Sitting of 17 July 1890

QUESTIONS

  FORTIFICATIONS AT CAPE TOWN.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an agreement was made some years ago between the Imperial Government and the Cape Government that guns should be supplied from England for the fortifications at Cape Town; if he can inform the House how many guns have been provided; and what steps are being taken to carry out the agreement on the part of the Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I beg to refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 3rd instant to the hon. Member for Preston.

DECAPITATION OF DACOITS IN BURMA.
DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the following statement telegraphed from Rangoon by the Times correspondent on the 12th inst.:—
"In accordance with the promise made in Parliament peremptory instructions were issued two years ago by the Government of India forbidding the continuance of the barbarous practice of decapitating Dacoits and carrying the head through the country. This order has
66
been openly disregarded. Two heads, each alleged to be the head of Bohkyawah, have been brought into Ayah within a fortnight. The Local Government have taken no steps to enforce these orders, or punish their subordinates for disobeying them;"
and whether he will inquire into the truth of this statement, and, if it be found true, will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent British Administration in Burmah being further disgraced by the practices described?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): If the statement of the Times correspondent is true, the distinct orders of the Chief Commissioner contained in a Circular of the 5th of March, 1887, have been violated. The Secretary of State will inquire into the truth of the statement

ASSISTANT SURGEONS IN INDIA.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, under the Circular, No. 50, of the 15th of September, 1868, which lays down strictly the procedure to be followed in the examination of Assistant Surgeons, any power is given to Dr. Hilson, the Inspector General of Civil Hospitals, Bengal, to reverse the decision of the Examining Committee, and to order further examination, as was done in the case of the three assistant surgeons who had been regularly examined in May, 1889, before Drs. Coates, Raye, Joubert, Mackenzie, and Saunders?
SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State thinks that the hon. Member must have been misinformed, because the examination of the two assistant surgeons referred to in the question was held, not under the Circular of the 15th of September, 1868, but under the later orders of the 13th of October, 1880. The Secretary of State will be glad to show the Papers to the hon. Member, and if he thinks them of sufficient importance to be produced they may then be laid on the Table.

NUMBER OF TROOPS IN BURMA.
MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the number of troops now employed in Upper Burma; and what is their number as compared with

67
the population in India and Upper Burma respectively?
SIR J. GORST: The number of troops is 11,000; being ·00004 of the population of India, and ·0022 of the population of Burma.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is there not practically a large Municipal Army in addition to the troops?
SIR J. GORST: In Burma, as well as in every other civilised community in the world, there are police as well as military.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are there not police retained independently for military purposes?
SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; the military in Burma are military, and the police are police.
MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the total cost of the Burmese war up to date?
SIR J. GORST: The cost of the Burmese war up to date is Rx. 4,524,700.

INDIAN MERCHANTS IN THE ORANGE FREE STATE.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a law has recently been promulgated in the Orange Free State prohibiting, after the lapse of two months, the residence and trade in such State of Indian merchants, British subjects; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I have heard that a law has been passed in the Orange Free State prohibiting residence, except by permission, and prohibiting the acquisition of fixed property there in the case of all Asiatic races, other than Cape Malays, but I have not heard that it has been promulgated. The period of grace in the draft law was 12, and not two months. The High Commissioner, acting under instructions from the High Commissioner, has made, and is making, representations to the Orange Free State Government against the provisions of the law.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I received a telegram late last night signed "Shepstone," from Durban, stating that a law
68
was promulgated on the 15th prohibiting trade and residence of Indian merchants which is to take effect in two months. That is my only ground for putting the question.

KING'S CROSS BRANCH POST OFFICE.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any complaints have reached him with reference to the alleged unsanitary or unhealthy condition of the King's Cross Branch Office, Caledonian Road; and whether, in view of the fact that it has been closed twice owing to the prevalence of fever, and that there is rarely a full staff of clerks owing to absence by reason of illness, the Post Office Authorities will inquire into the matter?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The King's Cross Branch Post Office was closed in 1881 and 1887 in consequence of the children of the tenants of the upper floors, and of the caretaker respectively, having scarlet fever. In neither case was there any reason to think that the disease was caught in the house. The premises have been specially examined by the Chief Medical Officer to the Department, who reports the sanitary condition to be very fair. The rate of sick absence among the staff has not been above the average. There is at present one clerk absent with typhoid fever, but the cause is not attributed to any defects in the office.

ADMIRAL FREEMANTLE.
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can explain how it happened that Admiral Freemantle, during the recent Anglo-German Blockade on the coast of Africa, hired a small steamer called the Somali, at a cost of £25 per day, costing for about nine months' hire a total sum of £5,000, although he could have purchased the vessel when he chartered her for £4,000; and whether it is true that he has again chartered the vessel for a further period of 12 months at £20 per day, or a total sum of £7,300?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The facts of the case are as follows:—The Somali fully found and

69
equipped was hired at £25 a day from May to October, 1889, and then for three months further to the end of January, 1890, at the reduced rate of £12 10s. a day. On the termination of this period it was found necessary to charter her for 12 months further at an increased rate of £20 a day, the owners having represented that the rate of £12 10s. a day had been accepted under the impression that the Admiralty would purchase the vessel at the end of the first 12 months. The charter up to January 31 cost £5,275, and the second charter, if continued for the full 12 months, will coat £7,300. I am not aware that there was any possibility of purchasing the Somali for £4,000. The first charter included an option to purchase the vessel after 12 months' hire for £12,000.

RUNCORN POOR LAW GUARDIANS.
MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to irregularities in connection with the last election of Guardians of the poor for the township of Runcorn; whether he is aware that a considerable number of qualified electors received no voting papers; that many mistakes in the distribution and collection of voting papers occurred owing to the fact that the numbers of the houses in any street were not entered on the papers; and that the persons employed by the Returning Officer to assist in the counting of the voting papers were two of his own sons and the Workhouse Master, who had been for many years his own clerk; whether the irregularities affected the result of the election; and whether the Local Government Board made inquiry into the conduct of the election so as to fix the responsibility for and prevent the recurrence of such irregularities?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have received complaints as to irregularities an connection with the last election of Guardians for the township of Runcorn. At the election five Guardians were to be elected, and there were nine candidates. I am not able to give the precise number of persons who were entitled to vote in the election, but it must have
70
been very large, as one candidate received as many as 946 votes. In communications which I have received from one of the candidates it is alleged that in 37 cases there was a failure either to distribute or to collect voting papers. I have made inquiry as to each of these cases, and find that in some of them a satisfactory explanation has been given. For instance, there are cases where persons had left the house in respect of which they were assessed prior to the election. In others the collectors were unable to obtain an answer when they called with the voting papers. There are other cases in which mistakes have occurred through inadvertence in preparing the voting papers or other wise. It is, however, to be observed that in the public notice which is given of the election the attention of the electors is distinctly called to the fact that if any voter fails to receive a voting paper on the day of the distribution, or if any voting paper is not collected through the default of the Returning Officer, or any person employed to collect the voting papers, the voter is entitled to attend at the place fixed by the Returning Officer, and there personally hand in a voting paper filled up by him. I learn from the Returning Officer that in one case a messenger, who asked for voting papers for certain electors, was informed that if the electors wished to vote it would be necessary that they should attend before the Returning Officer for the purpose. In none of the cases, however, did the elector avail himself of this right. It is impossible for me to say whether the result of the election would have been affected if the persons in the cases referred to had availed themselves of the right to which I have alluded. I have no definite information as to whether or not the sons of the Returning Officer and the Workhouse Master assisted the Returning Officer in counting the votes, but the officer was entitled to have assistance in this duty, and it does not appear to me that there was any objection to the employment of these persons. It is a matter for regret that irregularity should have occurred in any of these cases, but I am not satisfied that there was any wilful neglect, and after full consideration the Local Government Board arrived at the conclusion that the cir-

71
cumstances were not such as to require that the heavy expense of a new election should be incurred.

PARISH BOUNDARIES IN SCOTLAND.
MR. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that doubts have arisen as to the powers of the Boundary Commissioners under "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," to alter the boundaries of parishes; and whether he would have any objection to state, for the satisfaction of Local Authorities, to whom litigation would be a serious matter, whether the Commissioners have any power to detach a portion of a parish lying entirely in one county for the purpose of connecting the detached portions of another parish, also wholly in the same county?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): From information which the hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to give me, I find that this question is specifically before the Boundary Commissioners at the present time. He will, therefore, not misunderstand me if I say that I do not think I can, with propriety, express an opinion on the subject.

PAUPER ALIENS.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the letter of Mr. Arnold White in the Times of 15th July (page 5), upon "The Invasion of Pauper Aliens"; and whether the aliens arriving by 128 ships out of 261 have not been subjected to the statistical control now being exercised; and, in such case, if he will take steps to ensure that Parliament shall be made fully conversant with the extent to which foreign labour is brought to this country to compete with national labour?
MR. BRUNNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if he will be good enough to ascertain and inform the House to what extent Englishmen go to foreign countries and compete with native labour?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have no doubt that that occurs to a large extent, but it scarcely seems to bear upon the question upon the
72
Paper, and I am afraid it would not be-possible to obtain statistics. My answer to the question is in the affirmative. My attention has been directed to the letter referred to by the hon. Member. The Returns of aliens arriving by the 128 ships to which my hon. Friend refers, were not subjected to the same statistical control as is now exercised over such Returns, because the ships arrived before the new arrangements of which I have-already informed the House were put in force.

COLONIAL DEFENCES.
MR. JAMES MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the following Papers relating to an increase in the-Military contribution proposed to be levied on the Straits Settlements, namely, the Despatch from the Colonial Office of the 13th December, 1889, to the Governor of the Straits Settlements containing the demand of Her Majesty's Government for an increased Military contribution; the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements in connection with that Despatch; the Governor's Despatch forwarding the Proceedings of the Legislative Council to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; together with any other Papers bearing on the subject which are already in hand, so that the House may have an opportunity of forming a judgment on the proposed action in this matter?
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I have also to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government are at present endeavouring to arrange for a more adequate contribution for military defence from those Colonies which are garrisoned by Her Majesty's troops borne on the British Estimates; whether such contribution is required from colonies with a good revenue, which have hitherto paid little or nothing, as well as from those which have hitherto made considerable contributions; whether the rich Colony of Ceylon is resisting the demand made upon it; whether Her Majesty's Government propose to insist on a demand put to this country in the case of Ceylon, Natal, and other colonies which have hitherto contributed too little; and whether the representatives of the tax-

73
payers of the British Colonies will be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion as well as the Colonies?
BARON H. DE WORMS: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on the 19th ult. to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock. As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, Her Majesty's Government have given much consideration to this subject, and have determined that the military contributions of the colonies must be increased where such contributions are inadequate. No demand, except for the present year, has yet been made upon Ceylon or Mauritius, the amount to be claimed being under discussion. No question has been raised as to Natal. An increased contribution has been demanded from the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong.

