make out, that the money would be wasted and would not benefit the people on whom it was expended, that it came from the tax payers

    1505
    of the country, and that, even where executed, the works would do no good for the population they were intended to benefit; and he concluded with the amazing statement that in spite of all these considerations his virtue was not equal to resisting the bribe.
    MR. DILLON: It is not fair to say that. What I did say was that there was no doubt that there was great waste, and that the works were not in the proper place, but that I represented a very poor district, and that some of the money would find its way into the pockets of my constituents.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite accept the hon. Member's statement, but I think that his original version was a good deal more powerful. He, therefore, does admit that the policy of the public works of the Government is, at all events, one that might benefit his poor constituents. That is the first admission in favour of the policy of the Government that I have ever been able to extract from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member thinks that some policy of public works is desirable, but not under the present regime. He thinks that when the good time comes, when Ireland is blessed with a Home Rule Parliament, then, and then for the first time, money will be plentiful in Ireland; that then, for the first time, it will be possible for the Government to borrow at a cheap rate; and that then, for the first time, jobbery will vanish from Irish shores. I confess that if the rosy view which the hon. Member takes were in any way justified I should find some of my strongest objections to Home Rule, from the point of view of Ireland, would be removed; but I am afraid that the hon. Member will find that the money he is going to borrow will be at the moderate rate of 5 or 6 per cent., and he will find by painful experience that if there be jobbery in the Government of the United Kingdom, that jobbery will sink into insignificance beside the jobbery which will take place when a Parliament is sitting in College Green. Then I was asked by the hon. Member to point out what evidence there was of the success of Her Majesty's Government, and he said that it was a proof that we had no success, that if any Member on those Benches were to resign his seat it would not be contested by any
    1506
    one holding the views of the present Government. The hon. Member appears to be of opinion that the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government is to make an electoral conversion of the provinces of Connaught, Leinster, and Munster. Of course, I should be extremely glad were I able to sway the electoral districts in Ireland, and to persuade the electors that their duty was to give a loyal support to the Constitution of this country, as it at present exists. But I never anticipated for a moment that I would be able to convert in the course of a few years the political convictions of those gentlemen. Is that a proof that Her Majesty's Government has failed in its efforts? I entirely fail to grasp that argument. The policy we have endeavoured to pursue is a twofold policy. In the first place, it is a policy of endeavouring to support the minority in Ireland, who are attacked in their just rights, from plunder and spoliation, a minority not consisting in the main of the landlord class—though even an Irish landlord has his rights—but a minority—I admit, if you like, a small minority—consisting of the peasantry of those three provinces, who most undoubtedly, by the admission of hon. Members themselves, have been the victims of the most cruel and brutal oppressions in history. That is the first task we have in view. The hon. Member for East Mayo, who has behind him the organisation of which he is a leading member, has very little reason to congratulate him self on its results. The state of Ireland is not all that it should be, but it is far better than it was when we came into office, and as far as that branch of the policy of Her Majesty's Government is concerned, I claim now, as I have claimed before, that it has met with success. The second branch of the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that of ameliorating the material condition of the people of Ireland. In carrying out that policy, also, we have made great progress. It is true that every effort we have made has been hampered either by hon. Members themselves or by their Radical allies. The whole power that the Rules of this House give to a minority have been used to make it difficult for Her Majesty's Government to carry out that policy; but I have the satisfaction of reflecting that no inconsiderable

    1507
    portion of it has been carried out, and as regards the remainder, important proposals are now before the House and the country, and before many months they will be carried to a successful issue. When that time comes hon. Members opposite may use what arguments they please, and may give what version seems best to them of the recent history of Ireland, but three facts will stand out in plain relief. It will be obvious to all men that we have been able to vindicate the law and to protect the weak against the strong; it will be obvious to all men that we have done more than any previous Government, whether it was before the Union or subsequent to the Union, to improve the material prosperity of the poorest people in the West and South-West of Ireland; and, further, it will be seen that we have made the largest contribution towards the settlement of that perennial source of difficulty in Ireland, the land question, than was ever attempted or even dreamed of by Irish reformers in the past.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I suppose it is the entire breakdown of this bankrupt Session that has given the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence such a monumental, turn. This is the second time in the course of the Debate on this Vote that the right hon. Gentleman has pronounced an elaborate epitaph on his own administration. He was in a melting, lachrymose mood last night, and we then thought that on the morrow he would be more cheerful; but this evening in almost the same terms, although at somewhat greater length, the right hon. Gentleman has for the second time engraven the inscription on his early tomb. I am not at all surprised at the right hon. Gentleman being in this mood. Not even the satisfaction of seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in trouble, which for a few days seemed to keep up his spirits, has sufficed to keep the right hon. Gentleman out of the melting mood. Of course, we can understand why in his statement he disclaimed any idea of his policy leading to the electoral conversion of the people of Ireland. I can assure him that he may console himself with the reflection it has largely led to the electoral conversion of England. I am sometimes a little doubtful as to
    1508
    whether it is to him or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we ought to be most grateful, but, on the whole, I think it is to the Chief Secretary we are most obliged, because of the universal disgust and detestation which his policy has excited in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Wales, a policy which will meet with overwhelming condemnation at the next General Election. The right hon. Gentleman laughs at that; but if he is so confident of success at the next Election, why is he always pronouncing funereal orations? Now, the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the speech of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend did not complain that the right hon. Gentleman made too few speeches. The complaint was that he made too few speeches in Ireland. So far as England is concerned, and so far as this House is concerned, the more speeches the right hon. Gentleman makes the better pleased we shall be; for I do not remember a single speech delivered by him which has not driven a nail into the coffin of his policy. With the somewhat doubtful exception of his uncle, the Prime Minister, I do not know any man whose orations are more useful to his foes and more prejudicial to his friends. I do not know any man whose statements have been so frequently and so clearly disproved than those of the right hon. Gentleman. What defence has he now set up? The right hon. Gentleman says he is blamed for giving answers from official sources, which all Ministers have to do. That is quite true in one sense, but the right hon. Gentleman has been the first Minister who, when a charge is made against an official, thinks the reply of that official should be accepted, even against the statements of Members of this House, who were eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question. I say the adoption of such a policy is most scandalous and outrageous, and one which even no Minister of the Czar of Russia would dare to adopt. I need not weary the House with details. We cannot forget that at Mitchelstown three lives were lost, and the word of an official was sufficient to prevent the trial of the persons responsible for the deaths. The same thing occurred at Tipperary, and again there was no inquiry. My hon. Friend here was at a meeting in Ireland and saw policemen charge and savagely assault unarmed people, and yet the

    1509
    right hon. Gentleman, on the information supplied to him by the officials, denied that any such events had taken place. Again, when the people lit a bonfire in celebration of the marriage of one of their most trusted leaders, they were batoned by the police, and the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was, this was done because the crowd were causing an obstruction, which is a mockery as every one knows who is aware of the solitude, desolation, and ruin of Irish towns, thanks to the misgovernment of the right hon. Gentleman. Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse inquiry into these matters? He does it in pursuance of a deliberate policy. If an official feels 'that whatever offence he commits he will be defended by a Minister in Parliament, by the money of the Executive in a Court of Law, and that, if necessary, the jury who try him will be packed to secure his acquittal, that official becomes as irresponsible as if there were no law, no Courts, and no Parliament. The natural result is that the police in Ireland have been demoralised and brutalised as has never been the case before. For days together they are in a state of chronic intoxication. They are given as free a range as if they were soldiers permitted to sack an enemy's country. The right hon. Gentleman must intend all that. His sinister and futile hope is that the people can be coerced into tame submission to the authorities and the abandonment of their political convictions. The right hon. Gentleman declares that that is the policy of the civilised world, and that it will have to be adopted by the Government who follow him. We can plainly gather from the right hon. Gentleman what is the character of the Government which he thinks will succeed him. Men who expect to live long do not compose their own epitaphs. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the next Government will have to adopt his policy. He justifies that statement by saying that the Plan of Campaign exists in certain parts of Ireland, and that the Plan of Campaign is an illegal conspiracy. Within 24 hours of the accession of a Liberal Government, the Plan of Campaign will have disappeared into thin air. There will be no further need for it. The emergency men will have gone about their business in Belfast, and
    1510
    will be trying to enlist in the Army which at that moment the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh will be endeavouring to raise in order to man the last ditches. The landlords of Ireland will then, not for the first time, curse the sinister counsels of their friends and patrons in England, and Ireland, too, because they will have no choice but to accept the reasonable and just terms of their tenants. I hope the tenants will ask no more. An hon. and learned Member opposite (the Member for Harrow) laughs at that; but let me remind him that when a few months since the Land Purchase Bill was before the House, he went about the country declaring that slavish greed was not a characteristic of the Irish tenants. What will happen when a Liberal Government comes in power? We shall have a Bill passed in this House, a simple measure, probably of not more than one clause, which will not require any of the hanging-up machinery of which we hear so much, to get it through. We shall pass it; and if the House of Lords is inclined to reject it, we shall bring a little pressure to bear on that illustrious Assembly, after the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and bring them to their senses. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could himself have put an end to the Plan of Campaign at any period during the past four years had he been so inclined. If the right hon. Gentleman had but a little more perception of facts, and a little less of that priggish dogmatism that belong to him, he would have dealt with the question of arrears of the tenant farmers of Ireland by inserting a clause in his Bill to that effect. A couple of lines would have been sufficient; and in this way he would have relieved the farmers of much of their difficulties, and the Plan of Campaign would have come to an end within 24 hours. As a result of that, the farmers would have had more money put into their pockets, and the right hon. Gentleman would have avoided all the disturbances which have arisen from his policy. There would have been no necessity for the Mitchelstown affair; no necessity for Bodyke; John Mandeville would not have been done to death; and the right hon. Gentleman would have been saved from pursuing his course of

    1511
    callousness and cowardice, which has so disgusted every man of sense and feeling. Has the right hon. Gentleman's policy made the people more contented? No. I tremble to think what the people would have done if it had not been for the fact that they share the convictions of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that his administration is on its last legs, and that between their final emancipation and the present there stands nothing but a single discredited and bankrupt Ministry. Were it not for these hopes; were it not for the hopes reposed in the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and in the action of the Liberal Party, I believe that the people of Ireland would have long since ceased to listen to the tranquillising councils of their leaders, and that there would have grown up again in Ireland, against their advice, those dark and sinister associations that have played such an important part in the history of the past. But the Irish people know that their day of deliverance is at hand. They know that the right hon. Gentleman has no delusion on the question. His friends may prepare their wreaths of laurels, but all his thoughts are of cypress. His friends may prepare their testaments of praise, but the right hon. Gentleman is writing his own epitaph in language so characteristic of his rule, that when it comes to be inscribed upon the tomb of his administration, it will add new force to the old saying, "As lying as an epitaph."
    MR. WEBB: It has been complained against us that we have kept up this Debate upon lines too narrow—that on such an important question as the Chief Secretary's salary, in which his policy and his government of Ireland properly come up for consideration—a policy and a government that are interesting the whole world—we descend too much to particulars. But particulars are the very essence of the situation, and whilst in the few words I have to say, I would desire to treat the question broadly, I cannot hope, nor do I desire, to avoid particulars altogether. It has been my rule in political life to endeavour to think well of my opponents—it is pleasanter to feel that one is contending with honest, though mistaken, adversaries than with dishonest men or men that are inten-
    1512
    tionally malevolent. But certainly I never found the task so difficult as in the case of the right hon. Gentleman Courtesy, and a desire to conciliate-rather than exasperate, should be the characteristics of a man who seeks to govern: these qualities appear to me entirely wanting in the bearing of the right hon. Gentleman towards us. We cannot but see irresponsible rule in its most hateful garb; we cannot but feel, down to our very finger tips, that he and his supporters scorn and dispise us and those we represent. In the two special instances that claimed our attention last night—the acknowledged firing by the police into an unarmed and inoffensive crowd, and the escape from trial of a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary who had committed a felony—a class of cases with which we are, alas! too familiar in Ireland—did one word of sympathy or one gesture of assurance that justice would be done escape the right hon. Gentleman. And that is his bearing all through—a bearing that might pass with the representatives of a powerful and a happy people, but which, cuts us to the quick and rouses in us and sustains a determination never to submit to a continuance of his rule. The right hon. Gentleman last night asked how it was that we were not able to imitate his stoical indifference—his philosophic coolness in Debate; as well might the man who-applies the thumb-screw ask his victim why he does not imitate his demeanour. We are weak and powerless; he wields all the Forces of the Empire; he inspires the Executive; nay, we believe the Bench is not free from his influence; and as for the Magistracy, which should stand indifferent between people and Crown—they are the instruments of his will. It is idle to ask us to remain calm in the face of the injustice and the indignities to which he subjects our people. He is reported to have written on a recent occasion that we
    "Form a Political Party violent in their designs to the verge of treason, unscrupulous in their methods beyond the limits of legality "
    a Party whose eloquence, energy, and determination
    "Have been steadily and unswervingly employed, not for the purpose of settling the political controversy on a permanent basis, but for the purpose of embittering it in the interests of a political revolution."

    1513
    We are not violent beyond the measure of our necessities. We have gone no nearer the verge of treason than many a Political Party in this country within the present century. Our methods have been the only methods through which reform and peace with Great Britain were procurable. Our eloquence (an eloquence in which I can claim no part), our energy and determination have been steadily and unswervingly employed to settle on a permanent basis a great and once apparently hopeless political controversy in which the very existence of our people was at stake. If it has been embittered, the fault does not lie at our door, but at the door of those who, in stupid blindness, for their own supposed interests, have step by step opposed reform in Ireland, and at the door of the right hon. Gentleman, who fitly sums up in his bearing and his policy their ideas of progress and of freedom. We are told that Ireland is peaceful and prosperous. Our peace is not the peace of subjection and despair; it is the peace of vitality and hope—peace the outcome of the sacrifices and the struggles of this Party which he so much condemns, and of the statesmanship, wisdom, and highest Christianity of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the Party he leads. I believe Ireland is tolerably prosperous at present. In this belief I differ from some of my friends. This prosperity is due in no degree to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. It is the result of the security against eviction and raising of rents—of the large sums of money that are now in the pockets of the tenants, and that were formerly unjustly in the coffers of the landlords—it is the result of that political revolution, of that partial settlement of the land question that the right hon. Gentleman so bitterly condemns. But, after all, it is the prosperity of the Second Empire in France, of Italy under Austria, of the Southern States under Slavery, of Russia—it is not such progress as would be under really free institutions such as we shall have. An hon. and gallant Gentleman asked if Belfast was not prosperous. I rejoice in the prosperity of Belfast. We are as proud of Belfast as you of the South of England are of Manchester and of Leeds. The turn of the spindles in her mills is sweet in our ears; we are as
    1514
    proud of the ships turned out of her yards as you here are of the vessels run off the stocks on the Tyne or the Clyde. The progress of Belfast is largely due to the suitability of the North for the growth of flax—to the encouragement of its manufacture by the people and Ministry of this country; whilst, on the other hand, they discouraged and suppressed the production and manufacture of wool, which were suited to the other parts of Ireland. It is due to the manner in which Protestants were encouraged and petted, the Catholics persecuted and depressed—a policy not yet altogether abandoned. It is, I believe, mainly due to the political content that reigns there. They have had it all their own way, and they are satisfied—just as we over the rest of Ireland will be satisfied when we have it our own way—only that the liberty we aim at is liberty for Protestant and Catholic for North and South alike, not for Protestants at the expense of Catholics or of the North at the expense of the South. You can bring forward no proof that the government and administration of the right hon. Gentleman is not loathed and detested as no government was ever so loathed and detested in Ireland. He himself admits its failure—four years ago we were promised peace in 20 years—it is now relegated to the days of our grandchildren. In my experience Irish Protestants are, as never before in my time, day by day ranging themselves on the side of their Catholic fellow-countrymen. The old naturally hold back, clinging to the false traditions in which they were reared; but the younger generation, largely influenced by disgust at the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and by the sacrifices and utterances of the Irish Party, are taking a better part. The Protestant trading class is honeycombed with detestation of his policy—thousands of its members are blinded by petty and by false and mistaken considerations to the duty of openly expressing their real opinions. Talk of boycotting—of depriving men of their means of support because of their opinions—there has seldom been a more complete boycott than under the possibility of which those live who in any way depend upon the official and attending classes in Ireland. The Govern-

    1515
    ment, the right hon. Gentleman, and his friends are deluded as to the real feelings of the Irish people by the overgrown and rapacious official class in Ireland, the outcome of the false system he represents and controls. It inspires a Press; it stands as a veil between him and the Irish people. Even if he would he could not do justice and act lightly. And even this official class is permeated with dislike of his rule. Amongst them nobler and more generous feelings are springing up. We at this side of the House have constant opportunities of realising this fact. The right hon. Gentleman has not one qualification for the rôte he has assumed, for the position in which he has been placed, and for which he now seeks to be paid. He knows nothing of our country, of its traditions, or of the feelings of our people. He does not I am sure make one-tenth the effort to identify himself with it as do the German Governors of Alsace and Lorraine to identify themselves with and understand those they rule. Did he ever consult the representatives or public opinion of the country? Did he ever adopt their proposals? Did he ever consider their united opposition sufficient ground for questioning the wisdom of his own schemes? All he can do is to propose abortive petty measures for light railways and for draining which seldom mature, and, when they do, effect little or nothing. I suppose he is welcome to pour his thousands into Ireland—in my mind it is a demoralising and an enervating system. After all, he will effect nothing. Paralysed by the system he seeks to administer, he is unable to take a step in advance or to remove the rottenest stones out of the edifice he seeks to support. He must, in his heart of hearts, admit that the Irish Question is the latent cause of the paralysis that has overtaken the course of public business in this House—a House whose traditions are so glorious, and whose power of usefulness and of blessing to the human race will be well nigh boundless when it has for ever abandoned the impossible attempt to crush out the spirit and the aspirations of the Irish people. Gentlemen opposite admit all this, and yet they are unable or unwilling to set about reform even upon their own lines.
    1516
    Their only policy is coercion and suppression. It is amazing how this policy can be supported by so many great and good men and women in and out of Ireland—but so have bad policies in all times and all over the world been supported by the great and good. I was reared in the contest with the most hateful and diabolical system the world ever saw—the^ system of American slavery. Up to the last that system had the support of culture and refinement in the United States and in this country. It crumbled to its fall, and no one now seeks to defend it. My later years have brought me the unspeakable privilege of being permitted to take part in a contest for Irish liberty and Irish freedom. That cause will triumph, and when it has triumphed no one will be found to attempt to-justify the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. Summed up in a few words, that policy is one than which, no more criminal can be conceived. The murder of an individual is bad enough. But what are we to say to the attempt to strangle and to murder the God-given spirit and the feeling of a nation—that spirit and those feelings through which alone we can attain real prosperity, and through which alone these Kingdoms can be really, and in fact, united. A new renaissance is spreading over the world. In mental and physical training, in all the essentials upon which progress depends, the peoples are making a fresh start forward. In the last century, when it was of vital importance that all should be free to take part in a great industrial awakening, we were bound hand and foot—the crime is now admitted. A greater awakening has now come upon the world, and were the policy of degradation which this Vote is asked to support to be continued, future generations would have in vain to deplore a more miserable failure and a more heinous crime against our people.
    MR. PARNELL: I do not think, Sir, that I ever recollect a time when the discussion, of the Constabulary Vote and the discussion of the present Vote haw presented so many objects of interest and attention, and have necessitated the expenditure of so much of the time of I Parliament. That one fact, taken by itself, shows, I think, very great discontent, not only upon the part of the

    1517
    Irish Representatives, but also upon the part of their constituencies, with regard to the administration of the law by the right hon. Gentleman. Now, Sir, that administration of the law has been described by my hon. Friends, and grave and weighty criticisms have been advanced against it; but to effectually demonstrate to the House the iniquity of that administration, and the hardships from which the every-day people in Ireland suffer, owing to that administration, we should require their tongues—we should require to know their experience; and it would be necessary that they should stand at the Bar of this House and personally impeach the right hon. Gentleman and his agents in Ireland for the sufferings that they have inflicted upon them. We can only faintly tell—we can only imperfectly depict the depth of all the suffering that is going on in Ireland. I am sometimes almost tempted to believe even that the right hon. Gentleman himself has neither the time nor the inclination to fathom the result of his own action. If it were possible for him personally to investigate these matters—I do not say it is possible—I think he would hardly have the conscience to stand up in the House and defend the actions of his agents, and represent the reports of his policemen as true. The right hon. Gentleman is hard at work during most of the Session answering the questions of Irish Members regarding his administration, and during the winter months, probably his choice and his health do not encourage him to encounter the rigours of the Irish climate in pursuit of that information of which he stands so much in need. It has come to pass that we are left in this unsatisfactory position. We are, as it were, beating the air. We cannot, owing to the want of information, efficiently place before the House the position of the Irish people who are suffering from what is being done by the agents of the Government in that country. And although the right hon. Gentleman may not be so very much to blame under the circumstances I have endeavoured to describe, yet he is to blame to some extent, because he has relied with implicit confidence from the time he entered upon his present office until now on the representations made to him and the advice given to him by
    1518
    the effete and rotten permanent officials of Dublin Castle. His initial mistake was made in 1886, when he declined to carry out the remedial legislation necessary to deal with the agrarian crisis. The right hon. Gentleman in 1887 took the responsibility of delaying remedial legislation in order to press on an abominable and cruel Coercion Act. In this way he set on foot the commotion and disturbance which undoubtedly, owing to what I regard as the folly of the right hon. Gentleman, will outlast his time, and will certainly prevent his administration from attaining that measure of success which might, under different circumstances, be possible for a Chief Secretary to achieve. The Plan of Campaign was started because of the failure of the Government to introduce legislation to deal fairly and justly between landlord and tenant in Ireland. I do not, and never have, concealed my views with regard to the Plan of Campaign. At its outset I saw my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork, and told him that I thought the Plan of Campaign ought to be limited to those estates on which it had already been started. He represented to me that if the combination were general the movement would be so strong that the Government and the landlords would be altogether unable to cope with it, but that if it was limited, as I suggested, the result might be that the tenants would be sacrificed. I could not help admitting that there was a good deal of force in what my hon. Friend said, but I still felt justified in pressing upon my hon. Friends the desirability of limiting this movement as much as possible. They assented to my expressed wish, and did not push it beyond those estates on which it had up to that time been started. But my friends tell me now that my predictions have come true, and that while we, on the one hand, have limited the movement to that small number of estates, those who have been shut out are pursued by a combination of the Government and the landlords with a hatred and a relentness vindictiveness which are even for them extraordinary. I may have been wrong in the position I took up, but I thought it better that a small number of tenants should suffer or be sacrificed rather than that there should be the terrible evil of a general agrarian

    1519
    struggle. I cannot here too strongly condemn the fatuous conduct of the Government in not having yielded to the pressure brought upon them that these Plan of Campaign estates should be allowed to share in the Act of 1887. There were only 10 or 12 of these estates, and on the Coolgreany and Ponsonby estates the tenants consisted mainly of leaseholders. These tenants were deprived of the benefits of the Land Act, but their struggle was recognised or sanctioned by the Act of 1887, which admitted leaseholders to the benefit of the Act of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman, acting under the advice of the partisan permanent officials, who urged the right hon. Gentleman against all surrender, has, owing to the strife on these estates, been deprived of even that small modicum of success in his administration which is all that a Chief Secretary under the present system can secure. He has been told that the British Government is not strong enough to surrender these 10 or 12 estates; that he must not give way in regard to them. That is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I, at any rate, do not think it is statesmanship. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at the eleventh hour, whether he cannot utilise the remaining weeks of the Session to bring forward some plan by which the strife on these estates might be terminated, and by which the tenants on these estates might take their share in the benefits that the Legislature intended for them. After the experience of the successful arbitration in reference to one of these estates carried out by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir C. Russell), it ought not to be difficult to frame a measure which would pass through the House without difficulty or opposition, and which would provide for an inquiry and a fair settlement of the dispute on each of these estates. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman is determined to pursue these tenants to the bitter end, he may do so. I may say that I have not discussed the suggestion I have made with any of my hon. Friends, and let it not be supposed that my suggestion is any sign of weakness. These tenants will be protected, and effectually protected, to the end. If it takes 50 years before the means and methods of the present Government are removed,
    1520
    these people shall not suffer. Money will be found for securing that they shall not suffer. But I make the suggestion in the interest of peace and humanity and justice, and not in the interests of the pockets of the landlords. I daresay that my hon. Friends would prefer to fight it out, and are careless as to whether the suggestion I make is accepted. I have myself little doubt that my suggestion will have been made in vain, but I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that I have made it, and that the responsibility will not rest on me. Let me now turn from the Plan of Campaign to a consideration of the programme of the Government with regard to next Session. We, had an important announcement made to us yesterday by the Leader of the House. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, it appears, to persevere with the Irish Land Purchase Bill this Session. This Bill is dead, and it is the intention of the Government, we are told, to re-introduce it next November, or early in the coming year, and press it through. I endeavoured at an earlier period of the Session to place some of my objections before the House, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that I showed by the tone of my speech that I was not guided by any blind or unreasoning hostility to the Bill. I was anxious to make it a workable measure, in order to fulfil the object which it was introduced to carry out, and I say again now, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will ponder what I say, that my anxiety is that these 33 millions of money shall be used to the best advantage for the purpose of settling as far as it can extend this land question, or the most difficult and pressing portion of this land question in Ireland. When, during the Second Beading of the measure, I suggested a method of fining down the rents, that method was not suggested as any great or original discovery, though I happened to be the first to discover and suggest it myself in the spring of 1881, when the Laud Bill of that year was first introduced. But, of course, I shall prefer a solution by occupying ownership, and I did not advance the principle of fining down the rents as a better and more perfect way. I did not so advance it. I advanced it simply from the point of