THE RIVER CLWYD.
MR. J. ROBERTS: I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Major Rowley Conway, who is a member of the Board of Conservators of the Rivers Clwyd and Elwy, has caused large stones to be placed in that part of the River Clwyd known as the Junction Pool, which is admittedly tidal and navigable, so as to prevent the netting of it by licensed fishermen; whether he is aware that criminal proceedings have twice been taken by him against the fishermen for netting, and that on both occasions the Justices considered their jurisdiction to be ousted by a bonâ fide claim of right; and whether the Board of Trade will, in the interests of the navigation of the river and of the fishermen, take steps to cause these stones to be removed? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to postpone the question.

FLASHING SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.
MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the £1,000 stated to have been paid to Admiral Colomb was made up of £750 from the Admiralty, and £250 from the War Office; whether of the £750 paid by the Admiralty, £500 was paid in January, 1868, in recognition of
74
his services in perfecting the plans of flashing signals for use in Her Majesty's ships; whether the remaining £250 was paid by the Admiralty in 1871, in respect of signals for joint Naval and Military use; whether the £250 paid by the War Office in January, 1871, was on account of signal arrangements for land service only; and what was the total cost incurred for the purchase of Admiral Colomb's signal apparatus supplied to the whole of Her Majesty's ships during the period the supply of the signal apparatus to Her Majesty's Fleet was left in Admiral Colomb's hands, namely, from 1864 to 1888, and what percentage of such total cost do the Admiralty estimate Admiral Colomb's profits to have been?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The £1,000 was made up of two distinct sums of £500 each. The first £500 was on account of the service to the Navy alone. The second £500 was on account of services in perfecting the system of signalling between the Army and Navy, and was charged in equal portions between Army and Navy funds. The terms of the receipts given by Admiral Colomb were respectively—
"In full discharge of all claims connected with the introduction into Her Majesty's ships of his plan of flashing signals, and expenses attendant thereon;"
and—
"In discharge of all claims on Her Majesty's Government on account of signal arrangements for land service, and in respect of a code of signals for joint Naval and Military use."
The total cost of the apparatus purchased by the Admiralty from Admiral Colomb between 1864 and 1888 cannot be definitely stated without a close scrutiny of the old Admiralty ledgers, but the value of the orders given between 1879–80 and 1888–9 amounted to about £6,000. As Admiral Colomb made his own arrangements with the firms who manufactured the apparatus the Admiralty are not in a position to state what profits he may have actually made on his contracts with the Government.

THE HOUSE DUTY.
MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, recently passed,

75
to exempt from House Duty houses with one front door yet with two or more tenements each of less than £20 per annum: and, if so, will he explain why the Somerset House officials and certain Inland Revenue officials in the country state that such houses are not included in the exemption; and whether, as this rendering of the Act would deprive of exemption many thousands of owners of such houses, he will give instructions securing to them what the House intended?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Houses such as those described by the hon. Member would be exempt from House Duty, irrespective of the question whether they have one or more front doors, if they fall within the conditions laid down in Subsection 2 of Section 26 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, namely, that they are constructed for the sole purpose of providing separate dwellings at rents not exceeding 7s. 6d. a week and are approved by the Medical Officer of Health. No such statement as that ascribed to the Inland Revenue officials has been made with the sanction of the Board of Inland Revenue; but the Act has, of course, no retrospective effect, and several applications as regards the year 1889–90 have been refused as not being within the Treasury concession then in force.

THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty about what time he intends holding the forthcoming Naval Manœuvres; how many and what type of ships are to be mobilised, and whether it is correct that the date has been postponed owing to many of the vessels having to be longer under repair than anticipated; and whether, with the large addition to the Navy of ocean cruisers, he will consent to extend the scope of the experimental operations to the protection of the leading food and cotton ocean routes, notifying to commanders of British shipping that they will be expected to avoid, as far as practicable, nominal capture by hostile experimental cruisers?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The date of mobilisation will not be communicated to the ports until the last moment. It
76
has not been postponed on account of the unpreparedness of the vessels for commission. Fifty-six ships and 24 torpedo boats will be employed during the manœuvres, comprising 18 battle ships, four belted cruisers, five armoured coast defence ships, 19 unarmoured cruisers, one torpedo depôt ship, and nine small craft, besides torpedo boats. The proposal contained in the last part of the question is not practicable.

LETTERS FROM EDINBURGH TO THURSO.
DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can explain why it is that letters from Edinburgh to Thurso, a distance of over 300 miles, are carried in about 13 hours, while from Thurso to Reay, a distance of 11 miles further, they take an additional 15 hours; whether he is aware that coaches run every day from Thurso to Reay; and whether something can be done to accelerate the delivery of letters. in this district?
MR. RAIKES: The passenger car-for Reay, which carries the mails, leaves. Thurso in the morning and returns the same day. Hence, letters for Reay arriving overnight are necessarily detained until the next morning. The coach referred to could not be made available—the hour at which it runs-being unsuitable for mail purposes. On the whole, the present arrangements seem best calculated to meet the requirements of the locality.

THE WINTER SESSION.
MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the House sitting hereafter through the greater part of the winter months, he will consider the desirability of providing some protection from the weather in Palace Yard for Members alighting at or departing from the House; and whether he will instruct an architect to prepare perspective drawings of what might be done, and have them exhibited in the House before the prorogation, so as to admit of the other 669 Members of the House, whose comfort and health may be affected, expressing their opinion with regard to it; and, if he will not do this latter, whether there is any objection to a private Member doing it?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): A few years ago we did provide in the Star Chamber Court a shelter for Members alighting at and departing from the House of Commons. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has used this shelter, but I believe the other 669 Members mentioned in my hon. Friend's question do avail themselves of it. I do not myself think that it would be well to risk disfiguring the front of Westminster Hall by erecting any further shelter in Palace Yard; but if my hon. Friend or any other Member desires to have such a perspective drawing as is suggested in the question prepared at his own expense, I do not suppose there would be any objection to its being exhibited in the Tea Room.
MR. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Standing Order, which gives precedence to private Members' Bills, passed through the greatest number of stages after Whitsuntide, will be altered to suit the new condition of things caused by the earlier meeting of Parliament?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I think the proposal of the hon. Member one well worthy of consideration, and I will undertake that it shall be considered.

EXCESSIVE SENTENCE.
MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that the men sentenced by Sheriff Balfour to £5 fine or 14 days' imprisonment for killing a rabbit were unable to pay the fine, and have been in prison since 12th July; and whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet been able to obtain their release?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The two men referred to failed to pay the fine imposed within the time allowed by the Sheriff. One surrendered himself on Saturday, July 12, and is now in prison, the other has not yet been found. The Secretary for Scotland has inquired into the case, and sees no reason for interfering with the sentence of the Court. The offence was not, as stated in the question, the killing one rabbit, although one rabbit was killed. The accused were found guilty of night poaching, which, by Statute, is severely punishable, not on
78
account of the game destroyed, but from serious dangers to the peace and to life which attend such night expeditions. In the case referred to the circumstances were not favourable, and some violence was used. The penalties imposed were largely within the statutory limits.

PROHIBITION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS IN SCOTLAND.
MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that public meetings are held at Wishaw Cross every week of the year, even on Saturdays and Sundays, and that no meeting there was ever prohibited by the Magistrates till the anti-compensation meeting was advertised to be held; and whether he can now state under what Statute the Wishaw Magistrates have power to "prohibit" a meeting "either at the Cross, or on or adjacent to the public streets of the burghs"?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not aware whether the statements in the first paragraph of the question are correct. I answered the whole of the last paragraph on Monday.

BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has seen a cable message transmitted from New York, by Reuter, to the Globe newspaper, and dated 16th July, stating that President Harrison, in reply to a Despatch from Lord Salisbury relative to the Behring Sea Seal Fishery negotiations, had stated that he thought it the duty of the United States, under the Act of Congress, to go on dealing summarily with British sealers; if so, will he state whether the message is correct, and the reply of Lord Salisbury; and whether the two Governments have yet arranged a close time for the capture of seals, and when Despatches down to date will be in the hands of Members?
SIR J. GORST: I have been requested by my right hon. Friend to answer the question. Her Majesty's Government have received no Report of such a statement having been been made by President Harrison. The negotiations have not yet been brought to a close. Papers are being prepared as rapidly as possible.

THE INSUBORDINATION OF THE GRENADIER GUARDS.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the result of the inquiry into the causes of the recent act of insubordination in the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards?
MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; in the interest of the Service I must decline to make public the result of the inquiry which has been held.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Is there any statement in the finding of the Court with respect to the allegation that these men have for the last three months been subjected to excessive and oppressive duties?
MR. E. STANHOPE: From the answer I have already given, the hon. Member will see that I cannot say more.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Is there not a long series of precedents justifying such questions as that which stands in my name on the Paper?
[No answer was given.]
MR. A. O'CONNOR: What particular officer is responsible for the fact that so important an event as that referred to in the hon. Member's question had not been brought to the notice of the Minister for War at 3 o'clock in the afternoon?
MR. E. STANHOPE: As I have already explained, the Military Authorities were inquiring into the matter during the day. I was busily engaged myself, and so they did not inform me of the circumstances before I was obliged to come down to the House.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Is it true that the Grenadier Guards are to be ordered on foreign service?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I have no answer whatever to give on that subject.

CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
MR. EDWARD KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I had intended to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any great amount of extra time has recently been worked in the Clerical Department of Her Majesty's Dockyard, Chatham; whether the regulations provide that, when continuous overtime is thus being worked, the
80
Admiralty should be informed, with a view to steps being taken to remove such strain upon the staff; and whether, in this instance, such information has been received? but, at the request of the hon. Gentleman, I will postpone the question.

AGRICULTURAL TENANTS.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that many resolutions have been passed by Farmers' Clubs and Chambers of Agriculture in support of the principle that the tenant of an agricultural holding under mortgage should have the same right of claiming compensation from a fore closing mortgagee as from his original landlord, the mortgagor; whether he is aware that the Chester Farmers' Club unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the honourable and gallant Member for the Wirral Division's (Colonel Cotton's) Tenants Compensation Bill, with the addition of the Amendments of the honourable Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing), to extend the protection in case of mortgaged farms to rights to compensation under the "custom of the country" and for crops; whether his attention has been given to the Amendments put on the Paper in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between both sides of the House at the Second Reading of the Bill to carry out these objects; and whether, having regard to the period of the Session, and to the large number of agricultural tenants of mortgaged holdings, who need this protection, he will either place these Amendments on the Order Paper without delay, or accept the Amendments now standing in the name of the honourable Member for East Northampton?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am informed that considerable interest is felt in the matter referred to by the question of the hon. Member, though the circumstances out of which the matter arose are very exceptional. The question has received the most careful consideration of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and of myself, but having regard to the difficulties which surround it, I doubt whether it will be possible to carry through satisfactory legislation during the present Session, but the

81
matter is more for the Minister of Agriculture than for me.
MR. CHANNING: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the arrangement come to some time ago as to these Amendments. Are we to understand now that Her Majesty's Government are going to offer no aid in passing a Bill giving a protection urgently needed by many tenant farmers?
SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Gentleman is to understand nothing of the kind, but owing to the numerous suggestions which have been made by a variety of people it has not been found possible to deal with the question hitherto.
MR. CHANNING: Will it be dealt with this Session?
SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the Minister of Agriculture.
MR. CHANNING: Then I will ask the Minister of Agriculture if he intends to have the Amendments put on the Paper in time to enable the Bill to be dealt with this Session?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I do not know what the Amendments are which the hon. Gentleman refers to.
MR. CHANNING: I refer to the Amendments drawn up by the Attorney General and agreed to between the promoters of the Bill and myself with the cognizance of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. CHAPLIN: At present I have no information to give.

THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the misdescription of the German Emperor as the Emperor of Germany in the Queen's Speech of the present Session, in the Schedule to the Anglo-German Agreement Confirmation Bill, and in the English version of the Anglo-German Agreement; and whether he will take steps to prevent such misdescription from recurring in English official documents?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The description given in the Anglo-German Agreement was desired by the German Foreign
82
Office, but it is probable that the title of German Emperor will hereafter be used in this country.

"HANSARDS DEBATES."
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that no questions addressed to Ministers are reported in Hansard unless Ministers send their answers in manuscript to the Hansard room; and whether arrangements will be made either to have all answers sent in manuscript to be reported, or to have the answers to questions, which are often very important, reported otherwise?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe that the facts stated by the hon. Member are practically correct, but I cannot admit that Ministers are bound to send copies of their answers to the Reporters' Gallery; indeed, it would often be impossible to do so, many of the answers given being unwritten, and there being, therefore, no copies to send. I am strongly of opinion that the reporting of all questions and answers is essential to a proper official record of the proceedings of this House, and Hansard have always shown themselves so willing to meet the requirements of Parliament that I am sure, now their attention has been drawn to the matter, there will be no further cause for complaint.

ANGLO-TUNISIAN TREATY OF COMMERCE.
MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will undertake that the British Chambers of Commerce shall be consulted before the assent of the Government is given to any modification or surrender of the commercial privileges which we enjoy under the Anglo-Tunisian Treaty of Commerce of 19th July, 1875?
MR. W. H. SMITH: If it should become necessary, under the provisions of the Treaty in question, to enter into negotiations for any change in the existing arrangements, the Government will, of course, take all necessary steps to provide themselves with requisite information as to the interests affected.

HELIGOLAND.
MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Papers relating to Heligoland that were

83
promised on 24th June will be laid upon the Table of the House?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Copies of the Capitulations respecting Heligoland will be laid on the Table and probably distributed on Saturday. We have not at present any other Papers that can be laid before the House.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to make, before the Second Reading of the Bill for the Cession of Heligoland, a statement regarding the negotiations which Lord Salisbury has stated to be now pending between this country and France on the subject of Zanzibar?
MR. HANBURY: When will the Bill be taken?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Probably on Thursday. I have already answered the question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bryce). The negotiations between the two Governments are proceeding in a perfectly friendly spirit on both sides, and while I cannot now undertake that any statement shall be made with regard to them on the Second Reading of the Bill, Her Majesty's Government will gladly give any information which it may be in their power to afford without detriment to public interests.

IRISH RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the names of the Resident Magistrates appointed since 1st October, 1886?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The names of the Resident Magistrates appointed since 1st October, 1886, are as follows:—Mr. N. L. Townsend, Mr. J. Preston, Mr. O'N. Segrave (since resigned), Mr. C. Roche, Mr. U. Bourke, Lieutenant-Colonel M. S. Tynte, Mr. F. G. Hodder, Colonel H. Caddell, Mr. W. H. Joyce, Mr. G. Shannon, Mr. E. F. Hickson, Mr. J. M'Lean, Mr. H. Bruen, and Mr. G. B. Butler.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: How many in all?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Fourteen.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: How many have been retired?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: None have been retired.
MR. SEXTON: Did not Captain Segrave resign?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; that was so.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no members of the staff have been retired?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not asked for that information, but I will procure it.

THE GAELIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether officials of the National Board of Education object to teachers being members of the Gaelic Athletic Association; and what is the rule on this subject?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that teachers are not prohibited from being members of the Gaelic Athletic Association, unless by reason of such membership they take part in politics, in which event the rules which prohibit the attendance of a teacher at meetings held for political purposes would be violated.

BAIL PRISONERS.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. Patrick Staunton, having appealed from the decision of a Court held at Castlemartyr, County Cork, on the 24th February last, had his sentence increased by one month by Mr. J. Hamilton, the Cork Recorder; and whether the extra month imposed by Mr. Hamilton was given subsequent to the confirmation of the original sentence, for alleged contempt of Court; and, if so, whether Mr. Staunton will be treated during the additional period of imprisonment as a bail prisoner?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until Monday.

THE CORK UNION.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can explain why the Local Government Board have refused to sanction the bonus of £50 granted by the paid Guardians in the Cork Union to Mr. Cotter, the

85
assistant clerk to the Union; whether he is aware that Mr. Cotter had for some months past a considerable amount of extra work thrown on him, which he performed to the complete satisfaction of everybody; and what are the reasons for refusing the bonus?
MR. MADDEN: The Local Government Board, having considered the amount of extra work thrown upon the assistant clerk by reason of the illness of the clerk of the Union, were of opinion that the merits of the case would be met by the award of a gratuity of £40 instead of the £50 proposed. They accordingly sanctioned payment of the former sum.

LICENSING IN IRELAND.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire what foundation there is for the suggestion that the refusal of the Lurgan Bench of Magistrates to renew the licence of Mr. Patrick Blayney, after 70 years' uninterrupted user, was grounded on the "unsuitability of the premises;" did the police oppose the application; whether he is aware that the house is one of the largest and most re-pectable in Lurgan, situated in the centre of the town, being three storey, slated premises, with a frontage of 30 feet, a capacious rear and yard, stabling for 30 horses, and an acre of ground attached, all held in fee-simple; and if these facts are substantially accurate, do the Government intend to persist with the Licensing Clauses of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, which would prevent for ever the possibility of Mr. Blayney's licence being renewed because, by a majority of one, a Bench exclusively Protestant held them "unsuitable"?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the foundation for the statement as to the ground upon which the Magistrates refused the application for a transfer of the licence in question is the fact that that ground was publicly announced in Court. The police did give notice to oppose the transfer on the same ground, but as some structural alterations were subsequently made they left the question as to the sufficiency of these alterations to the Magistrates. The house is not one of the largest and
86
most respectable in Lurgan. It is represented to be a small, low, three storey house. It has not a frontage of 30 feet. Its total frontage including the doorway is only 13 feet. There is an adjoining open gateway into which an objectionable side-door opens. The open gateway and yard at rear are common to all the tenants. It had not stabling for 30 horses. On the contrary, it had no stabling accommodation available heretofore, but stabling, it is stated, has now been provided to a small extent. The ground referred to as being attached consists of an open unfenced potato garden situated at a considerable distance from the house, and approached by a mere right of way. The statements in the question, therefore, do not appear to be substantially accurate.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Do the Government intend to go on with legislation at present, which will have the effect of preventing a man who has been improperly deprived of his licence from ever obtaining a chance of a renewal?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As that is a question which relates to the construction of the Bill, I think it ought to be put to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The opposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has practically compelled me to withdraw my Bill, and if the Government persist in their licensing proposals in reference to Ireland without affording an opportunity for renewal to a man who has been deprived of a licence upon special grounds, I shall certainly oppose them as strenuously as I can.

POLICE "SHADOWING."
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, 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,

87
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; and whether he can state under what authority was Mr. Kent arrested, and why was he shadowed in the manner described?
MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that David Kent was not shadowed, or in any way interfered with, while engaged with his brother in selling lambs. But, upon his subsequently leaving the place where the lambs were and proceeding through the fair, his movements were watched, as the police had reason to believe, from previous actions of the man, that he would endeavour to prevent the sale of some lambs belonging to a person boycotted for taking an evicted farm, and in connection with whose boycotting David Kent had, on a former occasion, been convicted. The District Inspectors did, after warning Kent twice, order his arrest, his conduct being such as to interfere with the officer in the discharge of his duty. He was detained in custody until the arrival of the Resident Magistrate, who was at once telegraphed for, and who remanded him on bail. The case has since been heard in Court, and it appears that Kent was discharged on giving an undertaking not to so offend again.
MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the constable prevented the sale of the lambs, and that the Magistrate declared the course he took to be highly improper? The buyer went up while the bargain was being made, and the buyer walked away, thus producing the very effect which the Chief Secretary so strongly condemns, of preventing a man from earning his living.
MR. MADDEN: Those alleged facts are not before me.
MR. DILLON: May I ask why, if it was illegal for David Kent to follow Mr. Ball, it was legal for the constable to follow David Kent; also
88
under what law, common, statute, or otherwise, is it legal for a constable in plain clothes to dog and tread on the heels of any man while the man himself may not follow the constable's superior officer?
MR. MADDEN: I gave a very full answer to that question some days ago. In my opinion the following a constable in plain clothes, who is performing detective duty, from place to place, and pointing him out as a constable, may be carried to such an extent as to amount to the offence of obstructing that constable in the performance of his duty.
MR. DILLON: There is no question in this case of a constable in plain clothes. The man followed a constable in uniform.
MR. MADDEN: No.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to point out that the Government are obliged by statute to take down the evidence in writing when the case is heard. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving an account of what took place from his own speculations or has he the depositions before him?
MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I am not giving my own speculations, but I have answered from the best information I could obtain. There has been no time to get the depositions.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Then the right hon. Gentleman has given an answer of a purely speculative character, without knowing what the evidence was?
MR. MADDEN: No, Sir. I stated that I had before me a Report of what occurred in Court. I stated also that I had not seen the depositions. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further he had better put down a question.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I fail to see what time is required to obtain a copy of the depositions. The Petty Sessions clerk could copy them out in 10 minutes [Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think I know nothing about my daily work. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have made his statement from the sworn evidence.
MR. MADDEN: I have stated that the Court only discharged Kent on his undertaking not to offend again. That was an admission on his part that an offence had been committed. I do not