    1521
    view of economy, and in order to allow the limited amount of money available to be stretched as far as possible to do the greatest amount of good for the least amount of money. But if any objection is taken—and I am addressing myself particularly now to the right hon. Gentleman whose salary we are considering and in whose jurisdiction and upon whose responsibility the Land Bill of the coming year will be framed—if any objection is taken to the principle of fining down the rents on the ground that it is not an abolition of dual ownership, and that occupying ownership is preferable, I say I am entirely with that objection. By all means use this money for occupying ownership, but do so use it. Now, Sir, what is the situation? The Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has had framed by the advice of his subordinates will not carry out the objects you have in view. Your money will be to a large extent wasted and used for purposes for which it is not in the contemplation of Parliament that it should be used. Instead of enabling boná fide occupiers to become the owners of their holdings, much of it, if you proceed upon the lines laid down, will be used for the purpose of enabling large graziers in Connaught and other Irish provinces to become the owners of their holdings, and I do not believe that that is the wish of the people of this country or of this House. What I wish to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is this, that he should occupy some of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the interval in obtaining Returns to this House as to the situation of the estates in Munster and in Connaught, and especially in Connaught, with regard to the amount of rent paid upon each estate by tenants living on their holdings, and by tenants not living on their holdings, and by tenants of the class of grazing tenants, who do not come under the operation of the Land Act of 1881, because they are of that class. I think he will find that the magnitude of the problem he has undertaken will be enormously reduced, and that, by means of the information obtained, he will be able to introduce alterations into the Bill which will enable the money to be provided by Parliament—the £33,000,000—to go very much further than he has any idea of at present. I believe, speak-
    1522
    ing in regard to the case of Connaught, that probably not more than one-fifth or one-sixth of the value of the land in that province need be purchased out at all for the purpose of establishing an occupying ownership. In the case of Munster, probably not more than one-half of the land of that province need be purchased. The case of Ulster is entirely different, because there, owing to the operation of the Ulster custom, the extensive clearances which have taken place in Connaught and in Munster have not been carried out. You have a province of medium and small occupying tenants who are well fitted to become the owners of their holdings, and where, undoubtedly, the money of the State, if spent with proper safeguards, and in accordance with local feelings and requirements, may be well and safely spent. But that does not apply to Connaught and Munster, and to some extent, though not at all to the same extent, that does not apply to Leinster. The advice I would respectfully give to the right hon. Gentleman would be to make his Department acquainted with the circumstances of Munster and Connaught during the coming autumn and winter before the re-introduction of his Land Bill. The Constabulary are well fitted to collect these Returns. They know the circumstances of all the different estates, and they already collect many Agricultural Returns which are of great value to us: and they can easily, with little addition to their ordinary duties, put the right hon. Gentleman and the House into full possession of the most important details with reference to these matters, with the result, I believe, that there will be great advantage to the State and great economy of money. Finally, I would entreat the Government to consider, in view of the fact that they propose to allocate large Imperial grants to Ireland for local purposes as a counter guarantee to the sums to be advanced from the Imperial Treasury, whether some regard ought not to be paid to the principles of local control and local responsibility. It appears to me to be a bitter mockery to say that here are sums which are given to English Local Authorities to do what they please with, and that in the case of Ireland we should intercept these sums, should deprive the future Irish Local Authorities of all right to control

    1523
    them, and should previously hypothecate them for the purpose of securing the British Treasury. That is a due regard to the British Treasury undoubtedly, but not a due regard to the principles of local self-Government for Ireland—principles on which the present Government have come into Office, and by their regard to which they will have to stand or fall at the next General Election. I, for one, can take no part in and can on no account agree to any hypothecation of local resources without the will and sanction of the Local Authorities. I do not believe that any danger or risk of whittling or obstructing the working of the Land Act will be likely by taking Local Authorities into your confidence. I do not think that for an instant. I would say, trust to these Local Authorities since you are going to set them up, and if you do not trust them do not set them up. It would be the height of foolishness at the first turn to assert of these Local Authorities, to whom you look for so much in the future government of Ireland, that you will not trust them to have their say whether these counter guarantees are to be given. These are the subjects which I have thought it right to put before the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration. I hope he will be able to pay some attention to them, and I hope he will be able to give immediate attention to the first suggestion I made with regard to the termination of this turmoil on these Plan of Campaign estates. I trust he will have an opportunity during the recess of paying further attention to the other matters which I have brought before him—matters which are well worthy of his attention, and matters which I believe, if attended to, will enormously facilitate the settlement of the Irish land question, and will reduce the sum necessary to be advanced by the Imperial Treasury to manageable proportions, and to an amount which will not terrify the taxpayers of this country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is not necessary for me to make any reply to the hon. Gentleman, but I desire to express, on my own behalf, my sense of the moderation which has characterised the speech just delivered, and to say that any practical suggestion falling from the hon.
    1524
    Member will, of course, receive the respectful consideration of the Government. But I ought not to be understood as holding out the faintest hope of proceeding with a Land Bill in the remaining portion of the Session. I refer rather to the suggestion made with regard to the Land Bill being introduced at a very early date. I take it that I should be out of order in discussing the provisions of that Land Bill. The hon. Gentleman's particular position, and the place he holds in the councils of the Party of which he is the leader, no doubt may render it appropriate that he should, on the Chief Secretary's Vote, give some general view of his notion of the policy to be adopted in respect of the Bill which is in charge of the Chief Secretary. I presume that is the consideration, Mr. Courtney, which enabled the hon. Gentleman to be in order in making the observations he did. But I take it that I should be stretching your indulgence if I were to discuss with him at this moment the question of giving Local Authorities control over the expenditure of the sums to be lent by Parliament for the purchase of land in Ireland, or to express any opinion upon the suggestion that he has thrown out—a suggestion, in my opinion, very well worthy of attentive consideration—with regard to limiting the area, size, or character of the farms to which the principle of land purchase is to be applied. I did not rise to discuss the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but to express my own sense of the general moderation which characterised it, and to inform him and the Committee that practical suggestions, coming from those Benches, as from any other Benches, will always receive due consideration from this Bench.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £1,457, to complete the sum for Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £102,602, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to delray 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 Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation."
    COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of money he proposes to allot this year to the different Poor Law Unions, and, as I have considerable experience in the administration of the Poor Law, perhaps I may tender to the right hon. Gentleman a little advice. There are now put on the Poor Rate an enormous number of charges that have no connection whatever with the Poor Law. For example, there is the expense of making out the voters' list, and expense of administering the Vaccination Acts. There are, at least, six or eight different charges now put on the Poor Law administration which I think ought to be put on the local rates. I draw a distinction in this way. When there is anything that a Local Body can possibly keep down, it is extremely proper it should be put on the rates. The interest of Local Bodies is entirely in the direction of keeping burdens down. But take the case of vaccination. A Poor Law Board have no authority to reduce the number of children born or vaccinated. We are absolutely helpless. When we perform our duty well we increase the rates. We have no possible means of keeping down the rates, and I say that is a burden which should be shifted entirely to the Imperial Exchequer. The expense of preparing the voters' lists, too, should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. There are at least six charges which are in no way connected with the Poor Law which we have no authority whatever to reduce. I quite acknowledge that we can only expect a certain amount of assistance, and as the chairman of a Poor Law Union I am disposed to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer has assisted Poor Law Boards a good deal. But I think it would be well if he would look at this matter from the point of view I have set forth.
    DR. TANNER: I propose to move to reduce the Vote in respect of the item of salaries. The amount asked is £23,391, being an increase of £65 upon the amount asked for last year. Of course, local government affairs in Ireland are despotically managed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just received his wages, and it is worthy of notice that though this year several Boards of Guardians have been
    1526
    disfranchised, there is an increase in the expenditure. I regret extremely that when Irish Members rises the Chief Secretary prefers to converse with the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer than to listen to what is said. We all recognise the constant discourtesy of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: I am merely stating what is true. Whenever I try to bring a matter under the consideration of the Chief Secretary he tries to show his discourtesy in the worst possible way. However, we are getting accustomed to it, and we know we shall not have to endure it very much longer. Now, we ought to get some information respecting the various Boards of Guardians that have been done away with this year. I have the privilege, the great privilege, of belonging to the Cork Board of Guardians, one of the largest Poor Law Boards in the South of Ireland. It has suited the convenience, the will, and the pleasure of the Chief Secretary to-do away with that Board. Why? Simply because I exposed the illegitimate conduct of a man who is illegitimate himself. Such Boards as those of Dungarvan and Cork should not be allowed to lapse without some very good reasons, being assigned in the House of Commons. The circumstances of the Cork Board are very remarkable. So long as the Board happened to be Conservative, and confined themselves to passing resolutions of eulogy upon the Government of the day, they were not interfered with, but when the political complexion of the majority was changed owing to the political conversion of many of the-ex officio Guardians, and the Board sought to pass resolutions conveying censure upon the administration in Ireland, the Government stepped in. Up to the year 1886, by reason of the predominance of the ex officio Guardians, the Conservatives had a majority on the Board of three or four. They accordingly always elected a Conservative chairman. But opinions began to change and the old Tory Party thought they must make a new departure. Accordingly Mr. Henry L. Young was chosen to be run as a candidate for the chairmanship. Mr. Young was chosen be-

    1527
    cause he was a colourless politician, though on many occasions he lent himself to the Tory Party. On one occasion I had the great pleasure of materially conducing to his defeat. On that occasion we succeeded in placing a democrat in the chair, a Mr. Michael Hearn, a tenant farmer. We had a few votes at first, but after a fortnight's fighting the opposition collapsed, just as the Orangemen in the North collapse. The following year, however, by dint of scraping together all their members, Mr. H. L. Young was appointed Chair man. The Conservative ex officio Guardians, who are always talking about what they do and can do for the poor people in the South of Ireland, having once established Mr. Young in the chair, left him. He was left to him self on the understanding that he would refuse to put any resolutions which were in any wise political in character. The week following the election of Mr. Young we had a difference with him, and on three occasions we took exception to the tactics of the Tory Party. Our resolutions were refused, the Local Government Board were appealed to, and they, of course, backed up the party of disorder, of disunion, of hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness of blood and murder. ["Order!"] I have seen bodies that have been murdered by the minions of the right hon. Gentleman. [The CHAIRMAN: Order!] Well, I believe what I say, Mr. Courtney. Sometimes, perhaps, I speak strongly, but I have seen things in Ireland that I really—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! I should like the hon. Member to come to the Vote.
    DR. TANNER: When I was interrupted by discordant jeers from' hon. Members opposite I was stating that when the newly-elected Chairman of the Cork Board appealed to them the Local Government Board came to his assistance. As I say, the Chairman was elected by the votes of the ex officios, many of whom had no right whatever to be on the Board. At any rate, there are a certain number of gentlemen on the Cork Board who are always absent when work has to be done, and who only turn up when there is a job to be done. When we had done what we considered it was our right to do
    1528
    we received a couple of protests from the Local Government Board. We received a third warning because we passed a resolution of confidence in the leader of the Irish Party, in the leader of the Irish nation, a man of whom we are all proud. And then a sealed order was sent down dissolving the Board. This is no small matter. The Cork Board is one of the largest in Ireland. There are at present about 2,300 persons in the workhouse. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary makes signs of impatience. Of course, the number of poor in the Cork Union has been increased since the present Chief Secretary came into office. What has been done since the dissolution of the Board? Great and grievous harm. Two Vice Guardians have been sent down to Cork. I do not know them, but I have heard about them. Mr. Burke is in many ways a most respectable gentleman, and I have heard that Major Kirkwood is a graduate in the school of horseracing, like mast of the Lord Lieutenants who come over under the Tory r°gime. What did these gentlemen do when they came to Cork? One of the first actions of the Vice Guardians who superseded us was to cut down out-door relief. In our administration we had always to encounter the opposition of the ex officio members to any out-door relief being given. In their view, whenever an unfortunate person was reduced to destitution by bad times, he should enter the workhouse, but they did not succeed in enforcing their policy upon the Board, because popular feeling and common sense was too strong against them. But when our successors, the Vice Guardians, came into office, they at once proceeded by every means in their power to cut down the list of the recipients of out-door relief. In this way there were several families deprived of the pittance of a few shillings a week, which had been doled out to them. For instance, there was a blind man, named Madox, who with his family had by assistance in this way been enabled to keep out of the workhouse, and thus there was a saving to the races, but he by the new policy was forced to enter the workhouse. Public attention being directed to these matters a check was given to these proceedings by the expression of public opinion, but

    1529
    still matters are not what they should be in this respect in Cork Union. I will admit that the administration of the Vice Guardians has been productive of a small, a very small, amount of benefit. We had always to contend against the opposition of the Tory members, strong feeling was excited on the Board, and the work was somewhat impeded. The new Guardians, having full sympathy and assistance from the Local Government Board, were at once able to get the money for the purpose of providing labourers' cottages, which we for years had been vainly trying to obtain. With all their facilities, however, these gentlemen are unable to do the work satisfactorily, they naturally being hampered by the feeling of opposition which naturally arises among the people who are deprived of their recognised right of representation. The administration of affairs in the Union, in the manner I have endeavoured to point out, is far from satisfactory. In recent years similar action was taken in regard to the Ballinasloe Board of Guardians, but in that case there was, undoubtedly, a considerable amount of violence displayed, which in the case of our Board did not exist. I was the person who bore the brunt of the situation on our Board. I impeached the action of a gentleman who was a member of the Board. I told the truth about his conduct, his character, his pedigree, and his aspirations, and I was met by threats that I should have my head punched—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANKER: I am stating what happened.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary to go over all these details in discussing the action of the Local Government Board.
    DR. TANNER: I will follow your ruling, Sir. There were various scenes on the Cork Board, and the Board was dissolved, but I will not enter into this. But I demand from the Chief Secretary the reasons for the arbitrary action of the Local Government Board in dissolving this and the Dungarvan Board. I shall have occasion later to question the action of the Local Government Board Inspector. In this, as in other matters, the Chief Secretary, as President of the Local Government Board, has not done his duty, I conceive. I demand an
    1530
    explicit reply dealing with details in connection with the dissolution of these two Local Representative Bodies, and I ask when will representation be restored.
    DR. CLARK: Into these matters of detail I do not propose to enter, but I do protest against the way in which the amount of this Vote has been growing year after year, until it has almost reached the amount of the English Vote. We are asked to vote £132,000.
    DR. TANNER: I beg pardon; it was my intention to conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote under head A by £1,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. CLARK: While the amount for the English Vote is only £164,000, the salaries paid to officials seem to me preposterous in amount and number. I take one Department, the Medical, and compare it with the Departments in England and Scotland. The Medical Department in England costs £130,000 a year. I do not object to the English Vote, under which the Chief Inspector gets £1,200 yearly, for that is not too much, but I do object to that officer in Ireland getting £1,200, while in Scotland he only gets £200. If the present condition of things is allowed to continue we shall have the Irish Vote mounting up to the English Vote. Next year I intend to move a number of reductions on this Vote, and one of the things I will endeavour to do will be to red ace the Medical Inspector's Vote from £1,200 to £600, and it will then be three times the amount paid for Scotland. These high salaries are, I suppose, paid as a kind of bribe to Ireland, but I think the time has come for pruning down these extravagances, and placing Ireland, as regards officials and salaries, in a position similar to that of England and Scotland.
    DR. TANNER: I beg to move the reduction of Item A, Salaries and Wages, by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries and Wages, be reduced by £1,000."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    MR. FLYNN: I regret that my hon. Friend has thought it desirable to move a reduction on a specific item, for it narrows the extent of our criticism.
    DR. TANNER: I may explain that I was anxious to get the reasons that actuated the Board in the suppression of the Cork and Dungarvan Boards of Guardians.
    MR. FLYNN: I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's object in moving a specific reduction, and that reduction being moved, there are one or two anomalies in administration to which I would invite the attention of the Committee. We find a large amount set down for auditors of the Local Government Board. We find these officers go round—
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is item C, and the hon. Member must not enter upon that, the reduction being moved in regard to item A.
    MR. FLYNN: I come at once to the matter which has induced my hon. friend to move the reduction, the suppression of the Boards of Guardians in Cork and Dungarvan. I have no doubt that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply he will say that the Boards did not confine themselves strictly to official business. Now, in the first place, I ask the Committee to consider, what is the action of the Department having supervision in England? I have seen in the newspapers of the day a report of some very disorderly proceedings at a meeting of the Clerkenwell Vestry, when the members, departing altogether from the propriety of official proceedings, indulged in language of a personal and recriminating character, and wound up with a bout of fisticuffs. Of course, there is no defence for such conduct, which is an extreme example of what has taken place at other times in other parts of England, but we do not expect to hear that the Local Government Board in England has, at once, taken action in suppressing the Clerkenwell Vestry, or any other body which has committed an offence against the propriety of official administration, in the autocratic manner characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman who presides over the Local Government Board in Ireland. My hon. Friend made a reference to the suppression of the Ballinasloe Board. I am not familiar, as doubtless some of my hon. Friends are, with the particulars in that instance, but I am acquainted with the circumstances in relation to Cork and Dungarvan, and I say those circumstances were not of
    1532
    a sufficiently grave character to justify the extreme action of suppressing those Boards, and depriving the ratepayers of that representation which is the very essence of local administration in this and other countries. In Dungarvan there was some trifling disregard of the rules and regulations laid down by the Department, but attention was paid to the remonstrance, and yet the next thing we hear is that the Board has been suppressed and paid Guardians are sent down, the right of representation being taken from the ratepayers who, of course, had no voice in the nomination or selection of the superseding Guardians. But the case is worse in the Cork Union. We have on previous occasions asked for an explanation of the autocratic and, to us, unjustifiable action taken. We who have local knowledge can vouch for the work of the Guardians being carried out legitimately, fairly, honestly, and without a suspicion of jobbery, and they had, within a comparatively short time, reduced the rates of the Union to reasonable proportions. The Local Government Board could not lay to the charge of the Guardians anything in the nature of jobbery or corruption. The grave and serious offence in the eyes of the twopenny-halfpenny Magistrates of Dublin Castle was that on two occasions the Guardians did not confine themselves to the 14th Article of the General Rules, but had attempted to carry resolutions dealing with public questions of the day, actions which Guardians have in times past been allowed to take without interference. Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the suppression of the Board on the ground that there was friction and a rather hot encounter between my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork and the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry)? The hon. Member for South Hunts, with that tendency to hide his diminished head, and never to defend himself in public, which has marked his career for some time past, has not explained that he was accused by certain Guardians of being responsible for a state of things in the Union, and out of this arose a resolution which was proposed, and resisted by the hon. Member for South Hunts and those ex officio Guardians who only attended the Board meetings when there was some appoint-

    1533
    ment to be made, or business to be transacted in which they or their friends were personally interested. On the occasion there was a warm altercation between my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) and the hon. Member for South Hunts, and the next thing we hear of is that the Local Government Board have sent down sealed orders for the suppression of the Board, and the appointment of paid Guardians. Surely the Representative of the Local Government Board here is not going to contend that because there was a certain amount of strong language indulged in by hon. Members of the Board, even though they are Members of this House, is a sufficiently grave reason for taking this high handed autocratic step? We await the official explanation with considerable interest. I feel convinced that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able, not-withstanding his well trained ingenuity, to allege anything more serious against the Cork Board of Guardians than the fact that, on one or two occasions, they passed resolutions dealing with public political matters, and then proceeded with the ordinary business of the Board. It should be borne in mind, that before Boards of Guardians represented the National feeling in Ireland, as now they do, so far as elected members are concerned, it was a constant practice to pass resolutions of a loyal or political character, resolutions congratulating a Lord Lieutenant upon his accession to office, or commenting upon political events of the day entirely outside the routine business of a Board of Guardians. As my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) reminds me, in the days antecedent to Disestablishment, when there was great excitement in Ireland, and Party feeling ran high in relation to the much vexed Church question, a number of Boards of Guardians, then in the hands of the land owning class, passed resolutions denouncing the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in favour of Disestablishment. Such resolutions Boards in past times passed without reproof, if not with encouragement, and they were not more outside their ordinary business than if Boards in these days passed resolutions in reference to the Land Purchase Bill, or any of the ill-starred measures of the present Ad-
    1534
    ministration. It is the more desirable that these Boards should be permitted to act in this way, as they are the only bodies who reflect the public opinion of the locality. The right hon. Gentleman gets his information entirely from official sources, and, by putting their opinions on record, these Local Boards offer a further means of enlightenment to the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. Copies of these resolutions are sent, I understand, to the Chief Secretary, as well as to the Local Representatives in Parliament. It cannot be contended, or it should not be contended, with any respect for the principle of Local Government, that such action on the part of Local Boards is a grave dereliction of duty, to be marked with suppression. We demand some explanation why an important body like the Cork Board of Guardians was treated in this arbitrary manner at the instance of a clique of officials in Dublin Castle, inspired and directed as we think, by a political cabal, of which the hon. Member for South Hunts is a prominent member. There is one other matter to which I wish to call attention in connection with the action of the Local Government Board in regard to certain medical officers, in order to show how the Dublin Castle officials, inspired by the right hon. Gentleman's policy, sound whatever stop they like on the instrument on which they play. Over and over again we have brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman in this House certain views connected with Irish administration. I wish particularly to call attention to the readiness with which the Local Government Board officials pounce upon what they consider to be a blot, if the act is committed by a medical officer who has the misfortune to hold Nationalist views. Complaint was made of an alleged dereliction of duty by a medical officer at Killarney. A complaint was conveyed to the Government, through the medium of an insignificant and insolent minority, that application was made to the dispensary medical officer to attend a sick person, and that it was not attended to, although it was repeated. This matter was laid before the right hon. Gentleman, who, although he was unable to find time to inquire into a shooting outrage at Charleville, was in a position to set the whole