89
know what the entry in the book was, but I will inquire.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The matter will come up in Supply to-night, and the Irish Members expect to gather information upon it from the answer to the question.
MR. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask the Attorney General whether all the information he has given to the House upon the subject is not derived from District Inspector Ball, and whether that officer is not a man against whom a Coroner's Jury returned a verdict of wilful murder?
MR. MADDEN: I have no information from Inspector Ball.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. J. F. Gibbon, an American gentleman travelling in Ireland, was shadowed by the police, when visiting the town of Tipperary, on 12th July; whether the police constables persisted in listening whenever he conversed with friends in the street; and for what reason Dr. Gibbon was so beset?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the gentleman referred to was not shadowed. It appears that he spoke to Cullinane, who was shadowed, and it may be that upon that foundation he formed the erroneous impression that he was shadowed himself.
MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Hayes, of Portumna, on leaving his house on Sunday the 11th of May, to attend evening service, was shadowed by Constable Murphy, who, when Mr. Hayes met two of his friends and stood to speak to them, stepped in between the three men, and ordered Mr. Hayes who was smoking at the time, to stop doing so; that, upon Mr. Hayes' refusal to obey the order, and telling the constable that if he did not like the smoke he could easily get rid of it by walking away, he was arrested, brought to the barrack, searched, and £87 found in his pocket; that, although Mr. Hayes told the police he had sent on 15 cattle to the fair of Woodford, which was to be held on the following day, and requested that he should be brought before a Magistrate that evening, or early in the morning, so as to allow him to attend to the sale of his
90
cattle, his request was refused, and he was kept in custody until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, and lost the sale of his cattle; whether Constable Murphy is the-same man against whom both Mr. Fahy and Mr. Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions, held at Gort, for false arrest: can he explain how it happened that, although Mr. Hayes was arrested on the 11th of May, the matter was allowed to drop until Fahy and Morrissey had obtained decrees against the constable; whether he has seen that it was proved at the trial that the constable had taken several pints of porter before he arrested Mr. Hayes, and that, after a full hearing, the case was dismissed; and, if so, what compensation is Mr. Hayes to get; and what action he proposes to take in reference to the constable?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question until Monday. I have not yet received information upon it.

VICE GUARDIANS.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what Irish Poor Law Unions were administered by Vice Guardians, during the years 1886, 1887, 1888, and 1889, or any of those years?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Unions, administered by Vice Guardians during the years 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, have been as follows:—New Ross, Belmullet, Swineford, Ballinasloe, Athy, Dungarvan, Ballyvaughan, Portumna, and Cork.

BEER AND SPIRIT DUTIES.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now communicate to the House the information obtained in his further inquiry as to the incidence of the Beer and Spirit Duties, and whether he intends to present a Supplementary Estimate; whether he proposes to transfer this Session, as contemplated by the Land Purchase Bill, the charge of £5,000 for improving the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland from the Irish Local Taxation Account of the Estimates; and whether he intends to legislate this Session to secure to Ireland in the present financial year the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 to which she is entitled?
MR. GOSCHEN: With regard to the first question—namely, as to the incidence of the Beer Duty—the inquiries which I have made result in a remarkable agreement with the figures on page 4 of the Return of May 7 last. That Return gave the duty on beer exported from Ireland to England in 1888–9 as £190,000. The actual figures for 1889–90 have now been carefully examined and taken from the bills of entry for the Port of Dublin. The value of the duty paid on beer exported from England to Ireland is, as near as possible, £190,000. With regard to the duty on beer exported from England to Ireland I have learned nothing to show that the figure of £35,000 was under the mark. Here is the difficulty—that there are neither official nor commercial Returns, as the exports from English ports to Irish ports are not entered or tabulated by the Customs. I am still making inquiries, but it seems that the amount of beer sent to Ireland from England is not likely to be larger than, and is possibly inferior to, the amount given in the Return in question. Regarding foreign spirits no record was previously kept of the parts of the United Kingdom where they were consumed, but a system has now been established for following them up similar to that pursued in the case of home spirits. The few weeks during which it has been in operation show no ground for believing that the calculations in the Return of May 7 were incorrect, but the time is too short to afford any really fresh knowledge. So far, then, as my investigation has proceeded there is nothing to change the figures submitted last May, so that there is no question of Supplementary Estimate at present. I do not propose to legislate this Session for the transfer of the charge of £5,000 for improving the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland from the Irish Local Taxation Account to the Estimates. There is no reason for doing so till the Land Purchase Bill is passed. With regard to the last question, legislation will not be necessary to secure to Ireland the contribution of £40,000 referred to by the hon. Member, but he may take it as certain that I will introduce a Supplementary Estimate to secure this sum to Ireland during the present financial year.

DEATH IN A LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. W. CORBET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspectors of Lunatics have made any report on any death of Christopher O'Connor in the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, what is its purport?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums report that they have addressed the Board of Governors of the Richmond Asylum on the subject of O'Connor's death, who have appointed a special meeting, on the 22nd instant, for the purpose of further investigating the matter.

MR. M. WELD O'CONNOR.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Monroe, re "King's Estate," in the Dublin papers of 4th July, dismissing Mr. Matthew Weld O'Connor from the Receivership, and commenting strongly on his conduct in allowing four tenants to be sued for £27 2s., rents they had already paid, and surcharging him therewith, and with other sums, amounting to £181 13s., "verified" by Mr. O'Connor to have been spent on police huts and emergency men: whether Mr. O'Connor is a Magistrate for the three counties of Longford, Cavan, and Meath, and will be retained in the Commission of the Peace; whether he has observed that Judge Monroe also condemned the conduct of an under agent, named Francis Cooke, of whom his Lordship remarked that his form of receipt was "a curiosity," but
"Did not feel at liberty in holding on mere suspicion that Cooke had been guilty of perjury and fraud;"
whether Cooke is barony cess collector, process server, and summons server in Longford or Leitrim; will Government take any steps to have him removed from these positions; will a secret inquiry, under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Precedure (Ireland) Act, be held to obtain evidence to prosecute Cooke in case that existing already is not considered sufficient; if not, is the suspicion of "perjury and fraud" con-

93
sidered insufficient to ground such inquiry; and is Cooke the same person who was tried for shooting a girl in Mohill, and got off on the plea of self-defence?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to this question when down some days ago, so far as it relates to the case of Mr. O'Connor. With respect to the case of Cooke, he appears to hold in the County Leitrim the positions mentioned in the fourth paragraph. As, however, such appointments are not made by the Irish Government, they have no power to consider the propriety of his continuing to hold them, or otherwise. There does not appear to be any ground for the course suggested in the sixth paragraph. In the absence of any positive direction from the Judge, the proper course would appear to be for the aggrieved party to make complaint on oath, whereupon the necessity for criminal proceedings would be considered. Cooke had on a former occasion been returned for trial as stated in the last paragraph, but the Grand Jury found "No bill" in the case.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not the estate in Chancery, and, if so, is it not the Court of Receivers who are the aggrieved persons? Seeing that the Judge suggests a suspicion of perjury and fraud, is it not a case for a prosecution?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will make an inquiry into the facts of the case.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I will repeat the question on Monday.

DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the proposal made last year in the Dublin Hospitals Bill of the Government, and the fact that the Bill has not been pressed forward this year, as promised, the Government will take steps, pending a permanent settlement of the question, to effect the purpose of the Bill by distributing the amount of the annual grant among the several Dublin hospitals, according to the relative extent and value of public service rendered?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Although it has not been possible to introduce a Bill this Session, I hope that
94
some agreement may be arrived at as to details, &c.; a Bill may be introduced next Session. In the meantime I do not think it would be possible, seeing that the present system has been in existence for more than 30 years, to make a reapportionment.
MR. SEXTON: I think it is quite possible, and I would suggest the propriety of passing a Vote in bulk, without defining the amount to be appropriated to the different institutions.
MR. JACKSON: I understand that a Bill is absolutely necessary.

DUBLIN COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES OFFICE.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the fact that since the introduction, this Session, of a Bill containing provisions for transferring the collection of certain local rates to the Corporation of Dublin, Robert Henchy and William Perry, to the office of the Collector General of Rates Dublin, have been retired, by the Lord Lieutenant, upon pensions of £311 0s.1d. and £40 respectively, chargeable to the city of Dublin; and Robert J. Henchy (son of the before-mamed Robert Henchy), Robert M. Richardson, and William Welsh, have been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to the staff of the Collector General's Office, at salaries of £170, £130, and £110 respectively, mainly chargeable to the city of Dublin; can he state what were the salaries, ages, and terms of service respectively of Robert Henchy and William Perry; why two warrant officers were appointed in place of one retired; what were the occupations of Robert J. Henchy, Robert M. Richardson, and William Welsh, before their appointment to the Collector General's office; whether they were recommended by the Collector General, and their appointments declared to be requisite; and whether he is aware that Mr. Richardson and Mr. Welsh are 50 years of age, and will he explain why they have been appointed at such an age to offices bearing a right of pensions chargeable to the funds of the city?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Robert Henchy's pensionable emoluments as a collector in the Collector General's Office consisted of poundage, bonus, and salary, the average of which, for the three

95
years preceding his retirement, amounted to £466 10s. 2d. His age at time of retirement was 68, and he had a service of 37 years. Mr. Perry had emoluments, consisting of salary and poundage, amounting to an average of £240 a year. His age was 65, and he had completed 10 years service in the Collector General's Department. Two warrant officers were appointed in place of one (Mr. Perry), on the recommendation of the Collector General. In connection with Mr. Perry's retirement the Collector General reported that when Mr. Perry was appointed in August, 1879, he was required by Mr. Byrne, the then Collector General, to appoint a deputy, whom he paid out of his income as war-pant officer. The Collector General reported that for some time he had thought it would be necessary to make a change in that department of his office, and that the proper course would be to appoint two warrant officers, one for the south and the other for the north side—the emoluments of the two not to exceed the £240 a year heretofore paid to the one officer, who had to appoint and pay a deputy. Mr. Robert J. Henchy assisted his father in the general work connected with the collection of rates, and was employed as a temporary clerk in the Collector General's Office. Mr. Robert M. Richardson was the deputy warrant officer employed by Mr. Perry. Mr. W. Welsh was secretary to a club. They were recommended by the Collector General, and the appointments declared to be requisite. Both gentlemen are, I believe, 50 years of age. There has been no regulation laid down as to the age for warrant officers. Both these gentlemen have been informed that they can only hold their appointments while they are able actively to carry out the duties. They will not be entitled to pensions till they have completed 10 years' service, and then only to 10–60ths of their emoluments. Mr. Richardson's temporary service will not count towards pension. An additional sixtieth would be added to the pension for each additional year's service after 10.
MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite any precedent for the appointment of persons of 50 years of age to posts which carry a high rate of pension, and does he consider it decent
96
of the Irish Government to make changes involving charges of £300 for pension and £400 for salary upon the City of Dublin at a time when the decision of Parliament is being sought by a Bill on this very question?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of the circumstances relating to the appointments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and must ask for notice of the question.
MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware—has he not appeared by his agent, Sir Richard Wyatt, before the Committee on the Bill, and by counsel? Surely he must be aware of his own action.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am perfectly cognisant of the action taken by the Irish Government with regard to the Bill before the House. What I said I was not cognisant of were the details relating to the appointment of these gentlemen.
MR. SEXTON: At the very moment we were seeking the decision of Parliament on the future of this office, does the right hon. Gentleman justify the Irish Government in interfering and making appointments which will throw charges amounting to £700 a year on the City of Dublin?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My reply to the question as to whether the course which has been taken in this matter was proper or improper is, that it is not one on which I should be asked to give an opinion if I say I am not acquainted with the details of the action of the officials in this case. I must ask for notice of the question before being asked to give a judgment upon it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman instructed Sir Richard Wyatt to make the allegation both before the Commons' Committee and the Lords' Committee, that if the Dublin Corporation got this office into its hands it would use it for political purposes and prevent Conservatives getting votes, I will ask whether Mr. Welsh, who has just been appointed, is not the Tory agent on the revision of voters' claims in the City of Dublin; and is it decent to put a pronounced partisan of that kind into an office connected with the franchise?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must have notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill relating to Heligoland will be taken? I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to Malta and the mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons. That is distinctly a question for discussion on the Colonial Vote, on which it is understood we may ask for information or make any remarks we have to make. I hope he will be able to hold out a prospect of an early day being fixed for that Vote. The question I have referred to is of great interest to the Irish Members, and it would be hard upon them to be kept waiting for the discussion to come on.
MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to say on what day that Vote will be taken. I hope it may be possible to complete Irish Supply to-morrow, and, in that case, we shall be in a position to forecast the course of public business. On Monday I shall be able, probably, to state when we shall take the Colonial Vote.
MR. J. MORLEY: After what hour will the Votes in Class 4 not be taken, and what will be the business on Monday?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Class 4 will not be entered upon after 11 o'clock unless with the concurrence of hon. Members. In regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, the subject he referred to can be raised, not on the Colonial, but on the Foreign Office Vote. On Monday the Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and the Second Reading of the Census Bills will be taken.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The Irish Members have shown that they do not desire to delay the Irish Votes, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make arrangements for continuing the Irish Votes on Monday, as on Friday the Secretary to the Treasury will have to make an important statement on the subject of Light Railways.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Her Majesty's Government have set apart a fortnight for the Irish Votes, and other business must be proceeded with on Monday.
MR. MUNDELLA: What is proposed to be done with regard to the Reformatory Schools Bill and the Industrial Schools Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already stated that if those Bills are opposed it will not be possible to proceed with them this Session. As several notices of opposition appear on the Paper, I fear they will have to be postponed until next Session. The responsibility for the postponement must rest upon those who have given the notices.
MR. DILLON: Will the Chief Secretary consent to postpone the Report of Supply on the Land Commission Vote? I refrained from discussing the land purchase branch of the Land Commission yesterday, in order that the Vote might be taken, though I might have talked it out. Under these circumstances, I will ask the Chief Secretary not to take Report of the Land Commission Vote until such time as a reasonable opportunity for further discussion might be available.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot at present say more than that the Report of this Vote will not be taken to-night.

LAND COMMISSION—IRVINESTOWN.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the Land Commission is to hear the Irvinestown cases in Enniskillen, instead of at Irvinestown, in view of the great inconvenience which the change will cause to the farmers of Irvinestown, who will have to travel 18 miles to Enniskillen in order to have their rents fixed?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners state that the Chairman of the Sub-Commission referred to reports that, at the request of the solicitors for the landlords and tenants, the Sub-Commission arranged to take up such Irvinestown cases as could be conveniently heard at Enniskillen in that town, onthe22nd, 23rd, and 24thinstants, provided both sides agreed to appear there on these days, and with regard to any such cases which could not be conveniently heard at Enniskillen the Sub Commission announced their intention of taking them up on some later day at such place as the hearing could be more conveniently held.

THE CASE OF MR. EDWARD ATTHILL.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Edward Atthill, of Advarney House, Ederney, County Fermanagh, who was arrested and lodged in Sligo Gaol on a charge of forgery, is a Magistrate for Fermanagh; and, if so, is he to be allowed to retain the Commission of the Peace?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that Mr. Atthill was not arrested on a charge of forgery, but was imprisoned for contempt of Court. The Report before me does not show when this occurred; but if the matter has not been already before the Lord Chancellor I have no doubt it will receive his consideration.

IRISH VOTES.
MR. MAC NEILL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in what class can be found the Vote for the Ulster King at Arms and the Knight of St. Patrick.?
MR. JACKSON: In Class VII.
MR. MAC NEILL: Why are they not in the same class as formerly?
MR. JACKSON: Because in the rearrangement of the Votes it was found convenient to put several of these small Votes together.

THE IRISH CENSUS BILL.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether the Irish Census Bill will provide for ascertaining the exact proportion the loyal minority in Ireland bears to the whole population?
MR. E. HARRINGTON: And will he consider the desirability of including in the Census Returns statistics showing the number of evicted tenants?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot do anything of the kind.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 153.)
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to, with an Amendment.

PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
Copy ordered—
"Of Treasury Minute, dated the 15th day of July, 1890, on the subject of determining some
100
of the remaining Perpetual Pensions, &c."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 305.]

ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (LIST OF ESTATES).
Return ordered—
"Of Alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, virtute officii, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1889."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [Not 310.]

BILLS OF SALE [LORDS] BILL.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 384.]

PUBLIC HOUSES, HOURS OF CLOSING (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered—
"Showing (1) the hour of closing licensed premises prescribed in each Burgh or County in Scotland in which such hour is earlier than11 p.m., and the date of the adoption of such earlier hour; (2) in the case of each Burgh and County in which an earlier hour than 11 p.m. was prescribed as the hour of closing in 1888 or 1889, the number of Arrests for Drunkenness in the twelve months immediately preceding and in the twelve months immediately succeeding the adoption of such earlier hour in such Burgh or County; and (3) the names of each Burgh and County in which the licensing authority under the Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act having been empowered to fix an earlier hour, 11 p.m. has been retained as the hour of closing."—(Dr Cameron.)

DRUNKENNESS (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered—
"Of the number of Persons arrested as (1) drunk and disorderly, and (2) drunk and incapable, in the different burghs and counties in Scotland during the year ending on the 31st day of December 18S9, distinguishing between those arrested between the hours of 8 a.m. on Sunday and 8 a.m. on Monday, and those arrested during the rest of the week (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 156, of Session 1887)."—(Dr. Cameron.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to,—Public Health (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment Bill without Amendments; Companies (Memorandum of Association) Bill

101
Iniectious Disease (Prevention) Bill, h Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to assent to certain provisions in an Agreement between Her Majesty and the German Emperor."[Anglo-German Agreement Bill [Lords.]

MOTIONS.

  CENSUS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill for taking the Census in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Long.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 385.]

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill for taking the Census in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 386.]

CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill for taking the Census in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 387.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to further amend the Acts relating to the raising of Money by the London County Council, and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 388.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 389.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY BILL [LORDS].—(No. 260.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: This Bill appears to me to be very strangely drafted. There is a clause at the end which apparently was introduced as an afterthought, and by it Vice Admiralty Courts throughout the British possessions are abolished. Yet
    102
    in Clause 9 there is power given to establish Vice Admiralty Courts; and, therefore, it seems to me a most difficult matter to construe this Bill, having regard to Clauses 9 and 17.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The Bill was prepared as far back as 1885, and has been the subject of most careful negotiation between the colonies and the Colonial Office. The power of establishing Vice Admiralty Courts, to which the hon. Member has drawn attention, is merely for the purpose of enabling them to be established in small colonies where the ordinary provisions do not apply. The scheme is one to secure that there are Courts of Admiralty in all British possessions.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 17.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: This is the clause which abolishes Vice Admiralty Courts throughout the whole of the British possessions. Now, under the Interpretation Act of last year the words "British possessions' were held to include "all possessions of the Crown, whether self-governing colonies or not." Under Sub-section 3 of this clause all officers of Vice Admiralty Courts who sustain any pecuniary loss in consequence of the abolition of the Courts are to receive reasonable compensation. Where, I want to know, does the Government claim to obtain the Constitutional right of imposing a money charge upon self-governing colonies in respect of officers whose functions are brought to an end, not by the action of the colony in the first instance, but by the action of the Imperial Parliament? I submit that this is a very questionable proceeding in point of Constitutional Law.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I understand the hon. Member to raise this point so far as it affects the self governing colonies. I may inform him that the Bill was specially referred to those colonies, and their consent obtained to the Bill. I do not think there is anything unconstitutional in inserting the provision.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: If the consent of the self-governing colonies has been obtained, would it not be proper to set that fact forth in the Preamble, and

    103
    thus save the Constitutional rights of these Governments?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not think it is either necessary or usual.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

SHREWSBURY AND HOLYHEAD ROAD (ANGLESEA AND CARNARVON) BILL.—(No. 377.)
Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

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

CLASS III.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £82,766, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners and Magistrates in Ireland, and the expenses of Revision."
MR. W. O'BRIEN: If the Irish Members were to insist on discussing in anything like detail all the complaints they have to make against the Divisional and Resident Magistrates whose salaries are included in this Vote, there would not be much probability of the First Lord of the Treasury realising his anticipation of concluding the Irish Estimates to-morrow. I propose to allude briefly to one specimen of these Removable Magistrates. I want to call attention to the conduct of an ex-Indian official, Colonel Caddell, whose only qualification for his office is his churlish insolence to every one who addresses him. For nearly nine months this gentleman has been ruling in Tipperary with as much unbridled power as if he were a Turkish Pasha. He is one day commanding the police when dispersing a meeting, and the very next day sitting in judgment upon their conduct. Colonel Caddell was one of my Judges at Clonakilty. On that occasion I was cross examining a police note-taker, named Garvey, who had taken bodily out of a newspaper my speech and the
104
speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Cork, but swore that he had taken them down while they were being delivered. Garvey's evidence was so evidently perjured that, though my hon. Friend was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, the Government never dared to meet the case in a Superior Court, and the sentence on my hon. Friend has never yet been enforced, although I myself went through four months' imprisonment on the evidence of this policeman. I was cross examining this policeman when Colonel Caddell came to his rescue and said that if the man had copied the speech correctly from the Freeman's Journal it was the newspaper, and not the witness, that I should accuse of perjury. That is a sample of Colonel Caddell's intelligence; he failed altogether to appreciate the difference between a man swearing that he had taken a note of a speech and copying it from a public newspaper. He did not know the difference between a newspaper reporter taking a note honestly for his paper and a police shorthand writer stealing that report and swearing it was his own note. That is a fair specimen of Colonel Caddell's intelligence, but I am glad to say that the condition of this gentleman's liver has a great deal more to do with his government of Tipperary than his intelligence. Here is another illustration of the double function Colonel Caddell fulfils in Tipperary, first as a policeman, and then as a Magistrate—
"Constable King appeared on the table to prosecute Miss Hogan and Mrs. Nunan, and John Hennessy, William O'Brien Street, for groaning at the police on the day the evicting party knocked down Mr. O'Brien-Dalton's mill. Mr. O'Dwyer, LL.D., appeared for the defendants—"
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): What is the date?
MR. W. O'BRIEN: The date is the 15th February last. It is the case of two ladies, Miss Hogan and Mrs. Nunan, respectable shopkeepers in the town, who were prosecuted for groaning at the police, but that is not the point I am on. Mr. O'Dwyer, their solicitor, called Colonel Caddell's attention to the fact that he (Colonel Caddell) had been in command of the Police Force upon the day in question, and asked him would he undertake to adjudi-