    1535
    machinery of the Local Government Board in operation, and it then transpired that the explanation was, the applicant had only a red ticket, and the medical officer did not deem it an urgent case. Now, the Board of Guardians might easily have dealt with this little matter, yet the right hon. Gentleman and the Local Government Board were so responsive to the touch from certain quarters, that the whole machinery of the Department was set in motion. I think this incident is most significant of the real nature of the Government policy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the hon. Member has attacked the Local Government Board for having inquired into a matter brought before the House of Commons.
    MR. FLYNN: Yes; and they did so very promptly.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But how can the hon. Member complain of the prompt action of the Local Government Board? I think I may at once pass from that to other matters which have been mentioned. I have been questioned with regard to the dissolution of the Cork and Dungarvan Boards of Guardians. The dissolution of the latter Board occurred in 1888, and the matter is at least a year and a half old, and has been discussed.
    DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon my ignorance; he had me in gaol last year, and I could not possibly bring the matter under his notice then.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was particularly referring to the remarks of hon. Members who were not in gaol. The Board was dissolved because it disgrace fully wasted its time, and also its money in regard to contracts. But it will come into existence again next March, and I think hon. Members will be glad to learn that the result of the administration by paid Guardians has been to place the affairs of the Union in a much more satisfactory condition. With regard to Cork Union, the dissolution of that Board took place in July last, under circumstances which have already been described—
    DR. TANNER: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. He has before admitted that the Board was doing
    1536
    its duty in an ordinary manner. When, however, an altercation arose between two of the Members, who are also Members of this House, the Local Government Board suddenly intervened.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What really occurred was this: The dissolution of the Cork Board of Guardians took place in January last. The hon. Gentleman would have the Committee believe that the Board was doing its duty in an ordinary way, and was suddenly and arbitrarily dissolved for political purposes.
    DR. TANNER: I did not say anything of the kind.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At least twice before January the Board was warned that it would be dissolved unless its manner of conducting business was altered. The Board of Guardians know perfectly well that if they continued proceedings contrary to regulations laid down by the Local Government Board, no other course would be left to the Local Government Board than to dissolve them. This is but obviously just to the poor. If the majority of a Board of Guardians are to constantly occupy themselves with discussing, not the affairs of the Union, but mere abstract political resolutions, it is perfectly clear that the poor will suffer. If at a time when business is to be transacted the Guardians quarrel in an unseemly and discreditable manner over these extraneous resolutions, such conduct must properly and necessarily is followed by dissolution. Any one who looks into the series of transactions which terminated in the dissolution of the Cork Board of Guardians must agree that the Local Government Board acted as they were bound to act, and if, after repeated warnings, they had refrained from taking the step which was expressly prescribed by statute for such cases they would have proclaimed their own incompetence to manage the Boards of Guardians. I have refrained from describing the character of the scenes and the language used at these meetings, but even if the scenes bad not been, as they were, of a discreditable character, and even if the language had been moderate and decent, which it was not, their action would have been an offence against the regulations of the Local Government Board.
    MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N): How many Irish Boards of Guardians are suppressed?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think two.
    MR. CLANCY: I think that the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down in regard to Public Bodies passing political resolutions is a somewhat extraordinary one. Surely the mere doing that is not a sufficient justification for suppression. Of course if persistence in passing resolutions outside the scope of business should lead to actual mismanagement of the affairs of a Union I would sympathise with, and, indeed, advocate a policy of stringent suppression.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I endeavoured to explain that this Board was suppressed because these political resolutions were brought forward at such a time that the legitimate business of the Board was delayed.
    DR. TANNER: The second resolution congratulating the Leader of the Irish Party on the result of the Parnell Commission Inquiry was only proposed after a resolution had been carried congratulating a Conservative gentleman, who had been ill, on his recovery.
    MR. CLANCY: Even if it were true that some members of the Board were inconvenienced by the discussion of political resolutions before the regular business was proceeded with, I think it was a very hard measure to deprive the ratepayers of the right of having their affairs administered by elected Guardiarns. Of course if such conduct really prejudiced the affairs of the Union, such an extreme course of action might have been justified. But I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman has charged against the Cork Board anything like the misappropriation of funds, the fraudulent placing of contracts, or delay in the management of business, and, that being so, I think it is a very hard casa to deprive the ratepayers of the right of electing a Board for the simple reason that certain members of the Board were inconvenienced on one occasion. In neither the case of the Cork nor of the Ballinasloe Boards has the right hon. Gentleman been able to point out anything more serious than mere personal
    1538
    inconvenience, and, therefore, I say that the punishment inflicted was too severe. In another case a complaint was made that a contract was given to a person who ought not to have had it, and even in that case I doubt whether the suppression of the whole elective system was not too severe a punishment. Some smaller penalty would surely have adequately met the case. The Local Government Board has the minutes of every meeting of a Board of Guardians in Ireland transmitted to it within a week of the meetings being held, and surely nothing would have been easier than for the Central Authority to refuse to confirm the contract, and to insist on its being given by the Local Board to another person. No, the Local Government Board preferred to suppress the Local Board of Guardians, and this is indicative of the whole system of Irish government. The fact is, that the Dublin Castle officials avail themselves of the slightest pretext for suppressing one of these Boards, and the suppressions generally take place in those parts of Ireland where the Nationalist Party have obtained the upper hand on the Boards. In many cases recently in the North of Ireland Boards of Guardians have made it the first business of the day to pass political resolutions in support of the policy or measures of the Government, and within the last six months nearly every Board in the North has adopted that course, especially in regard to the Land Purchase Bill of the Government. Nevertheless, in no single case in the North of Ireland, where these transactions have taken place, has the heavy hand of the Local Government Board been felt. It is only when we come to the Nationalist parts of the country—Leinster, Minister, and Connaught—that the Local Government Poard come down, hot and heavy, on the least pretence, and sometimes on no pretance at all. Some protest is called for from the Nationalists against this policy of terrorism—this attempt to humiliate where they cannot convert. I hope the Boards of Guardians will not be intimidated. These Local Bodies are the representative centres of local feeling, and I think that Boards of Guardians and Town Councils and other authorities are justi-

    1539
    fied in passing these resolutions, and I hope they will pass them whether they be Orange or Nationalist. We can only protest, as we shall protest again and again, against offences of this kind being visited with the severest punishment, namely, suppression. (8.32.)
    MR. BLANE: The list of salaries and wages presented to the Committee under this Vote this year is very significant. At present, we have under 5,000,000 of population, and in the year 1848 we had over 8,000,000, and with the latter number, the amount voted was £19,636. If we now voted a proportionate amount to this Irish Bumbledom, we should be paying £10,000, but instead of asking us to vote that sum, we are asked for over £23,000. In the year 1848, the cost of Inspectors amounted to £2,110, but in the present Estimates we are asked to vote for Inspectors alone £3,930. In 1848 the cost of travelling and auditors was £3,300, but now, though there are 3,500,000 less people in the country, the cost is £6,750. If this money were voted for poor people who require relief, I think nobody on this side of the House would say much, but the cost of the poor per head per week was only 2s. in 1848, and it is the same to-day, and therefore the increased charges made under the Vote must have been devoured by the officials. No portion of the increase goes to the poor. It is all absorbed by salaries, allowances, and travelling expenses. The total cost in 1848 was £41,699, whereas now, with little more than half the population, it is £132,603, that is to say, some thousands more than three times the amount. And it must be remembered that in 1848 the country had only just emerged from a period of famine and great distress. The distress was so great in 1847 that the House had to give a Supplementary Estimate, and I believe there was also a Grant in Aid voted. The salaries voted to these officials are far beyond anything they would obtain in ordinary civil life. I find that the Inspectors have £500 a year, which rises after five years to £700, and comes under the general Vote of salaries and wages. The auditors draw a large
    1540
    amount, not only for salaries but for travelling.
    THE CHAIRMAN: An Amendment has been moved to item "A." The hon. Member must confine himself to that item. He cannot deal with the others.
    MR. BLANE: We are dealing with the question of salaries and wages. Well, I must say it appears to me we are voting two-thirds as much in salaries as we ought to according to the population, I think the official charges should have some relation to the number of population, because when increased burdens come and have to be borne by a smaller number of people they press with great severity on the poor. They do not press on the landed class, but on the humbler classes, who are getting every year less able to bear them. Although we are a richer people than we were, it must not be forgotten that there is not that equal distribution of wealth which some of us are endeavouring to bring about. There is a great deal of distress amongst the people, and the poor have to pay these large salaries and expenses out of every smoke of tobacco they take and every glass of beer or cup of tea, coffee, or cocoa they drink. If we devoted this money to bettering the condition of things, so far as the poor people in the workhouses are concerned, I should not complain; but we do not. It goes to what are called the loyal minority. We hear a great deal about the loyalty of these people, but we find that out of almost every Vote that comes up they get something for their loyalty. You never find salaries and allowances getting less. They are an ever-increasing quantity. We are asked to vote more than we did last year or the previous year; in fact, ever since 1848 the demand has been increasing, and I must protest against this enormous sum being voted in the shape of salary for men who, if they were thrown on their own resources in any other country, would find it difficult to make a living.
    MR. HAYDEN: I desire to call attention to a case of peculiar hardship. It is this: Mr. Peter Keogh, a gentleman for some years a

    1541
    Guardian of the Ballinasloe Union, and a Juror of the County of Roscommon, and who had experience of the management of large numbers of workmen, having been appointed to the mastership of the Athlone Workhouse, the Local Government Board refused to sanction the appointment. How far they were legally entitled to do so may be hereafter tested: but the grounds on which they base their refusal are, first, that Mr. Keogh was twice convicted, and, second, that lie has had no official experience. With regard to the convictions, I may inform the Committee that one of them was on account of an alleged assault on the occasion of his eviction from his farm for a rack rent, sought to be levied on improvements which were the result of his labour and expenditure. The other was a conviction without the right of appeal, for having been amongst a crowd at Ballinasloe Rail way Station when cheers were given for some Coercion Act prisoners who were passing. Convictions such as these are not now regarded in either country as affecting a man's moral character. With regard to the charge of inexperience, I think that the Guardians who know Mr. Keogh personally, and are aware of his intelligence and capabilities for the office, are better judges of his qualification than the members of the Local Government Board. Full acquaintance with all the duties of office is not always deemed essential in Ireland, otherwise the Vice President of the Local Government Board would not hold that position. But the real reason for the refusal is that Mr. Keogh was appointed by a popular Board, at the meetings of which the landlord section only attend when some job is to be carried. Failing success there they resorted to private intriguing with the Authorities in Dublin to carry out their views. Complaints are sometimes made of the conduct of Boards of Guardians, and it is said that their suspension ought to be justified on account of their manner of conducting their business, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a single instance in which in Ireland such language or such conduct has occurred us the Evening Standard describes as taking place at a London Vestry to-day. It says—
    1542
    "There were the usual personalities, and scenes of confusion peculiar to this Board, and remarks such as 'You are a liar;' 'You little rascal:' 'You vagabond; You are an unmitigated har,' &c, were frequent, notwithstanding the energy with which the Chairman (Mr. W. L. Kellaway) wielded his gavel, and shouted for order. The ratepayers' gallery was crowded during the whole of the six hours' meeting, and the people shouted and applauded and joined in the hilarity which some of the wits of the Board created. But the climax was reached about a quarter to I o'clock, when Mr. John Ross, after many offensive personalities, said something to upset Mr. George Elcock. The latter gentleman rushed round the table, and excitedly exclaimed, ' You say that again!' Mr. Boss repeated his assertion, and Mr. Elcock struck him a violent blow with his fist the left eye, which caused an immediate swelling. Mr. Boss retaliated by throwing one of the heavy metal inkstands at the head of his opponent; but this fortunately missed its mark, and did no greater harm than smothering Mr. Elcock in ink, and breaking a piece off the board-room table."
    There is a half a column of similar de scription, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give an instance of a similar disgraceful scene to this described in a London Conservative newspaper having occurred in Ireland. Will the English Local Government Board dare to take notice of this and suppress the Clerkenwell Vestry? Certainly not. A somewhat similar scene occurred at a meeting of the St. Paul's Vestry, Deptford. The Evening Standard says—
    "Mr. Smith demanded to lie heard, and for a time confusion prevailed, Mr. Smith declaring that last time brute force was used, and challenging any member now to turn him out. Other accounts were passed, the Chairman immediately putting the motion on Mr. Smith rising. Mr. Wheatley protested against ' this indecent way of doing business,' and other members spoke in a similar strain."
    No notice will be taken of these proceedings by the English Local Government Board, whilst Irish Guardians are hampered in every possible way in the exercise of their duty. If this is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of conceding Local Government—depriving men who have the confidence of the people, and who best know the wants of their localities and the qualification of their officers of the little power they at present possess—it bodes ill for the success of his remedial policy, and in this instance, at all events, is only likely to result in adding another to the list of suppressed Boards.
    DR. J. G. FITZGERALD: The right hon. Gentleman shows on most occasions a tendency to do what is right in regard to these matters if he is not hampered by his officials. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will advise the Chief Secretary to give us some undertaking to consider the advisability of restoring the rights of these Local Bodies, I hope my hon. Friend will press the reduction of the Vote. It is a remarkable thing that at the very moment when the Unionist supporters of the right hon. Gentleman are refusing to support his Land Bill unless lie will extend a larger measure of local self-government to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman is suppressing one of the Local Governing Bodies that exist. The right hon. Gentleman defended the suppression of the Dungarvan and the Cork Boards on different grounds. At Dungarvan he said the Guardians would persist in giving a contract for bread to a certain local baker, of whose bread the doctor did not approve. I would like to point out that the baker was a Nationalist baker, while the doctor was a Tory doctor. Although the doctor might have some complaint to make of the bread, I do not think that the fact of a loaf having been too small or not of the desired quality for the time being was sufficient ground for suppressing one of these Local Bodies that administer to the wants of the poor. With regard to the Cork Guardians, there is no doubt that certain controversies arose between members of the Board who hold one political view and members who entertain another, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown no good grounds for the suppression of the Board. Of course, it is desirable that Boards of Guardians should keep within the bounds of moderation, but I do not think it will be contended that the Boards of Guardians in Ireland as a whole are not conducted in a better and more efficient manner perhaps than the Boards in this country.
    MR. SHEEHY: The answer given be the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney Genaral for Ireland (Mr. Madden) this evening
    1544
    about the refusal of the Local Government Board to sanction the appointment of Mr. Keogh to the mastership of A thlone Union was, I think, the most extraordinary answer ever given in this House. We were told that that gentleman had not previous official knowledge. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to name for me three unions in Ireland the masters of which had official knowledge before they were appointed. The practice is to elect a man who is new to official life. The real reason why the appointment was not sanctioned was that Mr. Keogh had been convicted of an assault, or, in other words, of having defended his home when he was being evicted on account of his incapacity to pay the exorbitant rent which had been for many years wrung out of him. His case was a case of desperation, and he defended his home as any good man would do and ought to do. Mr. Keogh is a Nationalist, like many others in Ireland, he has kept the green flag flying in spite of all difficulties, and it is-because he does not belong to the class of crawlers who are Nationalists one day and who go over to the Government the next day when their own interests are at stake that the appointment was not sanctioned. If he had been rowdy and a man of no character, but a supporter of the Government, there would have been no difficulty. A year ago a man named Hewett was summoned for threatening to blow the contents of a revolver into a man and violently assaulting him, but because he happened to be an emergency man he was let off with the slight fine of 27s., and he is now an officer in Queenstown. The rowdy of a year ago is now the guardian of the peace in Queens-town. Mr. Keogh, the Nationalist, because he defended his home, is not to-get any appointment. This shows that the trail of the serpent is over every office and department in Ireland. Every office is given to men of one faction, and every man who is a political opponent is sure to meet with opposition at every point. It is said that Mr. Keogh is lacking in official knowledge. What official knowledge did the Vice President of the Local Government Board possess-when he was appointed to Office? Mr. Keogh is a man of education, a roan of capacity, and a man of wide experience

    1545
    in public affairs. We do not intend to let this question drop until we receive a satisfactory assurance, and I think it will be better for the Government to promise that the refusal to sanction the appointment on such paltry and miserable grounds will be re-considered.
    MR. STANSFELD: I feel bound to challenge the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with regard to the grounds of suspension of Local Boards of Guardians. I know nothing of the facts except from what I have heard; but I maintain that the Chief Secretary's case for the suspension of the Cork Board of Guardians is not sufficient. I know perfectly well that the Irish Poor Law is not like the English Poor Law. It has always been a harsher Poor Law, and has always been administered in a harsher spirit. Allowing for that historic difference, surely the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to deny that the extreme power of suppression ought to be charily exercised, and only exercised upon a clear and indisputable case. I say that the right hon. Gentleman's case was not clear. The right hon. Gentleman made the significant and important admission that Boards of Guardians were perfectly justified if they chose to occupy a part of their time in passing political resolutions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. What I said was, that members of Boards of Guardians who happen to hold particular views can, if they choose—for nobody would interfere at all—after the Board meeting is over, pass any resolutions they like.
    MR. STANSFELD: I was about to make precisely that statement, so that the right hon. Gentleman's interruption was uncalled for. The right hon. Gentleman admits that Boards of Guardians have this right; only he says it is n question of time and opportunity. According to the right hon. Gentleman, if the Cork Board of Guardians had attended to their Poor Law business first, and passed their resolutions at the end of the business meeting, he would
    1546
    have had no fault to find, or, at any rate, would have taken no action.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not so.
    MR. STANSFELD: Then I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. Ho said in the most distinct way that their fault was that they passed these resolutions at the beginning and not at the end of the meeting. I say that is no justification for the action the Chief Secretary took. It is conceivable that by passing these resolutions at the beginning of the meetings they might interrupt business, but the right hon. Gentleman made no such statement. Is it an efficient defence to say that a resolution was passed at the beginning instead of the end of a sitting I Should not the right hon. Gentleman have followed up that statement by a demonstration that the Poor Law had suffered? I do not wonder that he did not put it much higher, because time was when the right hon. Gentleman's friends constituted the majority on these Boards of Guardians and passed political resolutions, and I have never yet heard that they were suspended for passing such resolutions either at the beginning or end of the proceedings of the Board. The power of suppression is an evil power, a power which in this country we should not dream of exercising under any conceivable circumstances. It is incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to give full and exhaustive answers to Irish complaints. The President of the English Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would not have ventured to address to this House such an argument as we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour). It is because it is an Irish grievance that the right hon. Gentleman, in his accustomed manner, has thought right to treat it with cynical indifference. Having known something about the administration of the Poor Law, I say he is bound to show that the case was extreme or he cannot justify the application of so severe and stringent a power. He is bound to show that the business of the meeting was not fulfilled and that the poor suffered in consequence of the non-fulfilment of the duties of the Board. I invite the right

    1547
    hon. Gentleman to complete an explanation which, I say, as it stands, is utterly incomplete and unsatisfactory.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman may have known something at one time of the administration of the Poor Law, but I think he must have forgotten it. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that such proceedings as those of the Cork Board of Guardians would be tolerated in England. I venture to think that they would not be tolerated here. The right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose that the action of the Local Government Board in suppressing the Board of Guardians was sudden, arbitrary, and unexpected. There never was such a mistake made.
    MR. STANSFELD: I did not say anything of the kind.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech—
    MR. STANSFELD: I listened to every word of it.
    MR. A J. BALFOUR: I will put it in this way. If I had been able to convey my meaning to the right hon. Gentleman, lie would have seen how entirely uncalled for were some of the heated observations he has made. The Local Government Board addressed a remonstrance to the Guardians for an infraction of the recognised rules of the Local Government Board as early as January 18, 1888.
    DR. TANNER: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether it is not the fact that all the remonstrances were in respect of the same rule?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not question the force of the observation of the hon. Gentleman. But as early as 18th January, 1888, the Local Government Board addressed a letter of remonstrance to the Cork Board for an infraction of the regulations. The remonstrance was repeated on November 14, 1888, and it was again repeated on August 7, 1889. On that occasion the Local Government Board wrote pointing out that such conduct as the disorderly opposition to the ruling of the Chairman, and adjourning the meeting, leaving much important
    1548
    business undone, was of such a kind; that, unless the Board of Guardians proceeded to discharge their duties, the Local Government Board would be compelled to dissolve them. Again, on October 2, 1889, the Local Government Board addressed the Guardians on the continued disregard of the order regulating their proceedings, and addressed a final warning, in which they stated that if the Guardians continued to leave un discharged the important functions entrusted to them, the Local Government Board would feel themselves compelled to relieve the Guardians of the duties which they appeared to be unable or unwilling to fulfil according to the regulations governing their proceedings. In 1890 occurred the scenes I have referred to. On three separate occasions the Board of Guardians deliberately put off their business in order to pass political and personal resolutions which had no reference whatever to the duties they were called upon to perform.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: What were those resolutions?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman—
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: What were the resolutions?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman seems to regard that as a matter of small importance. It is not a matter of small importance.
    MR. STANSFELD: The right hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I believe I spoke clearly and distinctly. My case was that the right hon. Gentleman had not condescended to give an explanation of the circumstances. The only statement he made was that the Board of Guardians had passed resolutions at the beginning of the meeting.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has given an inaccurate version of my speech. I expressed myself in language which might have been intelligible even to him.
    DR. TANNER: I rise to order. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in making such a statement as that?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to use such language, though I think it is unusual. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax that if he had heard the first speech of the Chief Secretary I think the misunderstanding would not have arisen.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely agree with your ruling, Sir. The circumstance which perhaps made me speak with a little heat is now entirely explained. It now appears that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear my remarks, hut notwithstanding that he comes forward and attacks me for having given no explanation, the right hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to he in his place to hear my explanation.
    MR. STANSFELD: I beg pardon; I did hear his speech in reply to an hon. Member behind me, and I assumed that that reply was intended as an explanation to the hon. Member.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am responsible in this matter. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not heard the first speech which contained the explanation of the absence of which he complains?
    MR. STANSFELD: I certainly did not hear that statement. I only heard the statement to which I refer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not again complain of my not having given the Committee an adequate account of the transaction. I explained to the Committee the circumstances which occurred in 1889. It is not necessary to meet the explanation. Suffice it to say that on three separate occasions the Board of Guardians broke through the regulations laid down for the conduct of business by the Local Government Board, and that this was followed by a final warning; and, in my opinion, neither the Presidents of the Local Government Boards in England or in Ireland could possibly have left unnoticed and undealt with so grave and deliberate an infraction of the rules laid down for the transaction of Poor Law business in every Union in the country.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: The language the right hon. Gentleman
    1550
    has thought fit to address to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who occupied the important post of President of the Local Government Board before the Chief Secretary had a seat in this House, was unworthy of the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary said the Cork Board of Guardians was suppressed because it passed political and personal resolutions, but he left the Committee entirely in ignorance as to what the nature of the resolutions was. From time to time the Cork Guardians received warnings because they passed resolutions condemnatory of evictions. What subject was more suitable for Guardians to deal with? Is it not provided by laws passed by this House that it is necessary for landlords, the friends of the right hon. Gentleman, to send notice to the Board of Guardians to provide space in the workhouse for evicted tenants? I think it is, therefore, quite within the right of the Guardians to condemn by resolution a course of conduct which places burdens upon their shoulders.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the force of my observations. What I said was that those members of the Board who took a particular view of any subject were at perfect liberty to stay after business hours and pass resolutions, but to pass resolutions with regard to a particular suit brought against the Member for Cork at the beginning of business, thereby preventing the public business of the Union from being transacted, was contrary to the regulations of the Local Government Board.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I will come to that in a moment. Such, I say, was the nature of the resolutions passed by the Board of Guardians in 1888 and 1889. But the Local Government Board did not act on those resolutions, but they acted upon a personal resolution. The Cork Guardians passed a resolution congratulating a certain gentleman upon his recovery from a serious illness, and shortly afterwards the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), acting upon the precedent established by the friends of the right hon. Gentleman, proposed

    1551
    a resolution of confidence in his chief and leader (Mr. Parnell). I maintain that that was a very proper resolution to pass. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has impressed his personality upon the legislation of this House, affecting Poor Law Guardians in Ireland. The character of the hon. Gentleman was attacked, and thereupon the Cork Guardians expressed their confidence in the hon. Member. There was no dissolution of the Board two or three years ago when they passed resolutions both before, during, and after the legitimate business of the Board. And why? Because the Guardians were presided over by a Nationalist. Last year and this year the Board has been presided over by a friend of the right hon. Gentleman, and he has declined to receive resolutions, hence the difficulty. The Chairman has been incited to this course of conduct by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech in the Antient Concert Rooms in Dublin, in which he incitedߞ Ah! he is going away now. He flies! He made a speech on that occasion last year, and it has been adverted to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo as the only occasion upon which the right hon. Gentleman addressed a meeting of Irishmen, or of people who call themselves Irish when it suits them. This, the only meeting he has addressed in Ireland, was held with closed doors, and those who attended it took care that their names did not appear in the public Press. To this meeting the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself, and among other things he advised those who were Chairmen of Poor Law Boards, and of the same way of thinking as himself, not to accept these resolutions. Therefore, I say he incited to a precipitation of these difficulties. Naturally, the elected Guardians on the Cork Board insisted upon having the resolution considered. The ex officio Guardians left the room with their Chairman, the hon. Member for South Hunts, I suppose, leading them. The Nationalist Guardians put their own Chairman in the chair, and conducted the rest of the business with satisfaction to themselves, the ratepayers, and the poor, for whom they had to provide. This was how the
    1552
    present state of things was brought about, and the action of suppressing the Board was because the resolution was of a character obnoxious to the Government. My hon. Friend, when the right hon. Gentleman alluded to this, said a resolution had been passed congratulating a Conservative Member of the Board upon his return to health and his duties, and then the right hon. Gentleman said that was an additional reason why they ought to be suppressed. Now, surely the right hon. Gentleman was not serious when he made such an observation as that. Does he think he can impose upon our intelligence as an additional reason for suppression the fact that the Board passed a resolution congratulating a Conservative Member of the Board who had been seriously ill, and who is highly respected by every member of the Board? Well, so much for the Cork Board of Guardians. I turn to another matter I desire to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Vote. The Local Government Board are constantly engaged in the interesting process of boycotting the National Press of Ireland. In and out of the House we hear the Chief Secretary stigmatise boycotting as a criminal conspiracy, but the Boards under the control of the right hon. Gentleman are engaged every day in boycotting the National Press in Ireland. A circular has been sent out by one of these Boards to the effect that only that portion of the Press which is friendly to the Government in Ireland should receive official advertisements. At the present moment the Cork Daily Herald and the Cork Examiner, the two Nationalist papers which circulate not only throughout the County of Cork, but throughout the whole Province of Minister, receive not a single advertisement from the Local Government Board. These advertisements are all sent to the Cork Constitution, which has a limited circulation among the few friends of the hon. Member for South Hunts. The Cork National Press is abolutely boycotted. The Members of the Boards, with the Chief Secretary at their head, have entered into a criminal conspiracy to boycott the Cork Herald and the Cork Examiner. This ought to discount a great deal the effect of those denunciations we hear from the right hon. Gentleman when he stands at that