105
cate in the present proceedings? Colonel Caddell replied that on the occasion referred to he was acting ministerially, and that in the present instance he was acting judicially. Here you have a distinct and naked claim, which he has repeatedly enforced, on the part of Colonel Caddell—that Colonel Caddell the Magistrate can sit in judgment upon Colonel Caddell the policeman and his subordinates. The people of Tipperary are expected to reverence the law that is administered by such an insulting—I do not hesitate to call him so—jackanapes as this gentleman who, when a clergyman addresses him in the streets of Tipperary, sticks out his tongue at him, and who has never to this day apologised or explained—I invite the Chief Secretary to explain it if he can—the indecent, filthy language which he addressed to a respectable poor young girl in Youghal who was at the time in the custody of his policemen. This is the sort of thing that goes on every week, almost every day, in Tipperary, and it is into the hands of persons like Caddell—I venture to say again, an ignorant, insulting, and incompetent little tyrant—it is into his hands that the peace of Tipperary and the lives of a whole community have been committed for the last nine months. Let me give another specimen of the conduct of this Magistrate. It was Colonel Caddell who superintended, and is responsible for, the outrage that was perpetrated over poor Michael O'Dwyer's grave; and we are not going to allow that outrage to pass without reminding this House and the English people of it again and again. The Chief Secretary complained the other night that we repeat our charges. Well, Sir, we do, and we will; and we will not only repeat them in this House, but we will repeat them from end to end of England, and I rather think the right hon. Gentleman's complaint is not so much against us as against the English constituencies, who have repeated again and again their verdicts upon those charges. It is not surprising that their verdicts are beginning to be a little monotonous to the right hon. Gentleman. But what are the facts of the outrage in the graveyard at Tipperary? Mr. O'Dwyer was one of the most respectable men in the whole town—a splendid
106
young man about 30 years of age. He was under a notice of eviction by Mr. Smith-Barry. His little baby had died a short time before, and his wife was on the point of death. He was being buried, and actually, while the coffin was being brought out of the church in Tipperary, a body of policemen came up, and posted on the gates of the church a proclamation signed by Colonel Caddell proclaiming the funeral as an illegal assembly. The town was crammed with policemen that day. Huge bodies of them armed with rifles moved about in the funeral procession, and a force of them galloped to the head of the procession—shadowing the dead. When we came to the graveyard we found Caddell and a body of policemen drawn up outside it, and they stood there while that solemn ceremony was going on, Caddell with an insulting smirk upon his face. He was not satisfied with that, and, acting on his orders, a body of policemen rushed into the graveyard and forced their way within a few feet of where the coffin was lying. These policemen had not the common decency to take off their spiked helmets while the funeral service was being performed. They remained there throughout, the people being maddened and outraged by their presence, and the moment there was a word of protest uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for East Tipperary, instantly the police note-taker brought out his note book and took down what was said. I want to know is it possible to imagine any proceeding that was better calculated to wound and to outrage the deepest and the dearest feelings of the people than the conduct which I have described? Because the people are so patient, we see what use is made of their patience. The very same thing happened at the grave of my poor Friend Matthew Harris, the late Member for East Galway. The police then again forced their way into the graveyard, stood by the grave, took a note of what was said there, and I believe that was claimed to be a perfectly proper proceeding on their part, because the people did not take the ruffians by the neck and throw them out of the graveyard. But the police pursued poor Michael O'Dwyer beyond the grave. Three or four days after his interment, when his wife had struggled up to open

107
the shop, the first person who came into it was a policeman with a notice that he meant to oppose her licence at the next Sessions—that is say, the police would try to deprive her of her only means of livelihood simply because she had refused to supply an emergency man when he was brought into her shop by some policemen with the deliberate purpose of entrapping her into a refusal. Because she would not facilitate Mr. Smith-Barry in provisioning his garrison in Tipperary the poor woman, broken-hearted as she was, is told by the police that her last means of livelihood are to be taken away from her. That is only another specimen. I could give hundreds and thousands of them if necessary. I ask any Member on either side of the House how long he would be prepared to tolerate such a state of things? I venture to say our people would be the veriest slaves and hounds, and should be justly considered so, if they did not loathe the law and order that is associated with men like this Caddell. The only reply we get in this House when we mention these things is that crime is common in Tipperary. I venture to say that the only crime in Tipperary is that which is encouraged by Caddell and his policemen. A struggle has been going on in that town now for 12 months, and two vast estates have been cleared, and I defy the Chief Secretary to name one single act of bloodshed that has been committed by the people. I could name acts of bloodshed on the other side, and I venture to say there never was a people—and they a hot-blooded people—who conducted themselves so crimelessly, so peacefully, and so marvellously in the face of insults like those this man Caddell has heaped upon them day after day. And what is the result? You have achieved the maximum as regards outraging the people's feelings, and you have accomplished only the minimum as far as your own purposes are concerned. This condition of affairs in Tipperary, if it were not so horrible in many ways, would be downright ridiculous and disastrous. For nearly nine months Colonel Caddell has had at his back about 130 policemen and 600 or 700 soldiers. He has absolutely limitless power both as a police bravo and a Police Magistrate under the Crimes Act. He has done all that a man
108
could do—all that I verily believe a demon with all his ingenuity could do—to exasperate the people into riot and disturbance, and what is the result? At this moment the combination against which you are in vain fighting, and the legality of which the Chief Secretary was practically obliged to acknowledge the other night, is as firmly rooted as the Rock of Cashel. Notwithstanding all the horrible shadowing that has been going on, Colonel Caddell has not succeeded in establishing a single successful prosecution for boycotting. Although priests are dogged from day to day, and every prominent man is dogged by policemen, I venture to say the only thing he has succeeded in has been acquitting policemen who jostled men they were shadowing, and in punishing men who remonstrated with the police. At this moment he is an utter failure in Tipperary, and still he is allowed to remain there, day after day, as a constant source of outrage and insult to the whole community. I only wonder that he has not been actually promoted for his services in Tipperary. He is the best of all types of the Resident Magistrate, who is promoted actually in proportion to his brutality to the people of Ireland. There is scarcely a man who has so distinguished himself who has not found the results in speedy promotion. There is Mr. Cecil Roche. I saw him beat with a stick a man in Tralee, who had the temerity to salute me, and he afterwards gave him three months in gaol. His salary has been increased by several hundred pounds since, and I am told that at this moment he is indignant because more has not been given to him. I am also told that there has been a good deal of indignation and heart-burning on the part of Caddell, because he has not been promoted to a Divisional Commissionership. All I can say is, if these are the sort of men the Government have pinned their faith to, we need not object except for the sake of the unfortunate people who are subjected to their outrages. These men are doing our work. They are exemplifying the hatefulness and the impossibility of the present system of government in Ireland, and all I can say is we have not the least objection that you should choose such instruments in Ireland so long as you carry on a

109
system of coercing and oppressing the Irish people. It is quite another thing how these proceedings will be regarded in England, and I venture to say the longer you continue this system in Ireland the surer you are, in the first place, to cement our Union in Ireland and the combination of the Irish tenants; and, in the second place, to meet condemnation here where you fear it most.
MR. DILLON: This subject of the Irish Magistrates has been frequently and fully brought before 'the House. We have proved on many previous 'occasions that the personnel of the Irish Resident Magistracy would be a disgrace to any Government in the world. It has been shown, I regret to say, and no one has attempted to contradict it, that successive Governments—and I do not blame the present Government more than its predecessors—have made it a custom to appoint to these most important posts in Ireland men with absolutely no qualifications for the position; men not only without any experience of civil administration, but the whole course of whose lives has been such as to unfit them for the delicate task which they have to perform. I am speaking now from the point of view of the Chief Secretary himself. We have Returns before the House in which the antecedents of all these gentlemen are set forth, and as well as I can remember now, and I have not the Returns by me, three- fourths of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland are retired military men; and when we look into the personnel of the remainder, we find that with few exceptions there is little more to recommend the civilians than the military men. We find for the most part that they are broken-down "ne'er-do-wells" of county families in Ireland, whom their relatives will not support, and who are utterly unable to make their own way in the world—men of no education or knowledge but of hunting, shooting, fishing, and hare coursing. On one occasion an interesting collection of letters fell into our hands at an auction in Dublin, letters of application to the Lords Lieutenant, in which the most ludicrous reasons were set forth as justification for their application for appointment as Resident Magistrates. Well, the result has been the appointment of men with no sort of qualification for the duties and
110
difficulties of the position. I intend to explain fully the reasons why we Irish Nationalists think the office of Irish Resident Magistrate is an office that ought not to exist under any Government, and I will explain that in a few minutes. It must be admitted by all sections that the duties under a Coercion Administration are of a peculiarly difficult and delicate character; and that, in order to secure the due discharge of those duties, even from the point of view of the Chief Secretary and his supporters, men should be selected who are well experienced in civil administration, trained, and who may be expected to restrain their temper with rigid self-control under difficult circumstances, and who are somewhat versed in the Criminal Law. Now, I need not go at length into the matter, for I do not think it is contended that these qualifications are in any considerable number of cases possessed by the present occupants of the posts of Resident Magistrates. It is a scandalous condition of things. There is not a man on these Benches, nor do I think there is an Irish Representative opposite, who has not witnessed the scandalous behaviour of these men at Petty Sessions. I recollect perfectly well, before the late agitations arose, in my own district in East Mayo a Resident Magistrate, a retired Army Officer, who was in the habit of drinking too much; and I know that day after day he attended the Petty Sessions Court under the influence of drink, and frequently he did not attend at all. There was no remedy. I have watched the unfortunate people coming in with their solicitors from a distance, for there was at that time no solicitor in the town. I have seen them waiting for hours, losing their time and their solicitors' fees, and no Magistrate came. When on the Bench his bearing, his language, was that of a fishwife. I remember a case brought before him in which a tinker was charged with stealing a donkey; and in an altercation which took place, it was difficult to understand from the language used which was Magistrate and which was tinker. I am referring to a considerable number of years ago; but this is a case that came within my personal knowledge, and he occupied the Bench for a number of years. For a quarter of an hour re-