    1553
    Table, and with those dialectical flourishes for which he is so remarkable declaims against everybody for indulging in boycotting. Again, the Nationalist newspaper in Carlow, having the largest circulation in that county, has been deprived of these advertisements. The editor has written to the secretaries of these Boards, pointing out the injustice to which his newspaper has been subjected, but he has got no satisfactory answer. He has been told, indeed, that he has been sent to gaol, but I should have thought that the offence of the editor had been expiated by a two months' imprisonment, but that is not so in the view of the Local Government Board and the Government of Ireland. Although he has rested his weary frame on the plank bed, has partaken of the fare of the convict, and worn the convict dress, when he comes out again to pursue his avocations he is followed with punishment into his private life by that system of boycotting which the right hon. Gentleman meets elsewhere with "shadowing" and vigorous denunciation. These things lead us to the belief that the Local Government Board is actuated by that animus which exists in the mind of the Chief Secretary. I should have thought that the Local Government Board would have acted in a fair spirit towards the Local Poor Law Boards. It is many years ago since the Act was passed calling into existence Boards of Guardians in Ireland, and the people were called upon to exercise rights previously suppressed, the people of Ireland being hopelessly subject to penal laws. Without any previous training in the science of local administration the people were called upon to exercise their powers, and yet from the day they were called into existence until now these Boards have conducted their business so well that in one instance only had the Controlling Board found it necessary to exercise its authority and suppress a Board for dereliction of duty, and I may mention that in that one instance business was conducted almost entirely by ex officio members. This is a highly creditable state of things, such as would do credit to a more favoured country. Through all these years the people have done their business
    1554
    thoroughly well, and there was no friction until, through stress of political circumstances, the people were obliged to use their Poor Law Boards for the exercise of their undoubted right in the expression of their political opinions, or, at all events, those opinions that bore upon the maintenance of the poor in Ireland. We notice that this question first arose on the very inception of the National movement, under a former Government, when an attempt was made to prevent doctors holding positions under the Poor Law Board from taking their natural place among the people in their popular agitation. In all such cases the people stood by the doctors, and, in deference to popular opinion, doctors who were deprived of their positions were reinstated. Now we find another course is being pursued. We found a year or two ago a Wexford Board of Guardians was suppressed because they made special provision for the relief of evicted tenants, and now these Cork Guardians have been suppressed because they passed resolutions of a quatsi-political character, which, undoubtedly, had a bearing on the maintenance of the provision for the poor. Unfortunately, the Local Boards are under the authority of the Board presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, and his animus and his spirit prevails on the Board, and so we see that, without sufficient cause, this great principle of representative local administration is destroyed, for the purpose of giving vent to the expression of political acrimony which distinguishes the Chief Secretary.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I may be allowed to ask the Chief Secretary one question, and that is, whether, while the members of the Cork Board of Guardians were passing political and personal resolutions, the rates were to a great extent uncollected, and the balance at the bank was against them; and whether, since the Vice-Guardians were appointed, the condition of affairs has improved?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I believe the administration of the Union has greatly improved.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The observation of the hon. Member is

    1555
    calculated to convey a false impression. It is a notorious fact that throughout the Unions in the South and West it is a very common thing for the accounts of the Guardians at the banks to be overdrawn in January, for the simple reason that the rates are not collected until later. I know this is the case of Tuam, which is a well-managed Union. It is a well recognised habit for bankers to allow accounts to be overdrawn until after the fairs are held, when rates are paid in and there is a large balance to the credit of the Guardians. It is simply a matter of arrangement, and there is nothing exceptional in the fact that the account of the Cork Guardians was overdrawn.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Upon the answer which has just been given, may I ask is it not a fact that the paid Guardians do not give that attention to outdoor relief which occupied much of the time of the elected Guardians, week by week, as they revised the list of the recipients of this form of relief, relieving the charge upon the rates by this part of a well recognised and enlightened system of Poor Law administration?
    MR. DILLON: Does the hon. Member for South Tyrone mean to convey, by his question, or insinuate, that it is any part of the duty of Guardians to go out and collect rates from the ratepayers?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I intended to convey nothing of the kind, but I do say they would have been better occupied in seeing that the business of the Union was done than in passing resolutions about the O'Shea Divorce case.
    MR. DILLON: But the hon. Member did not speak of the business of the Union; he spoke of the collection of rates, not of business to be done around the Board table. I have never been a member of a Board of Guardians, but I have always understood that the business of collecting rates is the work of collectors, who are bound to collect the money under penalties, and it is nothing to do with
    1556
    the business of the Board meetings But, however that may be, any neglect is equally attributable to the majority on the Board, the Conservative and nominated members. The fact is, a shameful, scandalous animus underlies the action of the Local Government Board. The Cork Guardians committed the unforgiveable sin of passing a resolution in favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. They might have passed resolutions by the score on other subjects. These are the only constituted Representative Bodies we have except Town Councils; they are the only representative Rural Bodies, and do yon lay down the principle that they are not to be allowed to give expression to the feelings of the people? The right hon. Gentleman plainly showed what was the real cause of the suppression. Not because they neglected business, because he did not attempt to prove to the Committee that there had been any such neglect; the reason was because the Guardians passed a resolution of confidence in the hon. Member for Cork.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I stated precisely the reverse.
    MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Board neglected business?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. DILLON: We have it from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that they did not leave the Board-room until they had concluded all the business of the meeting. My hon. Friend says, and he was present that the whole of the business was finished before they separated, and we want something more than a bare ipse dixit on the other side. If they did not conclude the business, what part of it was left undone? Further, the right hon. Gentleman says the proposing of the resolution led to waste of time. Why? Was it the fault of the Guardians who introduced it? Nothing of the sort. It was because of the unreasonable and outrageously partisan conduct of the Chairman, who obstructed the introduction of the resolution,

    1557
    although he had allowed a resolution in reference to one of his own party—his son-in-law I am told—to be passed without protest and with approval. This was done in a few minutes, but when a resolution was introduced in favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork the Chairman obstructed the resolution, the Tory members of the Board made a disturbance, and so the time of the Board was wasted. I protest against the waste of time being charged against the Nationalist Guardians. I say that the members of this Board of Guardians were entitled to pass this resolution, although it did not form part of their particular business. You cannot, by a hard and fast rule, utterly gag the people of Ireland. If you will not give them Local Government it is absurd to say the mouths of Guardians shall be shut, and that they shall not, provided they attend to business, express the opinion of those they represent on public matters of the time. If there was neglect of business, there was sufficient reason for suppression, and there was no reason to refer to the resolution: but as no neglect of business is shown, we may fairy assume that the resolution was the cause of suppression. We are entitled to have the specific grounds upon which the Board was suspended. If the right hon. Gentleman has details of the business, as his answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone would seem to indicate, we are entitled to have this information. I do not suppose he has the same conception of the duty of Boards of Guardians as the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that it includes interference with the business of rate collectors. The hon. Member has left his seat; I was going to ask him if he had paid his own rates, for I know it is not at all an unusual thing, even in Dublin, to defer the payment of our rates until the autumn, but we do not live in fear of our furniture being seized for arrears.?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I need not again go over the grounds upon which I defended the action of the Local Government Board, but the hon. Member has asked me a specific question, to which I will endeavour to give him a reply. The business left undone
    1558
    by the Cork Board of Guardians on January 9, was the consideration of the Report of the Engineer with reference to the Blarney water supply; a question as to labourers' cottages; the Report of the medical officer with reference to the defaulters under the Vaccination Act; the consideration of a communication from the Local Government Board as to statistics of relief and the salary of one of the officers; and other matters. The business left undone on January 16 included the consideration of a Motion of which notice had been given by the Chairman, in reference to out-door relief, and the Report on the water supply. This is the specific information I have at my disposal.
    DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question at all. He has not told us what business was left undone on the occasion when the Tory members, led by the hon. Member for South Hunts, the absentee landlord, effected a strategic retreat to the County Club. We put the Mayor in the Chair, and we finished all the business before us; we left none undone; we finished all arrears of business that had accumulated. Some Members of this Committee may not understand that frequently there are before the Board and especially in large Unions like Cork, debateable matters, such as the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to, the Blarney Water Supply, that have to be referred again to officers or to Committees. It would have been unwise and unfair if we had taken advantage of the absence of the Tory members to settle a matter-still under debate. We did not wish to-copy their bad example; we desired to act squarely and above board; we hit straight, and not under the belt, when, necessity arises.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Those who are familiar with the business before Boards of Guardians know that there are subjects with which some members of the Board are better able to give advice than others, and, especially in regard to such matters as building, and engineering, it is the habit to post-

    1559
    pone a settlement in the absence of members whose technical information may b3 of value. Two of the matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman come within this category, labourers' cottages and water supply, and the settlement of such building and engineering questions is not infrequently postponed by every Board. As to vaccination cases, these are always put off. There will probably be a large number of cases as to which it is open to the Guardians to prosecute, but it would be most injudicious to proceed at once. Decision is advisedly postponed, and the result usually is that the list of persons who have failed to comply with the Act is largely reduced, and you are saved the irritation and expense that would be entailed if the Guardians acted up to the very letter of their powers. These are matters outside the necessary financial and routine work connected with the administration of the Poor Law, and I do not think there is much difference in the administration of Poor Law Boards in Ireland to that in England.
    Mr. ARTHUR BALTOURrose 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. M. HEALY: There can be no doubt that the Government have been guilty of gross unfairness in the treatment they have meted out to the Cork Board of Guardians for having passed resolutions of a political character. The real question is whether the Cork Guardians did their business in an efficient manner. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary contend that it is entirely beyond the competence of a Board of Guardians to pass resolutions in regard to political topics? If he is of that opinion, I am not, and I would remind the Committee that it is not so very long ago when the right hon. Gentleman himself sent a letter to a Board of Guardians thanking them for a resolution they had passed in favour of his own Land Purchase Bill. That is an incident which occurred within the last six months. So that we are in this position, that the right hon. Gentleman
    1560
    thinks it necessary to suppress one Board of Guardians for having, as has been stated, neglected its duty in regard to the collection of rates, and for having, at the same time, passed resolutions of a political character in defiance of the Local Government Board, while, on the other hand, when another Board of Guardians passes a resolution expressing approval of the right hon. Gentleman's Land Purchase Bill, so far from suppressing that body he, as head of the Local Government Board of Ireland, actually sends that body a letter of thanks. In point of fact, he did not even allow the letter to be written by his private secretary, but the document approving the action of that particular Board of Guardians was written in his own fine Roman hand. I ask the Committee, and I also ask the right hon. Gentleman, how can he reconcile the action involved in the despatch of such a letter, with that which he took in directing the suppression of the Cork Board of Guardians, which had also thought it right to pass political resolutions, but which had taken a totally different view of the political situation from that of the other body. The real difficulty in regard to that Board arose from the obstruction originated by the right hon. Gentleman's own political friends. Of all the acts which have helped to heap opprobrium on the name of the right hon. Gentleman, there is, I think, none that can be regarded as worse than his suppression of the Cork Board of Guardians, whereby the people of that locality are deprived of their legitimate local representation.
    MR. SMITH-BARRY: I can state, as a member of the Cork Board of Guardians, that great surprise was felt at the fact that that body was not dissolved long before. The majority of that Board persistently, day after day, defied and defeated the ruling of the Chairman and the directions of the Local Government Board, which have been instanced by the right hon. Gentleman, and into the details of which I do not now propose to go. It is, therefore, perfectly untrue and inconsistent with the facts of the case to say

    1561
    that the difficulty was occasioned by the obstruction of the Tory members of the Board. The ex officio and Conservative members of the Board used to go down for the purpose of doing the business of the Board, and whenever those members were in a majority, the business of the Board was done; but, on the other hand, whenever it was found that they were in a minority, obstruction went on, extraneous matters were introduced, the interests of the Union were neglected, the Conservative members found it necessary to withdraw, after the Chairman left the chair, and the meeting became a perfect bear garden. The result was, that it was utterly impossible to carry on the real business of the Board, and the ratepayers had to complain of the neglect of their interests. Now, however, under the new system, the rates are being reduced, the business of the Union is being efficiently conducted, and I have no hesitation in stating that, in the opinion of the majority of the ratepayers, and also of the Guardians, it was a great relief when the Board was dissolved.
    MR. TUITE: I desire to say, in reference to the non-appointment of Mr. Keogh, that I assume the reason is that he is a Nationalist, and the Chief Secretary has done his best to ruin him by driving him from his house and home, and now refuses to allow the Guardians to give him an appointment for which he is well qualified.
    MR. CLANCY: We have just had from the hon. Member for South Hunts a very characteristic speech. I think if anything were wanted to show why the hon. Gentleman could not live comfortably in Ireland, and has been obliged to remove to England, it is to be found in the remarks he has just made. The most detestable character in Irish history is the anti-Irish Irishman, and more than once the hon. Gentleman has illustrated that character in this House. Whenever anyone is wanted in this House to throw dirt on Ireland, we may reckon with confidence on the assistance of the hon. Member for South Hunts. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the
    1562
    opinions of the ratepayers of the Cork Union with regard to the action of the Cork Guardians. I should like to know what body of ratepayers the hon. Member represents in the Cork Union. The hon. Gentleman does not represent any portion of the ratepayers, and is obliged to fall back on his ex officio qualification, and even in that capacity he has been an absentee for the last two or three years I have only risen to point out the character of the hon. Member's speech, and that of the hon. Gentleman the-Member for Tyrone, in regard to which I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the support or defence he has received tonight from his two jackals.
    MR. LLEWELLYN: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is in order in the remarks he is making?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would the better conduce to the conduct of business if the hon. Member would adopt a more moderate tone.
    *LORD DUNSANY: I also rise to order; and I desire to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to characterize Members on this side of the House as-jackals?
    MR. CLANCY: I only referred to one hon. Member sitting on that side of the House. This is a more important matter than many people think. It is a question whether the representative system in Ireland is to be extinguished by an irresponsible Chief Secretary. The question is whether these Boards of Guardians are to be suppressed on the merest pretext or no pretext at all. The right hon. Gentleman has not pretended to answer the question whether the business has been left undone by the Board of Guardians. He gave an account of the business left undone on certain occasions, but he did not give a single instance of business left undone on the occasions when the Guardians were present. All the business was completed before the Board separated, and I think we are entitled to an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I think what my hon. Friend has said is sufficient to explode the pretext of the right hon. Gentleman for suppressing the Board. I happen to have been Member of a Board of Guardians for 10 or 12 years, and on several occasions we could not get three members together to form a quorum. The consequence is that no business whatever was done, and I wow Id like to know why we never heard any complaint from the Chief Secretary. It is idle for the Chief Secretary to say that the Local Government Board did not approve of Mr. Keogh's appointment, because be bad not sufficient legal knowledge. Three months ago, a similar appointment was made by the Board of which I am a member. There were several candidates, and the successful one had never in his whole life occupied any position of the sort. He admitted that he had never kept books, and that he knew nothing whatever about the office for which he had become a candidate. I have no hesitation in saying that Keogh was refused, not because he was inefficient, but because he was an evicted tenant. At the head of the Local Government Board in Dublin is Mr. George Morris, who at one time happened to be agent on the property from which Keogh was evicted. Mr. Morris, in order to carry out the vindictiveness of his former master, refused Keogh the appointment. That is the real reason why he was refused. It is an extraordinary thing that no man in Ireland has the slightest chance of an appointment who has been imprisoned under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman. On a recent occasion we gave an appointment to a gentleman capable of filling any position. He is Chairman of the Loughrea Town Commissioners. The appointment was a small one, that of Registrar. The Local Government Board refused to sanction it because the newly-appointed Registrar had been in prison under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman. No later than this very evening, I have received notice that the appointment of rate-collector in my parish will be filled up to-morrow.
    1564
    About three weeks ago it was filled up, but the man, like Mr. Keogh and Mr. Sweeny, had been in prison, but the people honoured him, and the majority of the Board thought him best qualified for the position. Mr. Courtney, if I ceased to be a Member to-morrow, and applied for the rate-collectorship, which is only worth some £20 or £30 a year, my appointment would not be sanctioned by the Local Government Board. I would be told that I could not occupy that position because I had been in prison. That is the system which we object to in Ireland, and I think you will admit that we ought to resist it by every means in our power, and we are determined to resist it. I next come to the case of Mr. Timothy Clarke, of the Portumna Board. I brought the case before the House on a previous occasion. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. Clarke was undergoing three months imprisonment in consequence of having signed the Relieving Officer's book for relief to evicted tenants. Yon are aware that the law provides that evicted tenants shall be relieved for the four weeks immediately after their eviction. Mr. Clarke, acting in his capacity of Guardian, and in accordance with the rule, relieved these evicted tenants, with the result that the Local Government Board sent down an officer, and when auditing the books, lie objected to every item of relief given to the tenants evicted from the Clanricarde Estate. The case of Mr. Ayre, a landlord, is different from that of Mr. Clark; but at the very time Mr. Ayre was proceeded against, another member of the Board, Mr. Timothy Kirwan, was proceeded against, and allowed to go scot-free. They ceased to be members of the Board, as they were suspended by the right hon. Gentleman, not because they did not do their duty as guardians, but because they refused to allow the evicted tenants of Clanricarde to starve. The right hon. Gentleman then sent down two of his friends to do the duty at a salary of £500.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it possible that any succeeding Liberal Administration will go on as this

    1565
    Government have proceeded? Does he think the officials of the Local Government Board will act under a Liberal Government as they have done under his rule? The right hon. Gentleman may assert that it is impossible for any civilised country to be governed in a different manner; he speaks as if his system of law and order were like the car of Juggernaut. But may I suggest it is astounding how easily that great car of law and order is shunted into a siding when it suits his purposes. Suppose that under the next Liberal Administration it should occur that a member of a Board of Guardians gets up and proposes a vote of confidence in the hon. Member for Cork, does he think it probable that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle will issue an Order the next morning suppressing that Board? It is not at all likely that such a thing would occur. The hon. Member for South Hunts has had the audacity to state that the people of Cork rejoiced at the dissolution of their own Board, because it had passed a resolution of confidence in their own local Member. I think it would be well for the hon. Member to be a little more modest in his ambition to have his name associated with the people of Cork. He is not entitled to speak for the ratepayers of Cork. Why, he would not be elected as a porter in the workhouse; That the people who elected the Member of Parliament, in whom the vote of confidence was passed, should rejoice that their Board was dissolved for passing this vote of confidence is rather too strong even for a Primrose League meeting in South Hunts. If the House of Commons was entitled to put on record its hatred for the Member for Cork, instead of attending to its business of voting Supply, why should not the Cork Board of Guardians, at exactly the same time, pass a resolution in a contrary sense, and declare their confidence in Mr. Parnell? It is a pity the House of Com-
    1566
    mons does not set a better example. If the hon. Member for Cork had not been so atrociously attacked by gentlemen connected with the Times newspaper, and by Mr. Pigott, it might be that the House of Commons would now be pursuing the even tenour of its way. But when the House of Commons declares itself to be entitled to enter upon its record such a Report as that of the Parnell Commission Judges, is it a wonder the Cork Board should feel itself justified in declaring its own opinion on the matter, which so seriously affected its own Representative in this House? Remember that this is the largest Board of Guardians in Ireland, and yet for simply passing a vote of confidence you suppress it, and appoint three paid Guardians to do the work of the Board, at the cost of £1,000 a year. The Irish Government ought to have some sense of proportion, because I maintain that a grosser case of absurdity has never been perpetrated, even by the Irish Local Government Board. I observed a case the other day in which an English School Board sat up all night, assisted by wine and sausages, in order to settle who should be chairman, but after sitting about a day and a half the question was settled by tossing, or some other British method of settling difficulties. Were they dissolved? Then there was the Metropolitan Board of Works, a spectacle for gods and men during many years. The Chief Secretary should remember that Irishmen have not received the training which has belonged to English Municipal Bodies since the days of Queen Elizabeth. What we object to is this irritating system of harassing Local Bodies all over Ireland. Let me give an illustration of this policy. For instance, the Local Government Board refused to sanction the appointment of Mr. Keogh as the master of the Athlone Workhouse simply because this man happened to be an evicted tenant, who, on the occasion of his eviction, was alleged to have committed a trifling assault on a policeman and to have resisted the Sheriff. But contrasted this with the action of the Government in the case of another man named Hewett, who was convicted of a most violent assault in the County Kildare, and who yet was considered a fit and proper person to be appointed as

    1567
    a member of the Dublin Police Force. This irritating policy must be abandoned. It must no longer be the case that a policeman who fires a revolver shall escape scot free, while a Nationalist who commits a petty assault is to be pounced upon. And now I desire to say a few words with regard to the question of labourers' cottages and the action of the Privy Council. The Inspectors of the Privy Council are doing their best to prevent the Labourers' Act working successfully. I trust something will be done to meet the difficulties that have arisen.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled on this Vote to condemn the action of the Privy Council.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: But I want something done to ensure that proper homes shall be provided for these miserable roofless families, and I would urge that the Local Government Board Inspectors should do all they can to promote schemes framed by Boards of Guardians under the Labourers' Act. The Local Government Board Inspectors are honestly endeavouring to do something for the poor people under the Labourers' Acts, but they are obstructed in their duty in a most heartless way by those above them. One of them, who tried to do his duty was sent from the South of Ireland to Ulster, where not a single scheme for labourers' cottages has been set on foot. I submit further that if the Local Government Board had any ambition beyond that of suppressing Boards of Guardians, they would do something towards seeing that the Labourers' Act is carried out in Ulster. We sometimes have flash-in-the-pan Motions from the hon. Member for North Antrim to bring forward this matter, and to call attention to the remissness of the Local Government Board in not carrying out the Labourers' Act, but those Motions never get discussed. This is a matter which I submit the Government are bound to take into their consideration. I do not
    1568
    say that we in the province of Ulster have done what we ought to have done, but not one single scheme has been evolved. A scheme was put forward in Antrim, but what happened? The Guardians rejected it. And what did the Local Government Board do when appealed to? Nothing. I say that they would be well advised if in these days they went in for a little less clap trap and a little more administration—the working classes in Ireland would then be a little better off than they are. These poor labourers cannot now get elected. The House may be surprised to hear that the Queen's Bench decided a long time ago that a landlord in Ireland might cast 36 votes. What chance has a poor unfortunate labourer of getting elected as a Poor Law Guardian when he has but one vote? This House requires no qualification for election. If it did, probably some hon. Gentlemen we now see in this House would not be here, especially if it were an educational test. The Guardians in Ireland, so select must they be to deal with questions of outdoor relief and vaccine lymph that a high qualification test is imposed, but I contend, in the interest of the Irish labouring classes, that the Irish Local Government Board ought to exercise the powers that lie in them, and reduce the qualification. We did pass in this House an Act abolishing the qualification, but as soon as it got into "another place," that illustrious Assembly quickly burked the measure. The Local Government Board, however, have power to reduce the qualification, and I call upon them to do it. Let them give labour a chance of representation on the Boards of Guardians. With regard to the Por-tumna Union, I should like to ask a question as to the ill-treatment of the gentleman to whom reference has been made. Is it not an appalling thing that a man should get three months' imprisonment with hard labour for having signed a cheque in favour of an evicted tenant? He only signed the relieving officer's book, and I am wrong in saying that he signed a cheque. This system of relieving evicted tenants is legal. It seems that on the occasion in question a surplus sum was voted. There was no moral guilt, in fact it appears to have been altogether a

    1569
    mistake. The Board of Guardians had previously been surcharged in connection with similar votes, and so long as a gentleman named Ay re, a Justice of the Peace for the county, was chairman of the Board the Local Government Board did not make him pay a penny. He was a Conservative; he signed the cheques—to his credit be it said that he was willing to vote money for evicted tenants—and no notice was taken of the matter. His successor, however, got three months' imprisonment for doing that which he had done with impunity. When attention is drawn to these different methods of dealing with the same offence, the answer is that Mr. Ayre when he signed the cheques did not know the law. Is that a valid excuse? Surely that is a most extraordinary confession for the party of law and order to make. And is it not an extraordinary thing that the lawyers should be so keen, and their wits should be so sharp when they have to deal with a Nationalist, and that they should be so dull and stupid when dealing with a Conservative. In the case of Mr. Ayre he said he could not find the amount of money he was surcharged, and when it was attempted by the Sheriff's officer to seize his goods a return of nulla bona was made. The Sheriffs are very friendly sometimes. I hope Mr. Ayre will not be dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, and I do not think he will, but if he were a Nationalist I wonder how long he would be allowed to sit in judgment on Her Majesty's subjects. I maintain that what has occurred in this case is a perfect scandal, and I ask the President of the English Local Government Board whether supposing the chairman of the St. Pancras Union had voted cakes and ale for his necessitous friends on the Board or any one else, he would have got three months' imprisonment for it? I say, certainly not, and I therefore ask, why should there be one law in Portumna and another in St. Pancras? Can anyone tell me if there is a single instance extant in England where people who have been surcharged have been sent to gaol for three months? I do not think so, and yet the Party opposite talk so much about sanctity of law and order.
    1570
    Another gentleman, Mr. Kerwin, was sent to gaol under similar circumstances for one month, and another, Mr. Clark, who was surcharged £20, had three months' imprisonment, which shows the lovely gradation of guilt which is in the minds of the Irish Magistracy. One gentleman got three months' imprisonment and another one month for the same moral offence. It was not because Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Clark could not pay the money that they were sent to gaol. It was because they would not. The Local Government Board does not pounce upon Mr. Ayre and his predecessors, but it does upon the Nationalists, to whom a vindictive punishment is meted out. Is that the way the Quakers were treated in regard to the tithe question—is that the way the anti-vaccinationists were dealt with in Leicester? When was the Leicester Board of Guardians last dissolved for not carrying out the Vaccination Acts? Is that Board dissolved? Have three paid noodles been sent down to Leicester to preside over the administration of the Poor Law there? You do not treat English Bodies in the way you do the Irish, and yet the latter are supposed to be happy, contented, and loyal. They are supposed to be contented and loyal under a system which tolerates a member of an Irish Board getting three months' hard labour for signing a relieving officer's book, and which at the same time allows a member of the English Board of Guardians to defy the law with impunity. I say such a thing is monstrous. When the Chief Secretary gets up and says—"We have defended the weak against the strong," I ask him, "Did you defend Clark or Kerwin, or Keogh; did you protect the weak in that case?" I say the right hon. Gentleman's assertion is all clap trap and nonsense. The reason I respect the right hon. Gentleman is for his intellectual qualities, and because I know that he never can for a moment believe in his own heart the statements which are put into his mouth by his officials. He thinks those stories are good enough for the Tory Party—and I quite agree with him in that, though I do not think that it takes much intellect to lead the Tory Party, or to convince them upon any point. I most

    1571
    admire the way he can extract cheers from them by his statements about protecting the weak against the strong. His speech yesterday glided gracefully over all the ugly points he had to deal with, and then out came a volume of clap-trap about "protecting the weak against the strong," and "law and order," and he gracefully invited the Conservative majority to act as judges—moving the Closure at the end of all. That is the right hon. Gentleman's Irish policy. I would suggest to him that before he moves the Closure he would be good enough to tell us some of the facts in justification of his conduct in reference to the man Clark, and in reference to Kerwin and Keogh. I would ask him on the analogy of Ayre's treatment, and on the analogy of the action of the English Local Government Board, to defend his policy. This is a question of daily administration, and I ask him for facts and specific information in regard to the cases we have brought before him. I ask him to justify his administration. I ask him to let us know why, because he finds that Mr. Smith-Barry wishes it, the Cork Board of Guardians has been dissolved?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will answer the questions put to me as far as I can. The man who was refused the post of master of a workhouse appears to have had no special qualification, unless being an evicted tenant is a qualification, and he was twice sentenced to imprisonment by the Magistrates.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What are the qualifications necessary?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly not having been twice convicted and imprisoned. With regard to the cases of Clark and Ayre, Ayre was surcharged, and it was found impossible to proceed against him under that Act, and the next time another Act was used.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Never against Ayre.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was on account of the experience of Ayre's case that another Act was used in the proceedings against Clark. There was no
    1572
    hard labour, and the sentence of two months' imprisonment was only imposed because the sum of £49 which was surcharged was not paid.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the House believe after that statement that it was on the very same day that Ayre was prosecuted that Kerwin was sent to prison?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am not mistaken. I was on the same day and before the same Magistrate in the same Court Room that Ayre was allowed to go scot-free and Kerwin was sent to gaol.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said Clark.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to sail off on a question of nomenclature. Ayre and Kerwin were summoned on the same day at the same Court, and the right hon. Gentleman says it was because the inadequacy of one Act was discovered that Kerwin was prosecuted under another. Sir, Mr. Disraeli used to say that the man who said he liked dry champagne would say anything, and I say that a Minister who would get up at that Table and make a statement that can be proved at the moment to be utterly unfounded, must be the most shameless Minister that ever disgraced an Administration. [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that his language passes the decency of Debate. I must ask him to express some regret; to withdraw the insinuation he has made.
    COLONEL NOLAN: He quoted Disraeli.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I had not the good fortune to catch every observation you made, Sir, but I take it you hold that it is not in order to say that a Minister who is capable of making a statement that can be proved on the moment to be without foundation is a shameless Minister. I, therefore, have no alter-

    1573
    native but to withdraw the words. I maintain that a gentleman in the position of the Chief Secretary, who, at a moment like this, when his policy is challenged, can, in order to get a temporary advantage, and secure, it may be, the passage of a Vote, tell English gentlemen behind him, in ignorance of the facts as they necessarily must be—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] Which of you knows them? I would like to know did any English Conservative Member ever hear of these cases before to-day? Well, I say that the right hon. Gentleman made his statements recklessly. He did not care for their accuracy. He did not care to seek information. The question had been put to him time after time in this House, so that he could not say he was not seised with knowledge of the facts of the case. Well, I stated advisedly that these two cases occurred on the same day, and he, with the most reckless exercise of his powers of assertion, stated that it was because of the futility of the law in the one case, that the other defendant was not prosecuted under the same Act. I leave these facts to the judgment of the House. But I say that if it had been I, mere Irishman as I am, member of a race unworthy to hold any position in its own country, not being a long-descended man or connected with Dukes, or Lords, or other noble people of high descent, I would have been ashamed of myself, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not ashamed of himself, all I can say is I believe there are those of his own Party in the country who will be ashamed of him.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not in the least mean to add to the heat of the Debate. The very violent attack which the hon. Member has made upon me has been made on this ground. In reply to a question asked me by the hon. Member for Galway, I stated that the two persons concerned were a man named Clark and a man named Ayre. I also stated that the action with regard to Ayre preceded the action with regard to Clark, and that because the action with regard to Ayre failed, a new procedure was used with regard to Clark. For that I have been attacked in the
    1574
    language the House has heard. I will now take the liberty of reading to the House the question put to me by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Roche), and which first brought the matter under the attention of the House. [The right hon. Gentleman here read Mr. Roche's question.] I submit that by that question it is conclusively proved that the charge which the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought fit to bring against me is confuted out of the mouth of his own colleague.
    MR. DILLON: I am not going to let the right hon. Gentleman get off in that way. I will show in a very few minutes that my hon. Friend the Member for Longford was perfectly correct in his statement. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to account for difference in the treatment of these two men, and he said that owing to the failure in Ayro's case a different procedure was adopted in Clark's case. What we say is, that this is not the truth, because on the same day on which Ayre was tried under one Act, another Nationalist named Kerwin was tried under the same procedure as was subsequently applied to the case of Mr. Clark. I think we have made out our case absolutely. It has been shown that what my hon. Friend contended is the simple and plain truth. We make a complaint. We receive an explanation respecting our complaint. We prove by the most complete and conclusive evidence that it is no answer at all, and that it is inconsistent with the real facts. We prove by the facts we have brought forward, and which the Chief Secretary has not attempted to deny—
    Lord HENRY BRUCE 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.
    MR. DILLON: We prove that the reason why a different Statute was used in Clark's case from the Statute used in Ayre's case was that Clark was a Nationalist, and elected, and that Ayre was a J.P. I am not in the least surprised

    1575
    to see the noble Lord opposite endeavouring to close the Debate. That is the resource on which they fall back when the argument is going against them, and when they find they have not a leg to stand on. I want to put this question to the Committee, Do they think it a reasonable and just punishment, or a punishment that the law ought to allow, that—
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [10th July] reported.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

    Class II.
    "That a sum, 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 3lBt day of March, 1891, for the salaries of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and other Expenses."
    Resolution agreed to.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 43.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This Bill has been on the Paper almost from the beginning of the Session, and has never been printed. I wish to ask if Members are to be kept here night after night watching a Bill which has not been printed?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If it is of any convenience to the hon. Member I will move the Second Reading.
    DR. TANNER: The Member in charge of the Bill is not present.
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): As a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether a Bill can be read a second time without having been printed?
    *MR. SPEAKER: It would not be out of order, but there are strong objections to it.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I would point out that some Acts have been passed
    1576
    into law without ever having been printed, such as the Bill relating to the naturalisation of Prince Henry of Battenberg.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

MOTION.

  POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACT (WEST INDIES.)
  (12.8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That (he Contract dated the 16th day of May, 1890, with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, for the conveyance of mails to the West Indies, be approved."—(Mr. Secretary Jackson.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think we are entitled to some explanation of this.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): The new contract provides for an accelerated service, and provides for alternative port of call and for a diminished payment of £5,000 a year. It has been submitted to all the Colonies concerned, and has been approved by them.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the rate of steaming contracted for; whether the contract provides for the acceleration of steaming under new and improved machinery, and how long the contract is to last?
  MR. JACKSON: The minimum rate provided for is 13 knots an hour on the main line. Attention has been paid to the points he has raised. I would point out that the best security we can have is that this is an important Company, working in competition with other companies, and that it is to its own interest that the service should ha efficient. Under the late contract the Company was at the end performing the service in less time than the contract specified. I have no doubt that they will keep pace with the times, and will perform the contract even in less time than is specified.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock, ti11 Monday next.

LORD CARBERY (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Lard Carbery to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such Report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

THE CONDITION OF IRELAND.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in rising to call attention to recent occurrences in the town of Tipperary and on the Ponson by Estate in the County of Cork, and to the action in connection therewith of the National League, said: My Lords, the condition of things which prevails, and has for some time prevailed, in and near the town of Tipperary is so remarkable that I think it deserves the consideration of this House and especially I hope that it will obtain due attention from the country. In Tipperary we see the extraordinary spectacle of a large number of tenants at issue with a landlord, who is admitted to be one of the best landlords in Ireland, and for whom the tenants themselves had before recent occurrences always shown the greatest respect. They are tenants not merely of agricultural farms, but also of urban holdings, and many of those who have urban holdings pay to Mr. Smith-Barry merely a small ground-rent and have erected valuable tenements with their own capital. None of the agricultural tenants have complained of the rents they are called upon to pay. Yet we see the extraordinary spectacle of men quitting fine shops, substantial houses,
1410
and good farms, ruining themselves and sacrificing their business for some reason which it is very difficult to understand. But one thing is plain, and it is that all this is done under the guidance of the local and the central leaders of the National League. The instrumentality of the National League is beyond all doubt and question; and it is very fortunate it is so in this case, because we are thus enabled to see the National League in its working, and to test how far the statements of its leaders which are made in Parliament are true; we are also enabled to examine the working of their organisation, which is conducted upon fixed principles and upon a regular plan. That plan I shall proceed to lay before your Lordships. I do not think it would be possible to get a more excellent illustration, of the methods of the National League than we have in this case. If your Lordships wish to understand this matter aright you must look at the question as a whole; you must not limit yourselves exclusively to what is now going on in Tipperary; but you must go back to the causes and to the origin of this dispute between Mr. Smith-Barry and his tenants. For that purpose it will be necessary to allude for a moment to what has taken place upon the Ponsonby Estate, near Youghal. When Mr. Ponsonby succeeded to the estate a great many years ago, it was well-known to be in a somewhat encumbered position. He has resided a good deal on the estate from time to time, and lie is well acquainted with all the circumstances of his tenants. That their rents were moderate was shown by the fact that out of 237 tenants only some 70 served originating notices under the Act of 1881, and that out of those 70 only 27 went into the Courts, the remaining rents being settled by private agreement. The average reduction taken over the whole estate was rather less than 13 per cent. In 1885 Mr. Ponsonby gave reductions of 10 and 20 per cent, to his judicial and to his nonjudicial tenants respectively; and in 1886 he made the same offer. But by that time the Plan of Campaign had been organised. On the 14th of November in that year a meeting of his tenants was held, at which Mr. Lane, M.P., and Dr. Tanner were present, and at this meeting reductions of 25 and 35 per cent, respectively were demanded. As that was not

1411
acceded to, the Plan of Campaign came into force on the estate,' and from that time, to the present not a penny of rent has, I believe, been paid upon that estate. Mr. Ponsonby made several attempts to arrange with his tenants, into the details of which I need not go; and, finally, in November, 1888, he authorised a former agent to accept a sum of £110,000 in full for the purchase of the estate. The tenants, through their representative, Canon Keller, offered £106,000, but also claimed to deduct Government charges amounting to some £16,000, which made the offer about £88,500 net. That offer Mr. Ponsonby's Trustees found it impossible to accept. It was at this point Mr. Smith-Barry, and others associated with him, appeared upon the scene. They saw that an attempt was being made to commit a very great act of injustice upon Mr. Ponsonby; they saw that this was an attack made upon a single landlord who was supposed to be in such circumstances that he was unable to resist it, and that it was intended to break him down by the sheer force and pressure of the principles of the Plan of Campaign. Therefore, Mr. Smith-Barry and others determined that they would help Mr. Ponsonby in this matter, and they purchased the estate. But before doing so they insisted that a fresh offer should be made by Mr. Ponsonby to his tenants, and that accordingly was done. By a circular of April 5, 1889, Mr. Ponsonby offered to every tenant, all then owing nearly, or quite, four years' rent, on the payment of one year's rent, either that their future rent should be fixed by agreement or through the agency of the Court, and that 3 per cent, should be paid by them on the balance of arrears, which should remain; or, if the tenants preferred to purchase, he proposed to sell to them under the terms of the Ashbourne Act at a price which would greatly diminish the present payment and would have made them owners of their holdings in 49 years. But all those offers were rejected, and the consequence was that in June of last year Mr. Ponsonby began to carry out evictions upon his estate. Now at this point I would ask your Lordships to note a fact which seems to me very important. It is this: that in the eyes of the National League
1412
it is perfectly right that Members of Parliament should go down to estates with which they have nothing to do, and of which they know nothing, to incite the tenants to join the Plan of Campaign or to take any other course they choose to advise; but if any friends of a landlord who is attacked attempt to assist him, that is a monstrous act of tyranny which must be immediately avenged by the National League. Mr. Smith-Barry, as I have said, is one of the very best landlords in Ireland. It is admitted that he takes the greatest interest in his estate and in those who are upon it, and he has expended large sums of money upon it in the same way that many of your Lordships have done in England and Scotland and Wales; and if we wish for any testimony to his character as a landlord, Sir Charles Russell) selected him when speaking before the Special Commission, and said that he was a good landlord, and that he (Sir Charles Russell) was glad to be able to-mention him as an instance of a landlord who was not merely considerate in the matter of rent, but as a landlord who-took an interest in the condition of his people, and in all that concerned them. His tenants have said precisely the same-thing in a memorial which they brought to Mr. Smith-Barry in London last year. If you want further evidence, you have the evidence of Mr. Healy. Mr. Healy has said that Mr. Smith-Barry could not be fairly described as a rack-renter, Mr. Parnell has stated in a speech, and it has been repeated over and over again in the other House, that Mr. Smith-Barry prevented a settlement on the Ponsonby Estate. That is not the fact. The difference between the landlord and the tenants was no less than £20,000 out of £110,000. Mr. Smith-Barry did not have any dealings with Mr. Ponsonby or his estate until his offer had been definitely refused by the representatives of the tenants. The next thing that is said is that Mr. Smith-Barry's tenants rose of their own free will to assist Mr. Ponsonby's tenants. Now I shall ask your Lordships to listen to the manner in which this agitation on Mr. Smith-Barry's Estate arose. The agitation on Mr. Smith-Barry's Estates was started in the first place by Mr. Lane, M.P., in a letter to the Freeman's Journal of the 11th of March, 1889, in which he said that—

1413
"If Mr. Smith-Barry devoted his rents to fighting the 300 and odd tenants on the Ponsonby Estate who nobly took the van in the last struggle to obtain justice for Irish tenants he might find it would not be to his advantage."
In a letter to Mr. Townsend, Mr. Lane, M.P., again pointed out that—
"Sooner or later every one connected with this interference would regret their co-operation in it."
The next thing was a speech of the Secretary of the Youghal Branch of the National League, saying—
"It was time that Mr. Smith-Barry was taught a lesson, and he hoped the Tipperary tenants would consider the position of their brethren on the Ponsonby Estate."
Then, on the 28th April, Mr. Lane, M.P., again speaking at a place close to Tipperary, denounced Mr. Smith-Barry and said—
"We will make man-hunting a dear amusement to him."
On the 2nd May there was another meeting close to Tipperary; Dr. Tanner was there, and he called upon—
"The men of Tipperary to boycott Mr. Smith-Barry in every possible manner."
Another Irish M.P., Mr. John O'Connor, was also present, and spoke to the same effect. Then the next thing was that, on the 5th May, 1889, another meeting of the Tipperary League was held in the Town Hall of Tipperary, which, by the way, Mr. Smith-Barry built for tire town and allowed public meetings to be held there at any time without any charge. On the 30th May again the National League of South Tipperary held a meeting, and Mr. O'Neill, who had been sent from Youghal by Canon Keller, spoke against Mr. Smith-Barry. Then, on the 23rd June, Mr. O'Brien attended a meeting at Tipperary of Mr. Smith-Barry's tenants, and delivered a speech, in the course of which he said—
"The tenants can, and I venture to promise they will, combine to warn Smith-Barry that if he is determined to create desolate homes on the Ponsonby Estate, his tenants may possibly be driven to leave him a desolate rent office of his own in Tipperary. I ask you to appoint a deputation to wait on Smith-Barry. What I ask you is, and I make no secret about it—I ask you, the Tipperary tenants of Smith-Barry, I ask you to appoint a deputation, who in the name of the whole body of tenantry, will be prepared to wait upon Mr. Smith-Barry, and upon Mr. Horace Townsend, and to address them in perfectly civil, but in perfectly de, termined, English. Let them say, 'We have given you no trouble upon your own estate; we want peace if we can possibly have it, but we
1414
are not going to stand idly by—it would be a crime and an eternal scandal if we did stand by—while our hard-earned money was used to inflict this abominable wrong upon our brother tenants. Let them say to him, 'Give up this diabolical work—withdraw from this syndicate. Stand no longer between a settlement for these unfortunate tenants and their landlord.'"
And further on he said—
"And having said this much, I don't think that the deputation are bound to take Mr. Smith-Barry or Mr. Horace Townsend any further into their confidence as to what further course of action they may think it necessary to take. Possibly upon some future day—some future rent day—we may have an opportunity of consulting and of meeting here again, and of asking Mr. Smith-Barry once for all whether he has made up his mind to accept the same measure from his Tipperary tenants that he is meting out to-day to the Ponsonby tenants."
Mr. O'Brien was as good as his word, because on the 24th June he, accompanied by several Nationalist Members of Parliament, went round to all the shops in Tipperary with a memorial to Mr. Smith-Barry to the above effect, and a great number—nearly all—of the trades people signed it. At the same time, a gentleman was sent to Cashel to obtain signatures for it on Mr. Smith-Barry's Estate there. On the 26th June Archbishop Croke wrote approving of the combination, or as Mr. O'Brien had called "blessing their banners." My Lords, this is the manner in which this agitation was begun. It was begun not by the tenants themselves at all, as I have shown your Lordships, but by Mr. O'Brien and a number of other Nationalist Members of Parliament, and it was kept alive and fomented through the agency and instrumentality of the National League. On the 3rd of July the memorial to Mr. Smith-Barry was presented in London; and on the 10th of July Mr. O'Brien appeared at Tipperary on rent-day and made speeches announcing the Tenants' Defence League, and, no doubt, did everything he could to prevent the tenants from paying their rents. On the 9th of August Mr. O'Brien again went to Tipperary, when a resolution proposed, if I remember rightly, by some member of the National League, was passed at a meeting by which the tenants agreed to tax themselves 10 per cent, to raise a relief fund for the Ponsonby tenants, and to deduct 25 per cent, from Mr. Smith-Barry's rents—that is to say, the 10 per cent, they were going to sub-

1415
scribe for the Ponsonby tenants, with 15 per cent, more for themselves—and at the same time making a strong protest against the use that they alleged was being made of what they termed "their hard-earned money." I ask your Lordships to consider what is the meaning of that term "their hard-earned money." That expression shows that Mr. Smith-Barry's tenants and the National League look apparently upon rent not as a payment due in exchange for advantages received, but as their own hard-earned money that was being extorted from them by their landlords, and which is to be spent only in such manner as I suppose they themselves shall approve. On the 24th of August the interests of a number of the tenants on the estate who had refused to pay their rents were exposed for sale, but out of five tenants' interests that were exposed for sale no fewer than four were bought in. At the next sale of tenants' interests, which took place on September 4, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Condon, and Mr. Gill, the Nationalist Members of Parliament, appeared on the scene, and still out of 20 tenants' interests put up for sale no less than 13 were bought in. Yet, in the face of these facts, we are constantly being told by the Irish National leaders that the tenants act and have acted of their own free will in the matter. Well, what followed immediately? As a consequence of some of the tenants having bought in their interests, or paid their rent, their windows were smashed and pickets were placed at their shops, black lists were made containing the names of all those who had paid, and they were boycotted in the most determined manner. This treatment had its effect. It had such an effect upon the tenants that by October 17 the greater number of those who had bought in their interests or had paid their rent had made their submission to the National League, and, finally (I wish to tell your Lordships the story as shortly as I can), all the conditions imposed by that body were accepted, and those tenants were replaced in the good favour of the National League. The local branch of the National League thereupon passed the following resolution:—
"That, having read with satisfaction the apology of those tenants who purchased their holdings at Thurles on September 4, and
1416
their pledge to act in the future in complete unison with the general body of their fellow-tenants, we suggest to them that as the next gale of rent becomes due on November 1, on that date they should notify formally and publicly to Mr. Smith-Barry their determination, as now expressed to us, not to pay their rents and to allow their holdings to be sold unless he has by that time retired from the Ponsonby Syndicate and granted his Tipperary tenants an abatement of 25 per cent., and we hereby resolve that upon their doing so the past shall be forgiven, and they shall be admitted into the ranks of the combination."
That was the condition of things on the Smith-Barry Estate at the end of October; and since that time many further outrages have been perpetrated upon this estate, an account of some of which was read to your Lordships the other night, and with regard to which I shall have one or two further remarks to make. The representatives of the National League in the other House of Parliament have stated over and over again that no intimidation has been practised upon the tenants, but that what has been done by the tenants of the Smith-Barry Estate has been done by them of their own free will, and they have protested that the National League is simply carrying out the will of the whole united country. I will ask your Lordships to listen to one or two cases of intimidation which I have before mg. The noble Lord the other night, among the instances he gave in reply to my request for information, referred to the case of Mr. Holmes, a Presbyterian minister, who was boycotted for dealing with a boycotted trader; his daughters went into the town of Tipperary to purchase some goods and they were insulted, and, I think, stoned. Another case was that of Mr. O'Neill, a draper, who had the finest shop in the whole town of Tipperary; was compelled to close his premises after two months' boycotting, and his business, the goodwill of which was stated to be worth at least £10,000, has been entirely destroyed, and he has been obliged to remove, leaving his shop in a ruined and ruinous state, and go into an old butter store. Another case is that of a man named Duggan, an ironmonger, who for a long time stood out and refused to comply with the demands of the National League until about 10 days ago, when he at length surrendered on a bomb being thrown at his door, which exploded, fortunately

1417
without doing very much damage, but which so much alarmed him that he sent in his submission to the National League. And now I will call your Lordships' attention to a meeting which took place in Tipperary on the Sunday before the 4th of the present month of July on which date a report of it appeared in the Tipperary People. I think it is the very best evidence that your Lordships can have of the manner in which this agitation is conducted, because it is the report of a meeting of the Tipperary National League, Father Humphreys, the parish curate, of whom we have heard a good deal, was in the chair, and Mr. John Cullinane, who is, I believe, the local organiser of the Land League, was present with a very large number of other members of the League. I wish to read to your Lordships what Father Humphreys said as bearing upon this question of intimidation. He said—
"It is my pleasant duty to absolve from public censure three of our Tipperary tenants. One is Mr. McCurtin, of Killane. His offence has been going into a boycotted shop. He has expressed the most sincere sorrow for having done so, and he has promised not to repeat the offence, and we take that as a sufficient guarantee for his good conduct in the future. The other is Mr. Hogan, in the main street. He incurred public censure "
—mark the term, "incurred public censure," my Lords. And for what? For sending a messenger to buy sugar at a boycotted shop.
"He says he did not know the shop in which he got it, but still public opinion pounced down very promptly on him, and on the very day that he became aware he had incurred public displeasure, he closed his shop and gave it up."
That is an instance of a man who, having sent a messenger for sugar, who happened to buy it at a boycotted shop, thought it necessary not only to repent of having done so, but to close his own shop and leave it.
"The next is the case of Mr. Joseph Duggan. He has sent us this note addressed to the Secretary of the Irish National League in Tipperary, pledging himself to fulfil the conditions."
The following is the letter:—
"Dear Sir,—I wish to fall into line with my fellow tenants on the Smith-Barry Estate, and to do so, first, by proceeding against Mr. Smith-Barry for an account due by him to me. Secondly, by clearing my farms—that is, by clearing all the cattle off them—before July 20, and serving notice of surrender before November I by taking immediate steps to
1418
procure premises, and removing from these in which I am at present carrying on business. Trusting that this will meet approval,
I am, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
JOSEPH F. DCGGJIN."
Observe what Mr. Duggan has thought it necessary to do. Not merely does he leave his shop, but he also surrenders his farm, and he promises further to procure other premises. That is an expression which your Lordships may not understand, but which becomes plain from what is stated a little later. Mr. Humphreys says—
"There is one point in the surrender of Mr. Duggan, to which I specially call attention. He pledges himself to provide at his own expense accommodation for himself and his family in New Tipperary. The outlay of the tenants has been very heavy in the past, but this circumstance shows that the outlay is coming to a close."
Therefore, Mr. Duggan is to be compelled to purchase premises in New Tipperary; which means that he is to be obliged to pay part of the expenses which the National League have gone to in erecting these new buildings in the place which they call New Tipperary. Then Mr. Humphreys concludes his speech with this—
"I think we should now accept these conditions and remove the public censure from this gentleman. We should never exercise any form of coercion upon our fellow-countrymen except when it is a bsolutely necessary."
Out of Father Humphreys' own mouth the case of coercion and intimidation is demonstrated in direct opposition to what has been said elsewhere. In fact, his testimony was in direct contradiction to what was said on this subject by members of the National League in the House of Commons. Then Mr. Cullinanaddressed the meeting, and so on. I need not detain your Lordships further with that. But I have a report of another meeting of the same sort, which took place on Sunday last. I will only detain your Lordships one moment by reading a sentence from it. Father Humphreys said—
"I have to announce to you to-day two more surrenders. We are most happy to receive these surrenders."
And then he puts the coercion question a little clearer. He said again—
"We do not wish to exercise coercion over anybody excepting as far as is necessary."