111
criminations were exchanged between the Magistrate and the tinker, police and people standing by and regarding it as the ordinary method of administering justice. This same Magistrate, travelling to a country station one wet evening, found that there was only one car at the station, which had been secured by a commercial traveller. The Magistrate ordered the commercial traveller to get off the car, which the man refused to do. The Magistrate then ordered the two policemen who usually attend at stations to drag the man off the car, and this they proceeded to do, and in doing so broke the man's leg. The man was ill for six months, and the Magistrate had to pay £100 compensation. Bat, after this, this Magistrate was still allowed to occupy his seat on the Bench and administer justice. I only mention this to show the kind of men whom the Irish people in the past have had to go for justice.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Will the hon. Member give the date of this occurrence?
MR. DILLON: It took place about seven years ago. I do not present it as more than an illustration. The facts are admitted and well known in the district. I only mention it to show the scandalous system which was allowed to go on, and it is to be charged against all Administrations—not only the present—that this scandalous system has been allowed to grow up and form an integral part of Irish government. All Administrations I say, must share in the blame. And now I come to what I consider to be the fundamental blot, or, at all events, one of the fundamental blots in the Irish system of Resident Magistrates, such as I do not know is to be found in any free country in the world, and which, even if the personnel of the Irish Resident Magistracy were beyond question, beyond all blame, would condemn the whole system. It is this: that you have in Ireland a system under which police officers act as Magistrates. Now, I ask any hon. Member, any Englishman, what would he say if in any district a police officer were to sit on the Bench and decide cases in which the police acted as prosecutors? And, unhappily, the objection is very much stronger in Ireland than in this country, because in Ireland the number of pro-
112
secutions instituted and originated by the police is infinitely greater than in this country, owing to a variety of unhappy circumstances. I need not now go into detail. Summonses and prosecutions that in England would be left to private initiative are instituted by the police in Ireland, and this makes the position still more intolerable, that a man who as executive police officer directs a prosecution, should then climb on to the Bench and act as Judge in the case. First ho orders the prosecution, and is through his subordinates a party to it, and then he decides the case. We have heard a great deal about recent disturbances at Cashel and Tipperary. They are of the same character as many previous disturbances in Ireland. But they serve excellently as an illustration of the complaint I am now about to make. It is terrible that such things should be done in the name of justice as are now being done in Cashel and Tipperary. What happens? Caddell orders the charge by the police, and then he is found sitting on the Bench to decide between the police and the persons who complain against them. Take what happened to myself. I was standing talking peaceably to a friend in the Square of Tipperary when Colonel Caddell ordered the police to charge and baton. The police did not obey orders by batoning the people. But suppose any of these policemen had struck me, what would have been my redress? The Chief Secretary would have told me that I had a legal remedy against the policeman if I could identify him. And where would this policeman have been tried? Before the police officer who ordered the charge. Could you have a more grotesque travesty of justice? Here is another example of the principle which obtains in the administration of the law in Ireland. A man was charged with assaulting an officer who was shadowing him. The charge was that he had shoved the officer off the path. I venture to point out that it is exceedingly necessary, if you have such a system of shadowing as that which now prevails in Ireland, that the assault should be very clearly proved. When an officer walks so closely behind the person shadowed as to kick his heel, while another constable touches his shoulder, it may easily happen that the

113
action necessary to escape the kicking of the heel and the touching of the shoulder is construed into assault. In the case tried before Colonel Caddell, three civilians, against whose character there is no accusation, swore there was no assault, yet Colonel Caddell, who had ordered the shadowing, called upon the men to find bail. And, therefore, Mr. Morgan Hay, who had gone into the town of Tipperary to transact some business, was sent to gaol for six weeks. That is an illustration of what goes on in Ireland. The police are ordered to adopt a certain course of proceeding, and if a policeman alleges assault in the course of that proceeding he is supported by his superior officer who tries the case. So long as such a system as that prevails you cannot expect the people of Ireland to respect law and order. I want to say this with regard to Mr. Caddell. I have had a good deal of experience of Magistrates and policemen during the agitation in Ireland, and I must say that some of them are gentlemanly and self-restrained. But there are others against whom Irish Members have frequently had occasion to bring charges in this House. Of one, Captain Plunkett, I will say nothing now, as he is dead. Of another, Captain Segrave, I may remind the Committee that when a charge was made against him he was enthusiastically defended by the right hon. Gentleman. There was the fatal day at Mitchelstown, and when I stated what occurred between me and Captain Segrave the right hon. Gentleman defended him. We raked up the antecedents of Captain Segrave, who was compelled to return to that obscurity from which he ought never to have emerged. Captain Segrave's character was so abominable that even the Chief Secretary had to give him up. If necessary, we shall go into the past of Colonel Caddell. I do not like such a method of warfare, but if we are to have scoundrels and ruffians, dragged from the purlieus of society, placed in the seat of justice, we shall be compelled to resort to it. I shall apply myself to the career of Colonel Caddell, and if his record is as foul as that of Captain Segrave, he will have to leave the Bench. There are men sitting on the Magisterial Bench in Ireland who are not fit to be in decent society, and whose record is such that they would not
114
be admitted to any club of gentlemen if it were made known. Rather than see murders and outrages committed upon our people by these dissipated and disreputable wretches, I will rake up their past history, in order to relieve the Irish people of their intolerable presence. I wish now to call attention to what may be described as rather a shady trick of the Irish Executive. I have over and over again called attention in this House to the gross irregularities of the provisional Magistrates in Ireland. The Chief Secretary did not approve of regularising these provisional Magistrates The Government promised that that payment should be recognised by Statute, but they have not kept their word, and I want to know why they pledge themselves to introduce legislative measures and break their pledge? I suppose it is because they dread the discussion of any such proposal, and it is exceedingly likely, after the experience they have had, that they do not wish to excite further discussion with regard to their policy on matters of this kind. Everybody knows the unpleasant experience of the late Mr. Forster, and the proposal he brought forward, which was supposed to be a device intended simply to meet a tremendous emergency. In order to meet that emergency, Mr. Forster started the idea of decentralisation and division of responsibility, by means of a system of Divisional Magistrates, a system which I contend could not be applied for a single hour to any other country in the world. What happened? Why, that the system, which was intended to meet a grave crisis, became the regular system of the country, and continues to be saddled with all the additional cost and inconvenience it entailed. The recommendation of the Controller and Auditor General was that those payments should be made by Statute, and the Government, although they pledged themselves to carry out his suggestion, have broken that pledge, and have got round the Auditor General by calling the Divisional Magistrates Executive Officers. That is an idea unworthy of a Government. The Auditor General objected to the payment of these three gentlemen as Resident Magistrates, because, under the Act of William, the maximum salary of the Resident Magistrates was fixed at

115
£750 a year, and the Government, instead of passing a fresh Act creating fresh officers, go to the filthy archives of Dublin Castle, and rake out some musty precedent which enables the Irish Executive to appoint Executive Officers provided the Government pay them. They cease to call these men Resident Magistrates, and describe them as Executive Officers, whom they keep ranging in the air, ready to do anything the Government require; they get the Lord Chancellor to make them Magistrates, and they pay them £1,000 a year as Executive Officers. A more monstrous way of evading the Auditor General was never heard of; and the conduct of the Government in this respect is most disgraceful and must be protested against. Under the present system the Government have placed a superior officer in every district of Ireland, giving him absolute control over all the other Magistrates, who are actually dependent on him for their children's bread. Let us consider how this system works. Some time ago the Government made an appointment which, for brazen-faced indecency, passes anything I ever heard of. I allude to the appointment of Mr. Cecil Roche. Who was Mr. Cecil Roche? He was a briefless barrister utterly unable to make a living at the Irish Bar, and, like many other adventurers, at the Election of 1886 he cast in his lot with the Unionist Party. Briefless barristers and needy adventurers in Ireland generally do cast in their lot with the Tory Party, because all the pickings they hope to get come from that side. Mr. Cecil Roche came over to England and perambulated the country making speeches in the interest of the Government; speeches in which he was prominent for the violence and the vigour of his vituperation. He denounced the Nationalist Party in Ire-land in the most horrible language, although I must admit that sometimes we use strong language ourselves, only there is this difference between us, that if I make use of vigorous language I cannot go to the Bench and send my opponent to gaol for six months. Well, what did the Government do? Mr. C. Roche had distinguished himself by this sort of conduct, and I am informed that on one occasion he stated that "when Hell was frozen over he would go down and fight
116
the Parnellites on the ice." Well, when the Election was over he did not go to fight the Parnellites on the ice of frozen Hell, but he got a much more comfortable place, and obtained an appointment under which he was enabled to send the Parnellites to gaol, so that they might experience the effects of hard labour and the plank bed. I regard it as a most disgraceful thing that a man, for going round the country and denouncing the Parnellite Members, should, in something like six months, be placed upon the Magisterial Bench and empowered to send to hard labour and the plank bed men infinitely more respectable than himself. That, Sir, is the historical Mr. C. Roche, and his history is a most scandalous one. Well, let me point out the connection between his appointment and the appointment of the Executive Officers. We have all heard of Colonel Turner, who found Mr. Cecil Roche so utterly unscrupulous and unreliable for the purposes of the Government that he practically used him as a "walking gallows." I may remind the Committee that there was a historical character, a man of great height and physique, standing well over 6ft. 3in. in his stockings, who used to dispose of the rebels by putting a rope round their necks and hanging them over his shoulders whereby he acquired the name of the walking gallows. Mr. C. Roche was used as a facile instrument and unscrupulous tool by Colonel Turner; wherever a case was to be disposed of in which it was essential to secure a conviction Mr. C. Roche was sent. Can anything more indecent be imagined than a system like this, where, in case the Local Magistrates can not be relied upon to adjudicate in certain cases, another man is to be imported from a distance, because he is known to be a thorough-going hater of the Nationalist Party. But this system does not end with Mr. C. Roche; unfortunately, it is being pursued throughout the whole of Ireland. I remember that when I was on my trial the Government would not trust the Magistrate of the district, Mr. M'Carthy—he was too honest a man; they, therefore, imported an ironclad Magistrate, who was an Orangeman of the deepest dye, and made him Magistrate for my district simply in order that I might be tried by him. [Cries of