1419
Therefore, wherever it is necessary, the National League are prepared to coerce any tenant who chooses not to fall in with their behests. Now, my Lords, that is the state of things existing at present on the Tipperary Estate. It is bad enough, but still I do not suppose that we can expect anything much bettor from the National League. What I do regret very much, and what I do think is a matter of much more serious importance, is that in this country one of the two great Parties of the State have associated themselves with the National League and supported it both in and out of Parliament. The Liberal Party at this moment, I regret to say, consider every question which comes up for discussion, every such matter as this Smith-Barry case, and other similar cases, only from the National League point of view. For instance, when a meeting is suppressed, as was the case a short time ago, on the 23rd May last, in Tipperary, they do not inquire who are the people who called the meeting, or what are their antecedents, whether they are such as would lead the Government to suppose that they are likely to induce the tenants to commit themselves to acts which are illegal and wrong; what they do is to take very much the same line as the Nationalist leaders themselves, and say, "Why is this meeting stopped; why are Members not allowed to address their constituents?" If Father Humphreys is "shadowed," the priest whose speeches I read to you just now, the Liberal Party do not consider what Father Humphreys has said or done; whether he is, or is not, declaring that he will exercise coercion over the residents in Tipperary; but what they say is that "It is a monstrous outrage to "shadow" Father Humphreys, and that on no account ought he to be interfered with." I regret to say that Mr. Gladstone, in considering this Tipperary matter, was most struck with the position which Mr. Smith-Barry has taken up. There was a letter written to him lately, in which it was pointed out that a widow lady who held a farm under Mr. Smith-Barry had her windows smashed and her whole staff of labourers and dairywomen frightened out of her service without notice, so that if the agent of Mr. Smith-Barry had not come to her help she could not have milked her 40 cows.
1420
Mr. Gladstone, in reply, when his attention was called to this, said—
"I am afraid your views and mine are widely apart on this subject. I could not enter into the matter without entering into the deplorable and exasperating conduct of Mr. Smith-Barry in resisting the settlement of the Ponsonby Estate; but if the windows were broken that was an unfeeling outrage which I should be glad to see punished."
But what Mr. Gladstone put in the forefront of the case was Mr. Smith-Barry's conduct in this matter. That is what strikes him most. But is it true that Mr. Smith-Barry has resisted a settlement on the Ponsonby Estate? The Nationalist Members have said so; but is it true in fact? It can be proved by letters and documents that he did nothing of the kind; that the difference between Mr. Ponsonby and his tenants was the large difference of £20,000, and that at the time when Mr. Smith-Barry interfered there was no prospect or possibility of a settlement at all. I wish I could stop there, but there is another matter to which I feel I must call your Lordships' attention. As I regard Mr. Gladstone as the leader of the Home Rule Liberals in the other House, so I regard Lord Spencer as the leader of the Liberal Home Rule Party in this House, and I regret to see that Lord Spencer, in the last speech of his which I have read with regard to the National League, used language which appears to me to deserve notice in this House. He was speaking at Wolverton on the 1st March, and he said—
"I do not say for a moment that the Land League and the National League have always carried out their agitation in a legitimate way; they may have gone too far and followed illegal paths. I deplore that, and always have deplored it; but I maintain that they had some justification for their agitation, on the ground of the serious gnienvances which existed not only in regard to the Land Laws, but also in regard to the Government of the country. It is not for us, therefore, to criticise too minutely the methods which have been followed, although we may deplore some of the results which have followed their action."
Now, my Lords, I must say that I cannot conceive any language more likely to encourage the National League in the courses they have taken than language of that kind. Ah! my Lords, is there any use in deploring outrages if you say at the same time, "We ought not to examine too minutely or closely into the

1421
methods which are followed by the National League?" On the contrary; is it not a distinct encouragement to them? It is not as if these things were said by one of their own members; it is not as if they were said by Mr. Dillon or Mr. O'Brien or gentlemen of that kind, but coming from the noble Earl who has been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at a most important time, and under most important circumstances, I must confess that I, for one, at all events deeply regret the use of language of that description. My Lords, I gladly turn away from that. There is another argument which has been used in this matter, and which, I think, requires an answer. There are many persons belonging to the Liberal Party who point to Tipperary, and say, "How much does the position of affairs in Tipperary speak in favour of the present administration of law and order? If Tipperary were the whole of Ireland, there might be something in that argument; but I will appeal to any Irishman—and there are many Irishmen present—to the declarations which have been made by public men, and by public men who are not on the Unionist side—I appeal to all who know Ireland, and who are interested in Ireland, whether the general condition of things in that country, in spite of what has occurred in Tipperary, is not much more favourable than it was two years or even one year ago. I have mentioned to your Lordships a few facts; I have restricted myself to facts and to speeches which I hope your Lordships will duly note, and which I hope will be duly noted throughout the country; and I am quite confident that if the public will only consider things as they are, if they will look at the existing facts, and will not be led away by rhetorical statements and figures of speech, the administration of Ireland and the people of Ireland will never be handed over to such a body as the National League.
*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, my experience of your Lordships' House has led me to believe that noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench are singularly reluctant to discuss Irish affairs in this House. On the contrary, my experience leads me to believe that they unfortunately prefer
1422
proceeding to country towns and there addressing packed audiences, who are ready to cheer to the echo any sentiments submitted to them, than to bring those sentiments forward in your Lordships' House when face to face with Members of the Irish Executive, anxiously waiting—indeed, I may say, almost courting—inquiry into their administration of Irish affairs. Consequently, my Lords, it is with no surprise that, on the present occasion, I see no noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench rising to express any opinion either with regard to the present state of Tipperary, which has been so fully discussed by the noble Earl opposite who has just sat down, or with regard to the action of Her Majesty's Irish Executive in recently suppressing the meetings proposed to be held in both Tipperary and Cashel. I confess, however, that I had expected from the noble Earl, who, on two occasions, had the great honour of representing Her Majesty in Ireland, some expression of opinion. The right hon. Baronet, who occupied the position of Chief Secretary to the noble Earl during two years of his second term of Vice-royalty, displayed no such reticence in another place. On the contrary, ho lost no time in bounding to his feet and denouncing the action of the Irish Executive Government in the severest and strongest terms, in suppressing what he was pleased to term, as "liberty and freedom of speech in Ireland." I can only characterise that performance of Sir George Trevelyan as one of consummate audacity; for this was the man who, during the two years that he occupied the post of Chief Secretary to the noble Earl, had suppressed no less than 45 meetings in Ireland; and he justified his action in suppressing those meetings in a speech delivered to his constituents during the time he occupied the post of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in which a passage occurs which I shall take the liberty of quoting to your Lordships. He justified his action by declaring that those speeches, which were made for the purpose of denunciation, were "just as much a part of the machinery of murder as the sword-cane and the pistol." This was the same man who, about three years ago, declared—

1423
"He was not going to leave the Liberal Party because a certain number of people told him he must use fair words regarding the violent utterances and lawless actions of those who are conducting the Plan of Campaign in Ireland."
Now, I am fully aware that for suppressing those meetings, as I have said, Sir George Trevelyan suppressed them, the noble Earl opposite was primarily responsible. [Earl SPENCER: Hear, hear!] I consider the noble Earl was fully justified in his action in suppressing those meetings, because he knew full well that meetings held in disturbed districts, where violent and incendiary speeches were made, were invariably followed by disastrous results to the peaceable inhabitants of that part of the country; and I say the present Irish Executive would be unworthy the name of an Executive Government, let alone a responsible Government, if they had allowed those meetings to be held in Tipperary and Cashel when precedent and experience had taught them that such meetings were invariably followed by misery, discomfort, and on frequent occasions, I regret to say, outrage and danger to the peaceful and law-abiding inhabitants of the district, whose only fault was that they declined to subscribe to the unwritten law of the League; that they wished to pay their just debts, and enjoy those legal rights which are open to every one of Her Majesty's subjects in every part of the United Kingdom. I should like to ask the noble Earl has he forgotten the crime and cruelty that followed the speech—now a very famous one—delivered by his friend Mr. Parnell at Ennis some years ago, when he called upon the people of Ireland "to shun as a leper" anyone who "dared to break the unwritten law of the League?" and, if the noble Earl will allow me to refresh his memory as to the effect of such expressions as "making a man's life not a happy one," and that "wherever he goes his lot shall not be a happy one," I would refer him to the Report of the Judges of the Special Commission, which the noble Earl has alluded to, and from which I notice, by-the-way, he, in his speeches in the country, draws some curious deductions, but which he is exceedingly reticent in referring to in your Lordships' House, where he will find it declared that outrage and crime have followed the speeches of members of the
1424
League. To quote the words of no less a person than Mr. Gladstone, they have left their marks indelibly traced in blood." And now, my Lords, let me ask you, Who are the people who deliver these speeches and preach these doctrines? They are the former bitter foes.—at the present time, I regret to say, the intimate friends—of the noble Earl opposite. They are men who have promulgated illegalities, who have promoted sedition, who have advocated intimidation, and whose violent language has invariably been followed by crime and outrage of the worst description. I read, some months ago in a newspaper, a parody of a song which had been nightly sung in one of the most popular of the London theatres, which, describes so accurately the characteristics-of those men, the friends of the noble Earl opposite, that I will ask your-Lordships to allow me to quote from it—
"The Irish World and such like slime They all disseminated;
They never denounced the scoundrels prime:
They caused the causes that caused the crime
And knew they were doing it all the time Whenever they agitated."
Such, my Lords, are the men—and it is indeed a pitiable thing to see—with, whom the noble Earl and his Colleagues are at present hand-in-glove, and by whom, I think I may venture to use the expression, they are led by the nose; and let me remind you that this body of men have by no means forgotten the treatment, the very proper and just treatment, they received at the hands of the noble Earl and the Members of the present Opposition; but are secretly laughing in their sleeves at them and glorying in the knowledge that they have-reduced to a state of abject subjection a fragment of the once great Liberal Party. In the course of the Debate which took place on the Irish Land Purchase Bill, introduced in March last in the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, I noticed that Mr. Gladstone applied the epithet "chivalrous" to Mr. Parnell. Now, the Irish may be said to have many faults, though I do not admit it, particularly in the North; but I think if there is one characteristic of Irishmen it is that they possess a very keen sense of humour, and I think it must have been with a grim sense of humour that Mr. Parnell heard

1425
himself described as "chivalrous" by Mr. Gladstone, the man who but a few years ago, at Leeds, described him in the following terms:—
"For nearly the first time in the history of Christendom a body of men has arisen who are not ashamed to preach in Ireland the doctrine of public plunder… I will frankly take the case of Mr. Parnell as exhibiting what I mean when I say the state of things in Ireland is coming to a question between law on one hand and sheer lawlessness on the other… Mr. Parnell says if the Crown of Eng-land is to be the link between the two countries it must be the only link; but whether it is to be the link at all is a matter on which he has not, I believe, given any opinion whatever‖ Mr. Parnell is very copious in his references to America, but in all his references to America he has never found time to utter one word of disapproval of or misgiving about what is known as the assassination literature of that country."
My Lords, when I read that expression "chivalrous" as applied to Mr. Parnell by Mr. Gladstone I could not prevent my mind reverting to a paragraph I saw in one of the public journals some few months before, which informed the public and the world that Mr. Parnell had paid a visit to Mr. Gladstone at Hawarden Castle. I could not help imagining what must have been Mr. Parnell's feelings on that occasion. When he crossed the threshold of Hawarden he must insensibly have been reminded that the last threshold he crossed—I will not say at the invitation, but rather at the bidding, of Mr. Gladstone—was the threshold of Kilmainham; and when a short time later, he enjoyed, as I suppose he enjoyed, the hospitality of his host in the shape of dinner, he must have been insensibly reminded of that banquet held not far from this spot when Mr. Gladstone, amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his audience, announced that he had that very morning arrested Mr. Parnell and sent his a prisoner to Kilmainham Gaol. But, my Lords, if such were the feelings of Mr. Parnell with regard to Mr. Gladstone, what must have been the feelings of Mr. Parnell when he found himself taken, in every sense of the word, by the hand by the noble Earl opposite—the noble Earl, whom Mr. Parnell had not hesitated to accuse of "conspiring with informers for the purpose of obtaining victims to what he called law and justice, by any and every means, whether they
1426
were innocent or not"—the noble Earl, whom Mr. Parnell's followers did not hesitate to denounce in the most vehement, violent, and malignant manner, and who even went so far as to attempt to blacken his unspotted character by allegations of so horrible and disgusting a nature that I am somewhat reluctant to allude to them in your Lordships' House? I confess it was with considerable surprise that I read the denial of the then Chief Secretary (Sir G. Trevelyan) to the statement of the hon. Member for Tyrone when that hon. Member asserted that charges of a horrible character had been brought against him, for I shall never forget, if I live to the age of 100, that day in the House of Commons when Sir G Trevelyan, stung to the quick by a more than ordinarily insulting and disgusting epithet from one of his now friends, his then greatest foes, turned upon those foes, and, with a face livid with passion and a voice trembling with rage, declared, amidst the enthusiastic cheers of every part of the House, except that part occupied by the Nationalist Members—"I may be Chief Secretary for Ireland, but I am an English gentleman." I would ask the noble Earl, will he corroborate the statement of his Chief Secretary, and deny that charges of a grave and horrible character were brought against him? Will the noble Earl follow Sir G. Trevelyan's example and contradict me when I say he was charged also by his Parnellite friends—
"With having struck murderous blows at the people under his charge, with having stopped at nothing—not at secret torture, not at subsidising red-handed murderers, not at sheltering black official villainy with coat of darkness, not at police quartering, blood taxes, the bludgeoning of peaceful meetings, the clapping of handcuffs and convict jackets upon Members of Parliament, Mayors, and editors, not at wholesale battues of hangings and transportations by hook or crook, not at burying the proofs of his victims' innocence in their graves."
Those charges were made in United. Ireland on June 13, 1885. Will the noble Earl deny that? Will he deny that even more horrible charges than those were brought against him by the Nationalist Party? The noble Earl will not. His temperament is either less forgiving or his memory more accurate than that of his Chief Secretary. Before I resume my seat there is one point on which I should like

1427
to say a few words. It is not altogether directly connected with the present question, but I shall perhaps be allowed your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments. When, four years ago, Mr. Gladstone flashed upon an astounded country his suddenly-devised scheme of Home Rule, the answer invariably given to us Unionists by our political opponents was that "Home Rule is necessary for Ire land, for Lord Spencer says so, and Lord Spencer has had nine years' experience of Ireland." With that argument I at once join issue. It is impossible—nay, I go further, and say it is absurd—to maintain that the noble Earl's present advocacy of Home Rule is derived from his practical experience of Ireland during the two occasions on which he was Lord Lieutenant of that country. Daring the whole of that time the noble Earl was diametrically opposed to Home Rule of any kind; and in support of this statement I will quote from a speech delivered by him at Bristol on November 14, some few months before he assumed the office of Lord Lieutenant for the second time, a passage which, I think, accurately expresses his then opinions with regard to the Home Rule question:—
"We must tell the Irish plainly that no Party in England, whether Conservative or Liberal, will put up with anatchy; and what is more, that they are heating the air if they agitate for repeal of the Union. We hold that the continued union of Ireland with this country is of vital importance to us. We feel like the Americans, when the integrity of their country was threatened, and if necessary we must shed blood to maintain the strength and integrity of this country."
[Earl SPENCER: Hear, hear.] On entering upon his second term of office in Ireland the noble Earl succeeded to extraordinary powers of the most severe and stringent character. So severe and stringent were those powers that they enabled him to arrest on suspicion, and without trial, and to commit to prison, powers which remind me more of the lettres de cachet of the days of the Bastille than anything else in modern history. It was while in the enjoyment of extraordinary powers that the noble Earl, together with his Colleagues, went out of Office in June, 1885; but that he still held that extraordinary powers were necessary for the government of Ireland was shown by a speech which he
1428
delivered in your Lordships' House in January, 1886, when he denounced the Government of the noble Marquess, which had only been in office for a very short time, for not renewing some of the most important provisions of the Act of 1882. We now find the noble Earl advocating Home Rule for Ireland, though I believe I am correct in saying that from the moment he left Ireland in June, 1885, he has never again set foot in that country. Therefore, though I admit that the practical experience of the noble Earl in regard to Ireland, which is always, if I may use the expression, rammed down our throats, as to the strengthening of the law for the purpose of repressing crime and outrage, is great and invaluable, yet I equally maintain that the practical experience of the noble Earl with regard to Home Rule is worthless. I thank your Lordships for the indulgence which you have granted me. I do not address your Lordships as the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or as an Irish landlord, but as one of the Loyalists of Ireland—a body of men whom I regard as true and loyal supporters of the Crown and the Constitution in Ireland, but whom the noble Earl opposite has not hesitated to designate and describe as a miserable and despicable minority. I will not say behind the noble Earl's back, when addressing an Ulster audience, what I will say to his face in your Lordships' House; that I would infinitely prefer to be the most humble and lowly member of that loyal and patriotic body of men than occupy the present political position of the noble Earl opposite, who has renounced and repudiated every opinion he held during the time of his Lord Lieutenancy in Ireland; who has torn from his bosom those feelings which prompted and directed him to discharge his arduous and difficult duties so ably, so firmly, and so nobly, and who would now sacrifice—indeed, I should be justified in using a far stronger term with regard to the noble Earl's proposal—to hand over that loyal minority to be dealt with at the tender mercies of a disloyal majority. He would sacrifice those to whom he looked in times of difficulty and trouble, and to whom he knows very well he never looked in vain. The noble Earl is now subservient to the mandate of a

1429
body of men who were truly described by the Attorney General of his day as being steeped to the lips in treason, and by his own Prime Minister as marching through rapine and plunder to the dismemberment of the Empire.
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be able, nor should I desire, to deliver so exciting an oration as that which we have just heard from the noble Marquess the late Viceroy of Ireland; but I feel it necessary to rise on this occasion to answer some of the appeals that have been made to me in exceedingly strong language by the noble Marquess and by the noble Earl behind me. The noble Marquess found fault with me for not bounding to my feet at once at the conclusion of the speech of the noble Earl who has brought this matter forward. I will tell the noble Marquess why I did not rise to speak. I did not rise to speak because the noble Marquess was good enough, with the courtesy which belongs to him, to inform me before the Debate began that he intended to make an attack upon me. I, therefore, thought it was only right and necessary that I should wait until after the noble Marquess had spoken. I think he will himself see that I should not otherwise have had an opportunity of answering. I confess, however, that I did not intend to take part in this Debate, having another engagement. I came down to your Lordships' House in order to ascertain whether any personal attack was going to be made upon me, and, hearing that such was to he the case, I remained, at considerable inconvenience, and sent a message to say that I could not fulfil the engagement I had made. This is not the first time that the Front Opposition Bench in this House has been attacked for not raising or meeting discussions on the Irish question. I confess I think it would be very unwise of us in many ways to start discussions on the subject, because my belief is that such discussions would lead to no good result, and, therefore, we have not followed that course. Particularly, on one occasion, we were twitted for not having answered a noble Duke whom I am sorry not to see in his place to-night; but on that occasion it was thought better, as we were able to agree to the Resolution
1430
which the noble Duke proposed to your Lordships, that we should not take part in the Debate. On that occasion I came down perfectly ready to speak; but as that was decided, I had no opportunity of doing so. The noble Marquess has attacked the for not having raised discussions and made statements here, which, he says, I have made in other places. With regard to remarks which I have made in other places on the policy of the Government, I may say that, with very rare exceptions, I have studiously avoided attacking the Executive action of the Government. I am not aware that I have ever attacked their action in suppressing meetings, and I am sure I have never alluded to this subject of Tipperary or the Ponsonby Instate. I have studiously avoided doing that, because I have felt a certain delicacy in approaching those subjects which I had myself dealt with when I was in Ireland. If I were sometimes to indulge in discussions of the Executive action of the Government, I freely and at once admit that I should frequently have to differ ab initio from the action taken by the Chief Secretary in Ireland. I do not know whether the noble Marquess or anybody else considers they have been attacked by me; it is probably a matter of indifference to them whether I attacked them or not. But my own feeling has been that though I might have a strong opinion upon the subject, it would be better not to make an attack in regard to subjects of this nature. The noble Earl referred to a speech which I made in Wolverton, and criticised it very severely. I adhere absolutely to every word I said on that occasion. I believe the passage quoted is correct—he had the advantage of me in having the speech before him, as I did not know that I was going to be attacked, and could not refer to any reports—and I am not in the slightest degree ashamed of what I then said. I referred to the action of the Land League and the National League, and I said, as the noble Earl quoted, that I often deplored the action of those bodies. I adhere to that view. I have never defended the action of the National League, but I have always thought it right on those occasions to say what was just and fair, and I certainly did think,

1431
and I do think still, that there was occasion and justification for combination of a lawful kind in Ireland with respect to various matters. I believe there have been great grievances with regard to the government of that country. I believe there have been great grievances with regard to the Land Laws of that country. And in passing I may point to this: that no greater proof of the existence of grievances with respect to the Land Laws of Ireland could be found than by turning to the Report of the Land Commissioners, which shows what enormous reductions have been made in the rents by the official Judges in Ireland. That is a grievance which, I think, everyone must admit; and I, for one, consider that the Irish were perfectly justified, in a legal way, in combining, and in trying to secure justice with regard to rents. Certainly, I did not approve—on the contrary, I have always deplored—a great deal of the action of the Land League and the National League. I have deplored the action they have taken, and I have often had deeply to regret the consequences of what they have done; but I do not think we must hold those who took part in a union of this kind directly responsible for crimes that may have arisen from what they have legally done. I am quite aware that those who take part in an agitation, especially when a country is disturbed, ought to be doubly careful how they speak to an excitable people, but agitation and excitement afford no ground for saying that those who take part in a legal agitation should be accused of criminality or of participation in crimes which may arise; because it often happens in Ireland, as in this and other countries, that during periods of excitement the evil-disposed take the opportunity of committing crime, and there is no doubt that often very serious crime results from those conditions. Under those circumstances, I was justified in what I said at Wolverton, and again I say I adhere to what I stated on that occasion; and I think, when anybody who has any pretension to knowing anything of the subject, has the opportunity he should speak candidly and freely, admitting blame where blame should be attached, while admitting any justification for action that has taken
1432
place. Now, I will come to what the noble Marquess has said. He asks me whether I adhere to the policy which I was instrumental in carrying out in Ireland, and he referred to the suppression of meetings. He also referred to Sir G. Trevelyan's statement in the House of Commons with regard to that. I cannot at this moment exactly recollect what were the words used. I quite admit that a great many meetings—it may be, though I do not recollect, as many as the noble Marquess stated—perhaps he is right in saying 45—were put down by me under the special provisions of the Crimes Act of 1882. I admit that a great many meetings were suppressed under the special powers which then existed, and which do not exist now, as the noble Marquess knows. But I venture to say that I never stopped a meeting except in a district where violent crimes and outrage existed, or where the state of feeling was such that I was perfectly sure that crime would follow a meeting. I quite admit that at that time, when the country was in a very violent state of crime, when murders and murderous outrages were rife in the country, when they were perpetually being plotted and taking place, I was compelled to stop meetings. I had no hesitation in stopping meetings which I felt sure would, or thought were likely to, give rise to murder and outrage. But when Ireland became more quiet, in 1882 and 1883, I stopped fewer meetings as time went on, and at last I very rarely stopped any; and I am quite sure of this, that I never stopped meetings merely for the discussion of political matters or of general matters which might interest the people in the neighbourhood. I only stopped them when I was certain that violent crime and outrage, and probably murder, would arise from the exeited state of feeling of the people. I know this: that I frequently discussed the question whether a meeting should be suppressed or not, and I never remember a single case where, having, after some doubt, allowed a meeting to go forward, I afterwards regretted that I had done so. Except in cases where murder or outrage are likely to follow, I am sure it is much more prudent to allow the fullest discussion of opinion in a locality than to cause the irritation and

1433
excitement which stopping a meeting causes. I say that at once, because that is the point upon which the noble Marquess challenged me, and that is the point—I have never said this before—whore I think the policy of the noble Marquess and of the present Government of Ireland has been so radically and essentially wrong, I venture to say there is a very marked difference between the condition of Ireland now and the condition of Ireland when I had to suppress so many meetings. [Cheers.] The noble Marquess and others cheer that statement, and I know what that cheer means. It means that they believe they have been successful in their policy in Ireland. I might argue against that and bring forward proofs that it has not been so successful as they choose to say. The very fact of the necessity for bringing forward this Motion which my noble Friend has made proves that it has not been so successful, and it is plain that the condition of Ireland is not so eminently happy and satisfactory, when you find so powerful a League as the noble Earl has described defying, as it were, Her Majesty's Government in that country. But to return to what I was about to say. There is a vast difference between the condition of things when murders and outrages were rampant, and when no juries would convict, and that which now exists. I say that matters are not satisfactory even now in a great many places. From the cheers of noble Lords opposite one would suppose that the state of Ireland was eminently satisfactory, but the terms of the Motion itself show that is not the case. Speaking for myself, I have a very great dislike to this boycotting and intimidation, and I am afraid that a great amount of that kind of coercion still exists. I do not pretend that I have gone minutely into this subject of the Ponsonby Estate or into the action taken in Tipperary. I have myself a very great regard and warm friendship for Mr. Smith-Barry, and I can hardly conceive it possible that he would do anything unjust in any way. But, at the same time, if I were challenged to it, I should express the opinion that the course he has followed has not been wise or expedient, though it was perfectly within the law. Then we come to Tipperary. I do
1434
not myself like violent or extreme methods. The action taken by the National League in Tipperary is, no doubt, violent. I do not like the measures which have been adopted there. But, at the same time, if we except outrages such as the throwing of tin bombs, or whatever they are called, and actual intimidation, I doubt whether it can be shown that the mere action of Mr. Smith-Barry's tenants in Tipperary and the establishment of New Tipperary is actually illegal. Certainly I have not noticed any action on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make me think that that state of things is illegal. The noble Marquess referred to a great many matters, and he certainly went a long way beyond the terms of the question brought forward by the noble Lord. The noble Lord only called attention t} the action on the Ponsonby Estate and to the action of the National League; but the noble Marquess certainly took a very wide latitude, and wandered over the whole condition of Ireland, and even alluded to a speech made by Mr. Parnell at Ennis long before I went to Ireland. It is not for me to defend Mr. Parnell or to defend Mr. Gladstone; but when the noble Marquess says that the Irish Members never denounced crime, he is going rather far, for, if my recollection is correct, that is one of the points which the Royal Commission gave in favour of the Irish Members. Well, now, I come to another fact. The noble Marquess quoted some Words of Mr. Parnell's in which he accused me of having connived at or practically been guilty of something like murder, by allowing innocent men to be hung. That was a very terrible charge and was language perfectly unjustifiable. I cannot recollect whether my attention was called to it when the accusation was made; but when I heard it alluded to first in the House of Commons, when I was listening to the De bate, I was struck by its extreme unfairness. But what occurred? At the very moment it was made Mr. Parnell got up and withdrew what had been said, and stated that it had been made under a misapprehension. Practically, he made an apology for it. I think it only right to say that, as the noble Marquess has thought fit to allude to it. Then the noble Marquess

1435
alluded to other matters, paragraphs couched in the most violent language. I should have thought that the noble Marquess had got accustomed in Ireland to rhetorical statements and phrases; and many of the phrases which were used were rhetorical and very violent. I should have thought, also, he would have known how largely such statements ought to be discoanted, though there are some statements which cannot be discounted, I admit. But some of those paragraphs contained assertions which I should look upon as rhetorical and attach no importance to. The noble Marquess alluded to another matter, which is one of a very painful kind. It is one that I rarely, if ever, allude to, either in private or in public; but it is one on which I confess I have very strong feelings. The noble Marquess states that I was accused, and Sir G. Trevelyan was accused, of something worse than ordinary crime, and I should quite admit that that would be more than a rhetorical phrase like most of those which appeared in the Nationalist papers. My Lords, I have always resented most deeply the words that were used with regard to a painful matter which I had to deal with when I was in Ireland. But it is only fair for me to say, though I have often seen vague references in newspapers, I cannot recollect that I was actually accused, or Sir George Trevelyan, of a certain crime. That I cannot recollect. But what I was actually accused of, and what I resented in the strongest possible manner, was that I connived at the crime and shielded those who were guilty of it. There is some difference between the two things. I dislike extremely alluding to this painful subject, and I very much regret that the noble Marquess thought fit to allude to it here. As he has done so, I have felt bound to say what I have said. My Lords, I have really been rather led into this discussion by the manner in which the noble Marquess has spoken. Instead of confining himself to the subject of the Motion, he has, as I have said, travelled over the whole ground of disaffection and crime in Ireland, and even into the question of Home Rule. I must apologise to your Lordships for having gone at such length into these matters, because it is rather irregular to wander so far from the
1436
original Motion. But I wish to refer to one other matter. The noble Marquess attacked me for advocating Home Rule. I accept fully the responsibility which may belong to me for having done so. The noble Marquess says that my opinion upon that subject is worthless. Very likely it is. I do not for a moment pretend, myself, that my opinion on a matter of that sort is paramount, or should be listened to by my countrymen beyond what is right and reasonable. But I will venture to tell your Lordships why I hold my opinion. I do not for a moment say that I advocated Home Rule when I was in Ireland. I did not. I was not then of opinion that Home Rule was possible, and I had not seen my way to it. I endorse now every single word which I said in the quotation which the noble Marquess made from a speech of mine made at Bristol. I disliked and still dislike anarchy, and I say wherever it is in the British Empire it must be put down. I never advocated, and never could advocate, repeal of the Union. I maintain that what we propose would be to strengthen the Union and not to repeal it. Therefore, I do not shrink from one single word that the noble Marquess read from my speech at Bristol. Then, my Lords, with regard to why I adopted Home Rule. It is going into very old and stale arguments, but they are true, and therefore I think I may put them very shortly. I maintain that we have exhausted the present system and principles of Government, as shown by the present administration: that these methods have failed, and that we were bound to find some other methods which would restore Ireland to a condition of tranquillity, and make it a safe instead of a dangerous part of Her Majesty's dominions. It is because I dislike anarchy, because I dislike crime, because I dislike outrage, and because I dislike boycotting, and things of that sort, that I wish to bring a real and permanent remedy for all these evils to Ireland. You will never do it as long as yon go on with exceptional laws and coercion; you will only be irritating-afresh the Irish people; and I maintain that the only chance is to throw upon the Irish people, as I am sure you can do, under safeguards, with perfect safety, the responsibility for the government of their own country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOORNE): My Lords, I cannot but think that your Lordships are under much obligation to the noble Earl opposite and to my noble Friend behind me, the late Viceroy of Ireland, for having induced the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, who has just sat down, at last to take part in your Lordships' deliberations. Because over and over again the attention of the noble Earl has been directed to these matters, and to the way in which they struck many Members of your Lordships' House; but in vain have attempts been made to induce him to rise in his place in Parliament, vindicate his action, and express his opinion upon the present state of affairs in Ireland. Therefore, it is, I think, that much gratitude is due to those who have, on the present occasion, practically compelled the noble Earl to rise and to rive his views on the events which are now going on in that country. It is very difficult for any man, no matter what his ability, or however high his character, to defend startling incidents in his political life. From what the noble Earl has said he must be about the most forgiving and the most forgetful man in the community, for certainly there has never been a man in public life who has had so much to forgive, and who has apparently taken upon himself to forgive so freely. As to his powers of forgetting, they are unrivalled and marvellous, because he pretends that he has been converted to the principles of Home Rule, forgetful of the entire action of his life up to the moment of that conversion, and he asks your Lordships to credit—as, of course, your-Lordships will—the extraordinary statement, that the whole time he was in Ireland, a man of strong speech, resolute action, and clear and decided policy, he was wavering in his Mind—
*EAEL SPENCER: No; I never said I was wavering in my mind. I said that I had not at that time seen any possibility of any proposal for Home Rule.
LORD ASHBOURNE: That will suit me a good deal better. Then it appears that the noble Earl, during two Viceroyalties, spread over many years—this man of strong speech and resolute action, not seeing any other policy possible that was worthy of a statesman, except that which
1438
he was pursuing, suddenly, after Mr. Gladstone had announced his change, gives up all the policy he had previously observed, suddenly finds out that the old policy was wrong, and that the new policy was alone feasible and possible, and so lets all his past life go to the winds. I ask your Lordships to believe that he was wrong when he turned his back upon that old policy, and that he was not right in the insidious conversion which he now finds it so difficult to explain. The noble Earl said that he felt a certain delicacy—very appropriate words I daresay—about starting discussions in this House—
*EARL SPENCER: I did not say that. I am sorry to interrupt my noble Friend. What I said was that I had a certain delicacy about directly attacking the action of the Executive Government in Ireland.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Of course, I accept the noble Earl's correction. I accept anything he tells us; but I have myself a tolerably clear memory. Still, to prevent any possible mistake, I jotted down a couple of words from the noble Earl as he proceeded, and I certainly took down the expression that he did not like to "start discussion," I appreciate that. There are many reasons why the noble Earl would not like to start discussion. No one ever asked the noble Earl to start a discussion on these matters, or thought it possible or reasonable that he would care voluntarily to invite criticism of his position and attitude. The point of criticism to which we have directed ourselves, and which we have always insisted on is, that when the noble Earl's-attention has been called by others to these subjects, he has been silent to the criticisms of those who addressed him, that he has sat silently listening to the charges made, with all the force and authority of those who addressed them, not explaining his attitude or conduct. He has offered no explanation, and he has left your Lordships under the impression that he preferred to remain misunderstood rather than to rise in his place and to take part in this House in discussions on subjects which he spoke of on many platforms in every part of the country where he chose to get anaudience. That is a matter which I think of some importance. On one occasion—the 12th of July, 1888, as nearly as possible two

1439
years ago—the Duke of Argyll obtained your Lordships' assent to a Resolution, and I invite your Lordships to remember that Earl Spencer has explained to-day his attitude of silence on that occasion by saying the reason was that he and his Friends then saw their way to agree to the Resolution of the noble Duke. The Resolution, which was agreed to by the House nemine contradicente, was as follows:—
"That in the opinion of this House Her Majesty's Government deserves the support of Parliament in securing to the subjects of the Queen in Ireland the full enjoyment of personal freedom in their lawful transactions, and in protecting them from the coercion of unlawful combinations."
It is very singular that that Resolution, proposed only two years ago, when your Lordships had ample experience of the system pursued by the present Government, was such that the noble Earl could agree to. But that is the explanation which he gives to day for not then rising and taking part in his place in this House in the discussion then proceeding upon the Resolution proposed by the noble Duke. His attention has been pointed to-day, and not unreasonably, to a not unimportant phase of Irish life at the present time. The noble Earl who inaugurated this discussion, the Earl of Camperdown, has cited some important matters at present going on in Ireland, and your Lordships had a right to expect that the noble Earl would express himself in clear language with reference to them, for they are matters which should command the unqualified disapproval of all who consider them. There can be no doubt about that. But I noticed that when the noble Earl came to deal with these questions he picked his words with the most extreme caution, in order that he may not be quoted as an authority who disapproves of what is now going on in the localities referred to by the Earl of Camperdown. The noble Earl said he thought "the measures or the methods were extreme," which is a very limited kind of reprobation. That is not the strong vigorous language he would have used when Viceroy, in describing the same state of facts. I venture to say, also, that is not the language which a man would use who desired to characterise intimidation, as it deserves to be chai'acterised, in the language of resolute denunciation. The
1440
noble Earl also used this qualification, that though the action was extreme, he was not prepared to say that, excepting in as far as it was connected with outrage and intimidation, he had much to say against it. What does that mean? Why, the whole case made by the Earl of Camperdown was that intimidation was the head and front and centre of the whole thing, that if you take out the intimidation you leave nothing. Therefore, I venture to think it would have been much more worthy of the best traditions of the noble Earl's life, and most consonant with that period of his career when he showed that he knew how to govern and rule, if he had expressed himself with greater clearness and directness on this important matter. But he let slip a sentence which really went a long way towards explaining the state of things brought forward by Lord Camperdown. He said, in one part of his speech, that "There is a powerful League defying Her Majesty's Government." If that had taken place—if that state of things had existed under the Viceroyalty of the noble Earl, if any one could have said there was then a powerful League defying Her Majesty's Government, what would he have thought was the duty of Her Majesty's Government in the matter? The noble Earl has given some explanation of his attitude in reference to the suppression of meetings. I will put this question to him. Did he ever, in either of his Vice-royalties, hesitate to suppress meetings when he was satisfied that such meetings would lead to intimidation in the neighbourhood, and to a disturbance of those who desired to fulfil their vocations peaceably, or that they might lead to outrage? I venture to say that he never did, and that in the case of every single one of the meetings he suppressed he was satisfied they would have led to intimidation, disturbance, and outrage, if permitted to be held. I hear the noble Earl apparently commenting upon what I am saying, but I do not quite follow. I would much prefer if the noble Earl thinks I am not accurately representing him that he would get up and tell me where I am wrong. I will put the proposition again, that in the case of every one of the meetings he suppressed he must have been satisfied, and was satisfied, that if

1441
permitted they would have led to intimidation, disturbance, and outrage. That, I think, is a state of things to be deprecated and prevented, if possible, by every one who desires to see order prevailing in the community. The noble Earl says that he never sought to interfere with meetings, save under exceptional circumstances. There was certainly a meeting in the County Down, I cannot recall the name of the place at the moment, which was interfered with by the noble Earl opposite. I do not at all criticise his action in reference to it, but that was a case where he did interfere to prevent a discussion that was sought to be carried on. As to the attacks upon the noble Earl, he said, in the closing part of his speech, that he regarded them all as rhetorical.
EARL SPENCER: Not all.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Well, excepting the extremely painful one that was referred to by the noble Earl.
EARL SPENCER: I have not said that all the attacks made upon us in the Press were rhetorical.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I do not press the point at all. I am quite aware that any one at all who holds such an important office, and who fulfils such important duties in a country, must be subject to a certain amount of criticism which is disagreeable. The criticism of the noble Earl in Ireland was certainly intensely disagreeable, and could hardly be covered by the mild expression "rhetorical." It accused him of almost every crime that was possible or conceivable in administration, or that could be committed by one placed in his high position. The attitude which the noble Earl now chooses to assume in relation to those who made the criticisms is a matter entirely for himself, and I will pass that by, but I think it would have been more satisfactory if the noble Earl, when his attention was invited to certain matters now going on in Ireland, and when ho was asked to express an opinion with reference to them, would have expressed an opinion with clearness, force, and a freedom from ambiguity, which would have prevented the possibility of his words being used as the words of one who had not a clear view antagonistic to those who were practising methods of intimidation, which ought
1442
to be reprobated as leading to results both deplorable and disastrous.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must say I think this Debate has been one of the most extraordinary I have ever heard in this House. One would have supposed my noble Friend Earl Spencer was on his trial before your Lordships for what he did many years ago, but the only ground that I can find on which he has been so violently attacked is that he has not expressed an opinion on certain matters at a certain time. I have yet to learn that any noble Lord in this House is to be called upon to take part in any Debate, or that, if he thinks fit not to do so, he is liable to attack upon that ground. But I must congratulate the noble Earl on what has taken place, because evidently the most extraordinary importance is attached to his opinion, and it would seem that unless Her Majesty's Government can obtain an expression of that opinion their position is one that is not altogether confortable or satisfactory. That seems to me to be the general result of the discussion. The noble Marquess opposite told us that he did not speak as an ex-Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but in his character of an individual Peer, and evidently as an Orangeman from the north, and I was very glad to hear it, because I certainly cannot congratulate him, as an ex-Lord Lieutenant, either upon the tone, temper, or matter of the speech he has delivered. I cannot conceive anything more unfortunate than that a noble Lord who was recently Viceroy of Ireland should make an inflammatory speech against a large portion of the Irish people. The full explanation was given by the noble Marquess himself that he did not speak as late Lord Lieutenant, but that he spoke as an Ulsterman. Much as I admire the sterling qualities of the population of the north of Ireland, there is one thing I do not admire in them, and that is their Orange faction, which, I believe, has done as much harm as any other faction has ever done to that country. The language the noble Marquess used was exactly the kind of language I should expect to hear from an excited Orange landlord of the north of Ireland. Now, there has been a good deal said about Mr. Gladstone, but I think we may consider that Mr. Gladstone is

1443
perfectly well able to take care of himself, and it is not necessary now to refer to what has been said about him to-night. In the first place, as to the Motion of the Duke of Argyll, two years ago, which was alluded to by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, and who commented upon the fact that noble Lords on this Front Bench had not spoken, my noble Friend has already explained that that was because there was nothing in the Resolution in which we could not acquiesce. I entirely share with my noble Friend Earl Spencer whatever may have been the responsibility of our acquiescence in that Motion, expressing, as it did, a simple truism, which no one can question, as to the duty of Her Majesty's Government at all times. I acquiesced in it then, and I should acquiesce in it now. What was expressed there is, I hope, the duty of every loyal subject of the Queen, that is to support Her Majesty's Government in all measures necessary to be taken for the purposes indicated in that Motion. But what is sought to be inferred from the Motion is a totally different thing, that is, that we approved of the particular policy of Her Majesty's present Government. That, no doubt, was what was intended by the noble Duke, but we looked to the words of the Motion, and we considered that in assenting to the Resolution we were simply assenting to what it was impossible for anybody to deny. Now, the conclusion I draw from this discussion, and especially from the speech of my noble Friend who opened the Debate, is, that there is a powerful League in Ireland formed for the purpose of defying Her Majesty's Government. If that is the case, I think the success of the policy of Her Majesty's present Government in Ireland must be exceedingly doubtful. I have, of course, no means of judging what takes place in that country, except by what I read in the newspapers; but I have no doubt, from what I have now heard from my noble Friend, who is a supporter of the Government, that there is a state of things in one part of that country, at all events, which is in a very high degree unsatisfactory. If that be the result of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, it seems to me it justifies the position we have taken. Our position is very simple. We have ceased to believe in a policy of
1444
coercion, and we assert that it will fail in the effect desired from it, however ably it may be carried out; and we certainly do not acquiesce in the mode in which the coercive policy of the Government has been carried into effect. As the discussion has been extended over the general subject by the noble Lords who have spoken, I may for a moment venture to say that I cannot conceive a system more detestable—I believe it has been called "damnable" in another place—than that of the "shadowing" pursued by the present Government in Ireland. I deny entirely that, as has been said, it corresponds with the ordinary watching of a suspected criminal by a detective. I deny that it is the same thing, and I say that if the system of shadowing or sending constables to spy upon and overhear what is said by a man who may be suspected of boycotting or something of that kind were pursued in this country no Government depending on a system so unjustifiable could exist for a week. If I were to go further on the present occasion I should say that the whole demeanour of Her Majesty's Government, as represented by the Chief Secretary, towards a large portion of the Irish people, is in the highest degree impolitic. Nothing could be more contrary to the interests of this country than constantly to insult a large portion of our fellowcountrymen—the people of Ireland. Not very long ago I had occasion myself to take part in the carrying out of coercive measures, though in a state of things very different from the present; but at all events, while carrying out strong and severe measures, because I considered it my duty to do so, I cannot reproach myself with ever having addressed one offensive word even against those whom I believed to be guilty of conspiracy against the Crown. And I did not do so because I do not believe it is in the interests of this country to provoke the Irish people against us, and I did not consider it my duty to aggravate the hostility which, unfortunately! has so long prevailed among the Irish people towards the Government of this country. Reference has been made to my noble Friend's policy in regard to the suppression of public meetings. What I understood the noble Earl beside me to say was that he did not interfere with meetings unless he thought it was

1445
likely they would lead to murder or murderous outrage. The noble Lord (Ashbourne) added intimidation, but the noble Karl did not say he interfered with them simply to prevent intimidation, but when they would be likely to 4ead to murder.
EARL SPENCER: Or murderous outrages.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: At all events he did not say intimidation also. That was the correction I desired to make. Then to return for a moment to the immediate subject of this discussion from which we have wandered so much, the immediate occurrences and present state of circumstances at Tipperary. I am free to confess that my sources of information are not such as to enable me to form a very definite opinion as to what is taking place there. I suppose it is one of the episodes, and a very unfortunate one, no doubt, in the long war which has gone on between landlords and tenants in Ireland. In the event of a controversy arising between a landlord and his tenants I should think for a neighbouring landlord to interfere as Mr. Smith-Barry seems to have done with what did not concern him is very unwise and is likely to lead to disagreeable consequences. Then as regards what my noble Friend said in his speech at Wolverton. I, of course, do not defend violent intimidation or outrage upon inoffensive persons, and what Earl Spencer said in his speech at Wolverton was simply that we must make allowance for causes which lead to agitation, and for occurrences which may be the consequences of an agitation otherwise not criminal in itself. Here I would make this observation, that that remark is applicable fully to Trades Unionism in this country. We do not, any of us, in this country now think that Trades Unions are to be condemned as bad in themselves; but I am quite certain that nobody who has followed their action can have failed to see that there have been many things done which we must blame. On the occasions of strikes taking place many things are done which we must strongly and entirely condemn. But it is not that we condemn the whole system of Trades Unionism and strikes, but only those particular occurrences. I do not compare Trades Unionism as we have it in this country with such com-
1446
binations as we see in Ireland; neither do I compare such action as sometimes follows Trades Unionism with the outrages which arise out of the action of the National League in Ireland. What I say is that in both cases you must bear in mind that there may be agitations which may be perfectly lawful in themselves which yet lead to occurrences which all must condemn and deplore. My Lords, I will return to what I begun by saying. The whole moral of this discussion seems to me to be that there is a state of things in parts of Ireland which is most unsatisfactory, and Her Majesty's Government must feel that their policy in that country is far from having been successful. My noble Friend behind me was taunted with his change of opinion; he admits that change of opinion; and I admit a change in my opinion. The noble Lord says the change in the case of my noble Friend has been sudden and extraordinary. Well, I suppose all such changes are sudden and extraordinary in the view of those who condemn them, but that does not prove that the change of opinion may not have been wise. There are occasions when it is very unwise to persevere in a course of action which is proved to have failed, and when much more courage and wisdom are shown in changing to another set of opinions. Then we heard from the noble Marquess the old stale assertions about our acting in concert with Mr. Parnell. I am really quite ashamed to give the very obvious answer that when it was convenient to the noble Lords a few years ago to act with Mr. Parnell for the purpose of turning us out of office they did not stop to ask themselves whether Mr. Parnell and his friends were persons with whom they would like to associate themselves in political life, and I think for that matter the whole of that subject might very well be dismissed. The question now is not what may have been Mr. Parnell's opinions in time past, not what may have been Mr. Parnell's relations with this or that Party in time past, not those matters which formed the subject of inquiry before the Parnell Commission, but whether or not the policy which is advocated by the Opposition or the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued is the wise one. I heard a noble Lord make reference to

1447
"the fragment of the Liberal Party." I think that "fragment" is a very large and solid one; and I venture to tell the noble Marquess opposite that it is not likely to be very long before that fragment will have grown so large as to carry some measure of Home Rule into effect.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): I can assure your Lordships that I had no intention of taking part in this discussion, and I shall not do so at any length. In my opinion the Debate will add something to the delicacy of which we have heard so much, which noble Lords opposite entertain in either originating or taking part in discussions which are originated in this House. I rise chiefly for the purpose of alluding to one remark which fell from the noble Earl who has just sat down, who found fault with the noble Marquess behind me because he said that the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, did not use his authority sufficiently either in this House or in the country to denounce the outrages and malpractices to which Lord Camperdown has referred. The noble Earl opposite (Lord Kimberley) went on to say that noble Lords who sit opposite ought to be very much nattered at finding that the authority of Lord Spencer is so high in this House that so much value should be attached to his opinion. It is natural, however, that value should be attached to the opinion of anyone who has occupied the position of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for so long, as Lord Spencer has done, I believe eight years, and that he should expect to find that his utterances in public should be treated with extreme attention on this side of the House. But what we complain of is that the noble Earl is not reticent when he goes about the country making speeches in small towns before picked audiences of a particular political complexion, and makes statements before those Radical audiences, but when he comes down to this House and hears his sentences quoted against him, and his opinions canvassed, he has hitherto foreborne to rise in his place and offer any explanation or denial of the sentiments he is accused of having uttered. I am happy to say that tonight he has, by the energy of my noble Friend, if I may be excused for using a some-
1448
what vulgar term, been "drawn" at last. I will, however, venture to say that the answers which he has given to the accusations of my noble Friend behind me are not such as will carry conviction to the minds of his doubting countrymen. The real object of the discussion which has arisen to-night has been not only to explain to us the circumstances of the Tipperary case, because that was done sufficiently by the noble Lord opposite, who opened this Debates but to demand, as I think we have a right to do, that the noble Lords opposite, and5 those with whom they are accustomed to-act in political life, should do something which shall discourage the operations of the members of the National League, among whom they number so many intimate friends and colleagues, politically speaking, in order to mitigate those horrors which are perpetrated by the National League in Ireland. In the long history of misdeeds and acts for which it is difficult to find an adequate epithet, I know none more worthy the consideration of the country than the story which has been so clearly unfolded by my noble Friend. We have here the-case of a landlord who is, it is admitted even by his opponents, of the most benevolent and liberal character, and who had lived ever since he became possessed of his property on the most friendly terms with his tenants, who had spent large sums of money on improvements for the advantage of his tenants, and who generally speaking, it has been admitted alike by his advocates and by his political opponents, was a model of what a landlord should be in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. This is the man who has been fastened upon by the National League, simply because he chose to adopt a course which certainly will not, I think, meet with disfavour from my noble Friend opposite or of any of his friends, that is to say, to join the Landlords' League, to go to the assistance of a landlord in his immediate neighbourhood who he thought required such countenance at his hands. What followed, the noble Earl has described. I need not say I am not going to repeat all the sickening details of the outrages which followed, and of the state of things which supervened. It is sufficient to say here is a once flourishing town which has had its trade destroyed, its buildings

1449
emptied, its markets ruined, and its inhabitants driven out of its borders. All this disorder has been eaused by action of the National League, of a character which has been described to-night, but which we cannot induce noble Lords opposite openly and honestly to denounce. I venture to think that a great deal of what has happened in Tipperary could by the perpetrators be directly justified by the speeches of the noble Lord opposite and his friends. I consider that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord opposite and also to the noble Marquess behind me for originating this discussion, and for giving us an opportunity of stating publicly, which I venture to do not only as a Member of the Government but as a Member of your Lordships' House, the abhorrence with which we view the action of the National League and the disappointment we feel at the want of success of the repeated attempts we have made to induce noble Lords opposite to dissociate themselves from those with whom they are allied, and who pursue that action for political purposes. At all events, I am glad we have had an opportunity of making clear to the public to-night that we, on our part, are determined to uphold law and order, and to do our best to prevent the recurrence, if possible, of those acts which have been animadverted upon, and that in the future, as in the past, we shall continue, in spite of the speeches of the noble Lords opposite, to endeavour to the utmost of our power to destroy the baneful influence of the National League.
*EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I do mot wish to detain your Lordships for many moments, but I desire to protest against the assumption of my noble Friend Lord Spencer, that the rents determined by the Land Commissioners, and above all by the Sub-Commissioners, are to be taken as fair. The appointment of the Sub-Commissioners, and I say now what I have repeatedly stated both in public and in private, considering their antecedents and the language they had used about landlords and rents in Ireland, and I speak as an Irish landowner—the nomination of those men by the Irish Government of the day was enough to intimidate all landowners, and to lead to their apprehending what was
1450
in the result only too well verified, most unfair decisions on a very large scale by the Sub-Commissioners. The Land Commissioners' names were submitted to this House and to the other House of Parliament, but the Sub-Commissioners were appointed solely on the authority of the then Irish Government, and the great majority of the apportionments of rents which were so triumphantly alluded to by my noble Friend Lord Spencer were practically made by the Sub-Commissioners, in whom, for the reason I have given as to the majority of them, or certainly a large number of them, no Irish landowner could feel the slightest confidence. While I am addressing your Lordships I think I may venture to say that the rebuke administered by the noble Earl to the noble Marquess for using inflammatory language was rather misplaced. The most inflammatory and severe language that he could use fell far short of the quotations that he gave from the language of the noble Earl's own colleagues. The "Gospel of Plunder," and "drifting through rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire," are words, I think, stronger than any that the noble Marquess in his admirable speech uttered on his own behalf. I rejoice that at last we have had some members of the Home Rule Party open their lips in this House, and I quite agree with the noble Lord Privy Seal that the reply of my noble Friend Lord Spencer to the attack of the noble Marquess was singularly inconclusive and unsatisfactory.

BARRACKS BILL.—(No. 163.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: My Lords, this Bill, to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-night, is essentially a Financial Bill, and I would remind your Lordships that it has passed through the other House not only without Division but with extraordinarily little Debate. I beg to introduce this measure to the notice of the House—first, on the score of military efficiency; secondly, on the score of the health and comfort of the troops, and of those who are dependent on them—their wives and families; and, thirdly, on the score of economy

  1451
  Up to the present time there has not been put forward any great scheme of concentration or of accommodation for our troops. In times past it appears that barracks have been built from time to time in various parts of the country probably to meet the exigencies of the moment, and the result of this system, or what perhaps I may better call want of system, is that many of these barracks are placed in the centre of towns where there are no facilities for drill or for musketry practice; some of them are unhealthy or unsanitary and dilapidated, whilst others of them are too small to hold a regiment. For the first time a thorough scheme has been prepared by the Quartermaster General for the concentration and for the accommodation of the troops. When I use the word "concentration" I do not only mean the concentration of large bodies of men as in our large camps, but also the concentration of single regiments, and also of several batteries of Artillery. Therefore, when I say concentration of troops, I mean their concentration in barracks sufficiently large to hold one regiment. The Secretary of State has been advised that it is very desirable that the Royal Artillery should be concentrated in groups of not less than two or three batteries. Something has been done in the way of that concentration, and it is hoped that there will be besides Aldershot, provision for concentrations at Newcastle, Colchester, Sheffield, Hilsea, and the Curragh. With regard to Cavalry concentration, that will chiefly consist of the small concentrations that I spoke of before in barracks large enough to contain a whole regiment, where at present a regiment is scattered and divided. The chief concentration of Infantry should, it has been decided, be as it is now at Aldershot. The advantages of many places which have been mentioned have been discussed. Salisbury Plain has been mentioned and Cannock Chase, but on the whole it has been decided that Aldershot has the greatest advantages. In the first place, there is a large space of land there already in the possession of the Government, there is a good soil, and there are various appliances on the ground, and it is also within easy reach of the Metropolis. It has, therefore, been decided to add to the number of troops already encamped at Aldershot
  1452
  one battery of Artillery and six battalions of Infantry. But to carry this into effect it will be absolutely necessary to re-construct the whole of the Camp at Aldershot. The state of the huts is, notorious. The wooden huts there were run up shortly after the Crimean War, and many of them are now 35 years old; the roofs are flattening down; the; walls are bulging; many of them have been propped up for some time; and keeping them in even their existing moderate state of repair costs the country as much as, £7,000 a year. It will be necessary to remove those huts, and in their place to build huts or barracks off permanent materials. Two lines in the North Camp have been already reconstructed, and it remains to re-construct the remainder of the North Camp, enlarging also the hospital and building, some married quarters. The South Camp, will also have to be re-constructed; the permanent barracks will also have to be added to, and further hospital accommodation will have to be supplied also in the South Camp. Besides this, arrangements have been made with the Home Secretary to take over the male prison at Woking, which, with a very inconsiderable outlay, can be made available as a thoroughly good barrack for one Infantry battalion within easy access of Aldershot. What I have said with regard to the huts at Aldershot applies to the huts at the Curragh; some of them are good, some of them very bad; and a great deal of re-construction is necessary there also. At Colchester, too, a good deal will have to be done, and at Shorncliffe the same. At Belfast, it will be necessary to build a new barrack for one Infantry battalion, and to make improvements in the present barracks. It will be necessary there also to build married quarters. There the married men are now entirely lodged out, there are no married quarters at all, and the expense of lodging them out is large, besides which it is bad, as one can easily imagine, for the discipline of the men. In London the only barracks that I need mention as requiring looking to are the Regent's Park Barracks. They are in a perfectly sanitary state as regards the men, but they are very bad barracks as regards the horses. They will require a small outlay to put them into thorough order, and besides

  1453
  that, married quarters will have to be built. The site has not yet been determined upon, but Millbank has been suggested. At Manchester we have barracks in the middle of the town, built up to the very walls, and partly commanded by the windows of the houses in the immediate vicinity. We propose to pull down those barracks and to build another set on some other site which may be convenient for Manchester. That site has not yet been decided upon. At Portsmouth, too, it is well-known that the barracks were unfit. They have been condemned for years, and there have been repeatedly Reports made upon them as being utterly unfit for the accommodation of troops. They are, in fact, now pulled down, and the state of things which has been disclosed has amply justified the Reports that were continually being sent in about them. Then abroad, in the Colonies, the barracks both in Bermuda and Gibraltar are reported as being in a bad state, and some money will have to be spent upon them to prevent the recurrence of enteric fever. At Cape Town, also, the barracks are reported to be in a bad state. For Malta there is a very large scheme proposed which I need not enter into now; but the garrison has been considerably increased there of late years, the troops are greatly crowded, and it will be absolutely necessary to considerably increase the barrack accommodation. My Lords, I have not attempted to go into details; I have merely gone generally through the list. There are, of course, other matters in the Bill, but it would only weary the House for me to speak of them. At the same time, I trust I have said enough to persuade the House that it is high time this very large and important question was taken up and thoroughly gone into. However, there are one or two small questions of detail which I should like to enter into before I sit down. It is only fair and just to Her Majesty's Government that the country at large should be thoroughly satisfied that this large sum of money which is proposed to be spent will be properly and rightly expended, so that the country will have its money's worth. The Secretary of State has called in to advise him several gentlemen who are complete outsiders, and in no way connected with the War Office; Mr. Creed, the surveyor
  1454
  to the Land Commissioners; Mr. Pilkington, a well-known architect, who has had enormous experience in the erection of industrial and workmen's dwellings, also Mr. Roger Field, who is well-known as a distinguished sanitary engineer. All those gentlemen have given him excellent advice. But the Secretary of State depends even more upon the resuscitation of the Army Sanitary Committee. That was a body which was first brought into existence by one who has left behind him a greater name than any other Secretary of State for War, I mean Lord Herbert of Lea. But that Committee has lain of late years entirely dormant, and the Secretary of State has determined to resuscitate it. The President of the Committee will be the Quartermaster General; and I think the name of Sir Redvers Buller is in itself a guarantee of energy and thoroughness. He will be assisted in his work by the Deputy Inspector of Barracks, Colonel Locock; in the Army Medical Department by the Surgeon General and an experienced Army surgeon, and there will also be another member appointed by the India Office. The instructions of this Committee are very wide indeed. The Committee has to report upon all sites and upon all plans of buildings; it is also to visit the buildings while they are being erected; it has to consider the Sanitary Reports from all Home and Colonial Stations: it has to receive all the Sanitary Reports from India; and, in fact, the instructions given to them generally are of the widest possible nature. I may tell your Lordships that the gentlemen forming this Committee have accepted this responsibility with great cheerfulness and with perfect confidence, and it is hoped that their cooperation may be of the greatest possible value. One word I should like to add, and that is upon the subject of Soldiers' Institutes. It is proposed in building new barracks and re-organising old barracks to form where it is possible institutes instead of the ordinary canteens. In doing this we propose to follow the system which has been adopted with very great success by the Commander-in-Chief in India. Sir Frederick Roberts. His system has been to separate the liquor-bar, which answers to our canteen, from the coffee-shop, or refreshment, or supper

  1455
  room, which would answer to what we should call in England the grocery shop and coffee room, and to separate that again entirely from the recreation department. We propose in those respects to follow the lines which have been so successfully followed by Sir Frederick Roberts. But we have one little difficulty which I will mention. In India, Sir Frederick Roberts has gone upon the system of handing over the temperance room entirely to the Army Temperance Society. But in England there are a great many Temperance Societies, and it is impossible for the "War Office to hand over these rooms to any Society which is not entirely undenominational and unsectarian; but we trust that the various Temperance Societies in England will combine to form one Army Temperance Society, as there is in India, to which we may be able to hand over these Institutions. As regards the married quarters, I am quite sure that your Lordships who have cottages of your own for the condition of which you care will be the first to admit that of late years there have been enormous strides made in the housing of the working classes; and I am quite sure you will agree with me that the wives of our soldiers should have at least those comforts which they would have had if they had married civilians in that class of life from which our Army is recruited. It is, I know, said that England is on a level with other nations in the matter of housing her troops. That may be so, or it may not; but from an excellent Report which we have lately received through the courtesy of the German Government I should venture to doubt it—at least as far as that particular nation is concerned. Even if other nations choose to house their troops badly, that is no reason why we should follow their example. Other nations have their Armies supplied by the conscription; we, on the other hand, depend for our Army upon the system of voluntary enlistment; and I am sure your Lordships will agree that the men who enlist into Her Majesty's Army and agree to serve the State should receive every consideration from the Government. My Lords, I ask you to give a Second Reading to this Bill, on the threefold ground of military efficiency, the health and comfort of the troops, and economy.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Brownlow.)
  LORD SANDHURST: The noble Earl has said that this is in its character a Financial Bill, and that is, no doubt, the fact; but the consequences of the Bill will be of enormous interest not only to our soldiers themselves, but to all those who take an interest in Army matters. I can assure the noble Earl I do not rise in any way for the purpose of impeding the passage of this Bill, because I think he and his friends have grappled with a very difficult subject in a very bold and comprehensive manner, and I therefore most cordially welcome the Bill. I may mention that I have had some experience of the huts to which my noble Friend has referred, for I was quartered once at Shorncliffe in the winter time, and that experience is that as far as my particular hut went every device had, it always seemed to me, been made use of which could ensure as great an access of wind through it as possible, and nothing of any kind was ever done to exclude it. Now, if that was the case in an officer's hut, I am quite sure it was the same, if not worse, in the men's huts. Though I cannot say it did us any bodily harm, it gave rise to inconvenience and discomfort, and I think if that was the case with the officers it must have been ten times more so in regard to the men. In Dublin there are two barracks in particular, the Royal and the Richmond, parts of which are in a very unhealthy state; but besides those barracks there are one or two others, and the one which most predominates in my mind is the Linen Hall Barracks. I was therein 1886, and I was told they were very healthy; but, at the same time, they were in such a state that it was a positive slur and disgrace to, the Department that they should have housed soldiers in them. I hope that we shall now be able to do without those barracks, or at any rate, if it is necessary to have soldiers in that part of the town, that the buildings will be re-constructed. There is, perhaps, one point in this scheme put forward by my noble Friend upon which it is possible a difference of opinion might arise, and that is in regard to the massing of a very large number of troops at Aldershot out of the drill season. No one can exaggerate

  1457
  the importance of Aldershot as a place for exercising troops in the drill season. They have the great advantage there of obtaining some experience of camp life, and being exercised in the duties of camp life, both men and officers; and it also gives the senior grades of officers opportunities of commanding large bodies of men. But there is this point which suggests itself to my mind: whether, in massing a large number of troops at Aldershot, there may not be a redistribution made of such a nature as will cause the Regulars to lose touch in some degree with the Auxiliary Forces and thereby lessen the interest which is taken in the Army by the public, and thereby endanger the success of recruiting. With regard to the quarters for the married soldiers, I am extremely glad that has not been lost sight of. The life of a soldier who has to live out of barracks with his wife is one of great poverty; they have very likely to live amongst unpleasant surroundings, and in extremely unhealthy houses. It has always been one of the greatest surprises to me during my experience of soldiering how the men could have managed to turn out as smartly as they did. One point is that the number of married soldiers has decreased considerably ever since the introduction of the short service system, and it may be worth the while of the noble Earl and his friends to take into consideration whether the sum that is set apart for providing married quarters may not be excessive. Upon the point as to the massing of Artillery I do not offer any opinion, and I have only ventured to make these remarks upon the two points I have mentioned rather to guard myself, because I have no doubt the noble Earl is acting in complete harmony with the military advisers of the War Office, against whose opinion I should be sorry for a moment to put my own. I am extremely glad to hear of the resolution, which has been come to on the part of the authorities as to the Soldiers' Institutes, for I think that establishing those Institutes will tend to encourage sobriety among the younger soldiers. The re-appointment of the Sanitary Committee, too, is a matter upon which I have to congratulate the noble Earl, and also his announcement that the opinion of outside architects is
  1458
  to be taken. I should like also to impress upon him that when the contracts are made for the erection of the buildings the Director of Contracts should be enabled to see that the very best skill and materials are employed in carrying out the very great undertaking which the Government will then have in hand. With those few remarks I cordially support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *EARL FORTESCUE: Having more than 30 years ago had the honour of carrying through the House of Commons Resolutions affirming the expediency on grounds of true economy, and with a view to the greater efficiency of the Army, not less than of justice and humanity, of improving the sanitary state of our soldiers' barracks, and making better provision for the decent accommodation of our troops, I rejoice to hear from my noble Friend the admirable scheme, as it seems to me to be, which the Government are intending to carry out for the purpose of improving the barracks still further, and on a comprehensive scale. A great deal was done in this matter many years ago under the auspices of the lamented Mr. Sydney Herbert, but a great deal remained to be done. I particularly rejoice that more attention is to be paid to the accommodation of the married soldiers. I remember, among the great number of barracks that I visited, being shocked at finding the soldiers' wives divided in their quarters from a long dormitory full of young men, in many instances by nothing more substantial than a flimsy curtain. Nothing could be more miserably crowded and unsuitable than the accommodation for married soldiers which I remember seeing not in one but in many barracks which I inspected years ago. I rejoice heartily that the huts are to be superseded. I remember describing them to my constituents at Maryle-bone as combining the opposite disadvantages of permanent barracks and a flying camp, having the makeshift and uncomfortable character of the one, with the immobility and to a considerable extent—I may now say indeed to at least the full extent—the expensiveness incident to permanent barracks. I feel sure, not only as regards the comfort of the soldiers, but as regards real economy, the Government are well-

  1459
  advised in very largely substituting for the huts permanent and well-planned barracks. Years ago, also, when I was at Malta and Gibraltar, I took occasion to visit all the barracks in those garrisons of ours, and I was satisfied there was plenty of room for very great improvement in them. I heartily congratulate my noble Friend on the gratifying statement he is charged to make, and on the clearness with which he has made that statement to the House.
  *THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: I only want to offer a very few remarks upon the Bill which the noble Lord has so clearly explained. I think Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated upon dealing with the barrack question in the thorough manner they are doing. An immense amount of ill-health is caused in our Army by men being quartered in barracks built long before the present era of sanitary reform. With regard to the strategical advantages of massing men in such camps as Aldershot, I do not propose to offer to your Lordships any remarks be yond saying that they must be evident to all who consider how advantageous it is to concentrate your men in central positions, whence they can easily be despatched by railway to any point at which their services may be required. With regard to the statement made by the noble Lord that Lord Herbert of Lea's Sanitary Commission will be re-appointed, I am glad that has been determined on, and I hope their hands will not be tied by any particular and possibly inadequate amount of money being allocated for any particular barracks. I wish that Sanitary Commission had been appointed earlier, because some of the barracks which have been recently erected certainly present defects. I would refer to the Knightsbridge Barracks. There the floors of the barrack-rooms are made of the ordinary deal planking. Being constructed in that way in the ordinary manner, dirt, little pieces of breadcrumbs, and scraps from the men's dinners fall through the interstices, and remain between the boards. The only way of cleaning barrack-rooms beyond brushing them out is to use water for the purpose of scrubbing them out, not as housemaids clean boards with a piece of flannel and a pail, but very often by throwing the
  1460
  water along them. This ought to be very carefully done, but they throw down half a pail of water and swab the room out, and the consequence is that the water percolates through and collects under the boards in places. Very often in the old barracks it brings down the ceilings of the rooms below, and then orders are sent that the rooms are not to be swabbed out any more. That has taken place at the Regent's Park Barracks, and I hope the Sanitary Commission which is to be appointed will insist on the floors of future barracks being made of parquet lined with asphaltum, or some impervious material, so that the rooms can be properly washed out with water without the water percolating down into the rooms below through the boards and ceilings, or remaining between the interstices of the boards. The matter of the married quarters is a most important one, more particularly as affecting the London garrison, for in London married men have to pay much larger rents for their rooms than the men pay in country districts. Soldiers are given permission to marry after a certain number of years' service, upon having obtained certain good conduct badges, and having a certain sum of money in the Savings' Bank. When they are so qualified they are allowed to marry. But there is not sufficient accommodation in the barracks for the families of those soldiers who are allowed to marry under those conditions. Therefore, they are granted by Government a "lodging allowance." The allowance granted to a well-conducted soldier in a. London garrison amounts to 4d. a day. That 4d. a day, I may inform your Lordships, is utterly inadequate to supply a trooper or a man receiving 1s. 9d. a day with a proper lodging for his family; and I do not think it is possible for a man to provide himself with decent accommodation under 6s. or 7s. a week at the least. Therefore, I say if the Government enlist men for long service, and allow those men after they have qualified themselves by good conduct to marry, they should, having placed them on the marriage roll, give them a sufficient allowance to house their families without drawing on their scanty pay. I do not know whether this Bill includes provisions for new ranges for the troops, but I think that matter is of almost more

  1461
  importance than providing for re-construction of the barracks themselves, because with the new rifle it is absolutely necessary that new ranges should be provided throughout many districts in England, as the new weapon carries about twice as far as the old rifle which has been hitherto in use.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: One or two questions have been put by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Sandhurst, which I will answer as shortly as possible. He has spoken of the condition of the Royal Barracks at Dublin, and your Lordships can easily imagine that the Royal Barracks there will require entire overhauling and re-construction, and particularly new draining. It is also proposed to build new barracks near the Phoenix Park at Gormans town, and I hope they will be completed towards the end of next year. One word as regards the married soldiers. My noble Friend has pointed out that now we have short service there is a much smaller number of married soldiers than formerly, and that is certainly the case. The whole question was gone into two years ago, and provision has been made in that respect. But the diminution in the number of married soldiers is not quite so great as one might suppose. I have ascertained S3me particulars as to what the numbers of married soldiers are, which, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote. In an ordinary battalion I find there are 2 Warrant Officers, 25 sergeants and Staff sergeants, and 22 rank and file. Of course, the Warrant Officers, and the sergeants, and Staff sergeants, are not short service men. Therefore, I think the difference is not so great as might at first sight be imagined. Then the noble Lord said he hoped the Committee would have a free hand. I can assure him that the Committee will have a very free hand, and I have no doubt they will not hesitate for a moment to place before the Secretary of State any matter which they think ought to be brought before him with regard to the materials or construction of the barracks.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION BILL).—(No. 110.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 199.)
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1867, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 169.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—(No. 158.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): I do not propose to detain your Lordships at any length upon this Bill. It is a Bill containing a considerable number of clauses—52 I think—but they deal entirely with matters of detail. I will just state that the object of this. Bill is to extend to Municipal, School Board, and County Council elections for Scotland the provisions in force with regard to Parliamentary elections, and also to bring the law of Scotland into harmony with the law of England in that respect. I think your Lordships will agree that it is very desirable that object should be carried out, and this Bill proposes simply to do what I have stated.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING BILL. (No. 183.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, the object of this Bill, which has passed the House of Commons, is to prevent the recurrence of some difficulties which arise in the collection of the Poor Rate in Ireland. The rate is made several times a year, and the person to pay it is the person in occupation at that time,

  1463
  and that person remains liable, although he may have ceased to have anything to do with the premises. That is productive sometimes of great hardship, and this Bill proposes to give Boards of Guardians power to determine in their discretion whether a person in those circumstances is or is not liable, and in that case the person who has subsequently become tenant is liable. That is the whole of the Bill, with the exception of a provision extending to Dublin.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT BILL. (No. 180.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL. (No. 98.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order; Further amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 200.)
  EDUCATION CODE (1890) BILL. (No. 157.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  INLAND REVENUE REGULATION BILL (No. 166.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.
  A Bill for extending the right of voting at Parliamentary, Municipal, and County Council elections in the United Kingdom, to duly qualified women, was presented by the Lord Denman; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 201.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Eleven o'clock.