117
"Name."] The name was Harris, and he was a blackguard, and the reason he was placed upon the Bench was that he was as Orange at heart as he could possibly be. I say that such a system is infamous, and can have no possible justification. I will endeavour to point out to the Committee the work which Colonel Turner does. He was the Executive Officer for Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. As Executive Officer he had the means of life of every Magistrate in the district under his control. I know he could not actually dismiss a man, but I know there is not a Magistrate who does not tremble in his shoes before him. Colonel Turner was sent down to a district greatly disturbed on the agrarian question. His sympathies were strongly with the present Government, and, indeed, Colonel Turner's sentiments are of the most convenient character. When Lord Aberdeen was in Dublin Colonel Turner was an enthusiastic Home Ruler. He even declared in the presence of a friend of mine that if he were an Irishman he would have been a Fenian. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite went over to Dublin Colonel Turner became an equally enthusiastic Unionist. That is a very convenient form of conviction for a man to have. When he went down to take charge of this disturbed district, surely common sense and decency would dictate to him an attitude of the strictest impartiality between landlord and tenant. What did he do? He went down into Clare and took up his abode with the chief and most unpopular agent, Mr. Stacpoole, as that gentleman's guest, dining at his table, driving round in his carriage or car, and he had actually the indecency to drive into Ennis upon official business more than once in the private carriage of Mr. Stacpoole, the most unpopular agent in County Clare. For months he resided as a member of the family with Mr. Stacpoole. I have not language strong enough to characterise the conduct of a Government that would tolerate such things. Colonel Turner became the servant, the lackey of Mr. Stacpoole, there was no work too dirty for Colonel Turner to do, until at last the police in Clare acted as the servants of Mr. Stacpoole, and members of the Force were employed to collect the tolls at a fair for Mr. Stacpoole.
118
Magistrates and police became the servants of Mr. Stacpoole, and when a Magistrate was required to do the dirty work of Colonel Turner, and a local man could not be trusted, Mr. Cecil Roche was sent for from Tralee at the cost of additional travelling expenses. In spite of all these things, and this state of administration, these charges, which have been made before and never denied, the Government complain that the people of Clare and Kerry have no respect for the administration of the law. All I can say is that if the people of Clare and Kerry had any respect for the administration of law under such circumstances they would be the most contemptible creatures, and would deserve to be kicked and flogged like slaves. When Thomas Drummond instituted a class of Resident Magistrates, he had in view the protection of the poorer classes against possible tyranny and annoyance of the Local Magistrates of the landlord class; he never dreamed of the use to which they have been put. He forgot that the appearing of Resident Magistrates as protectors of the poor depends on the men who preside in Dublin Castle, and who may make these Magistrates an additional instrument for the oppression of the people. As a further instance of Colonel Turner's abuse of his position, I may mention the part he took towards preventing a settlement of the dispute on the Vandeleur Estate. He wrote a letter to the Times denouncing the landlord for not taking more stringent steps, and for not bringing emergency men down to his estate. In view of these facts it is perfectly outrageous on the part of the Government to endeavour by a shady trick to pass this Vote to pay such men, who are no more nor less than Executive Officers placed over the heads of the Magistrates in Ireland for the purpose of intimidating them into doing the dirty work of the Government. What would English Members say if the Commissioner of Police were to sit upon the Bench one day and command the police the next? That would give a faint idea of what we have to put up with in Ireland, though that is not exactly a parallel case, because there we have officers at the head of the Judicial Bench and of the police in Ireland who are in no way responsible, directly or indirectly, to the people of

119
Ireland, Now I turn to say a word or two upon the County Court Judges of Ireland. I regret to say the people of Ireland have not confidence in these officials.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing, I think, in the Vote for County Court Judges.
MR. DILLON: Under those circumstances, I will proceed with a few words I have to say upon a case recently tried before a Resident Magistrate, which, in my judgment, illustrates in a forcible and valuable way some of the doctrines as well as the value of the facts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to boycotting cases. We have heard boycotting described by the right hon. Gentleman in strong language as being accompanied by intimidation and violence. Now I want to draw attention to a case of boycotting recently tried in Tipperary, in which the charge was made against two schoolboys named William Quin and Robert Lewis. The summons set forth the grounds on which the prosecution was instituted, and is a kind of a manifesto on the part of the officials founded on the statements of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—
"Whereas it is a matter of popular notoriety that a system exists in several parts of Ireland known as boycotting"—so runs this manifesto of Colonel Caddell—"which injuriously interferes with the free exercise of legal rights by Her Majesty's subjects, and that the said system is carried out by certain persons, who, by signs, or otherwise, warn those who wish to exercise their legal rights not to do so,"
and after other "whereases of great charge," finally, on June 19, these two respectable lads, under 16 years of age, are charged with the commission of that offence, to wit, endeavouring to prevent children from attending school. The evidence given by the police showed that the lads stood outside the school house, and in this case the overt act of intimidation and violence alleged was that one of the lads charged shook a rose at the girl supposed to be intimidated, and prevented her from attending school. Of course, the whole thing is perfectly ludicrous, and I do not wish to discuss it at great length, but I wish to emphasise the fact that in all these prosecutions before Magistrates in Ireland for boycotting there is no established proof of violence or intimidation. We hear of violence and intimidation from the Chief Secretary,
120
but when we come to hard facts before the Magistrates, we hear nothing at all of these accompaniments. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite entitled to denounce boycotting, but he is not entitled to connect boycotting with violence and intimidation when there is no violence and no intimidation. The Irish Government are armed with enormous powers. Why, if there is violence, are not such cases brought before the Magistrates? But, as a matter of fact, there are no cases of violence connected with boycotting. Over and over again we have had it in evidence that the offence of a man charged with boycotting was indicated by his pointing with a crutch he held in his hand at certain animals, or he said some words, or he winked, nodded, or coughed in the sight or hearing of the persons who were about to make purchases. There is no proof, I say, that boycotting is based on intimidation. One word in conclusion, and I do not know whether I shall be strictly in order, but I will only make a brief reference to the question of "shadowing," as exemplified in the case of David Kent. It has transpired in evidence that the constable who shadowed David Kent did prevent the sale of calves and lambs by Kent, by thrusting his head between the owner and possible purchaser, scaring away the latter. Kent, unable to do his business, unable to sell the stock he brought into the fair, turned round, and at a short distance away saw a police officer, who was walking about the fair, and began to follow him. The police officer turned round, and said, "If you continue to follow me I shall have you arrested." Kent continued to follow him, and was arrested. He was brought before a Magistrate, put in gaol for five or six hours, and then bailed out. When brought before the Magistrates for trial he was charged with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. The Magistrates, I understand, held the charge to be proved, although there is some mistiness about the record of the decision; but Kent was dismissed on condition that he should not follow the policeman any more. Now, Sir, I want to know what is the legal ground of the charge against Kent, and I want also to know what right the Magistrate had to dismiss the man on condition that he

121
would not continue to follow the policeman? If it be maintained that the Magistrate was acting within his legal right in finding this man guilty, and in requiring such an undertaking from him, I want to know how it can be lawful for the police to obstruct a poor man in the discharge of his business? The Government has hitherto given no clear and definite statement of the law on this point in Ireland. We want to know whether, if it be lawful for a policeman to follow a civilian, and to obstruct and annoy him in the discharge of his business, it is also lawful for a civilian to follow a policeman and in the same way annoy him? Under what law may a policeman molest, annoy, irritate, and interfere with the private business of an individual against whom no charge is made, if a civilian is not entitled to do the same thing? We had it the other day from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Magistrates in each district are allowed, on their own responsibility, to select the individuals who are to be subjected to this horrible persecution. I say frankly that during the autumn we shall try to put a stop to this system. People who are shadowed will insist upon following the police, and if they are arrested for following the police, I am bound to say, it will come to this in the end, that on a suitable opportunity it will be the duty of one of our men to knock down a "shadow." Although I have over and over again used my influence in Ireland to preserve the police, and to prevent collisions between the police and the people, often under very unpleasant circumstances, I say I think our people are justified, when a favourable opportunity arrises, in trying the law on this matter, if the Attorney General refuses to state it clearly in this House. I think the proper way to try the law is for the man shadowed to take his opportunity when out of sight of the picket to knock down the "shadow," and assert his right not to be dogged, punished, and outraged by policemen when there is really no law to justify it.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think this the most important Vote in the whole of the Irish Estimates. We have been discussing for the past fortnight the administrative and the executive policy of the right
122
hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. This Vote deals with the whole question of the administration of justice in Ireland. Of course, we are not going to touch the administration of justice by the Superior Courts. In Ireland, as in England, and I suppose everywhere else, the Courts of First Instance—the Courts of the Local Magistracy—are the Courts with which the people are familiar, and these are the Courts which represent to the people of Ireland that much repeated phrase of "law and order" They represent British justice, and I submit it is the duty of the House of Commons, in voting the money for these Courts, to satisfy itself that they are Courts which adequately administer justice, and which have the confidence of the people of Ireland. I believe someone has said it is necessary in a free country not only that justice should be impartially administered, but that the people should believe it is impartially administered. If that be true I think both sides of the House will admit, even without the confirmatory evidence of the two speeches made to-night, that the people of Ireland do not believe justice is impartially administered to them. I suppose there is hardly a gentleman sitting on the other side of the House who is not in the habit of taking part in the administration of justice in his own locality, and there are many also on this side of the House who administer the law. I am not going to say a word disrespectful to the general ability and legal knowledge of Stipendiary Magistrates in the great towns of England, and especially in the Metropolis, where, I think, they dispense justice in a highly satisfactory manner, but I believe it to be the just boast of Englishmen that justice is fairly and impartially administered by the overwhelming majority of the Justices of the Peace. In London, and wherever you think it necessary to provide paid Magistrates, you take the greatest possible care that they shall be fully qualified to discharge their duties. No one is appointed who has not studied the law and practised the law. It is a rule, almost without an exception, that the men selected as Stipendiary Magistrates are not only possessed of knowledge of affairs, but that they are also possessed of knowledge the law. The same rule prevails in Scotland, and in the colonies, and in India.

123
In India, which, perhaps, some people would say is the parallel of Ireland with regard to our rule, we are a conquering race governing a subject race. I believe, myself, the strongest hold we have on the people of India, the strongest tie which attaches India to British rule—is not our military, or our civil, or our financial administration, but the belief which pervades all classes in India that in the Courts of the Queen they receive, and will continue to receive, fair, equal, and impartial justice. And why is this? How do we provide for the administration of justice in India? We do not make the office of the administration of justice a refuge for the morally and intellectually destitute—we take care to provide suitable men. The examination imposed upon men who go out to India is the most severe competitive examination, and a man who passes it does that which is equal to taking a first-class degree at Oxford. Then we give him a special University training at the public expense for a certain number of years. When we send him to India we take care that he shall have judicial training and every Magistrate is compelled to state in writing, not only the decisions he gives, but the reasons on which these decisions are founded, and they are submitted to a Superior Court for revision, and alteration if need be. I am simply giving these details to the House to show the means we take to secure the just and fair administration of justice in India. Now, what do we do in Ireland? Is there any parallel between the administration of justice in Ireland and its administration in England, or Scotland, or the colonies, or India? I am not going to say a single word reflecting on the personal character of any Resident Magistrate—I am dealing with a system, and I do not hold the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) responsible for that system. He found it when he came into Office, and it is one of the evil results of English rule in Ireland that the system exists. Although the right hon. Gentleman has defended it with unswerving fidelity to the men over whom he has been set, it would be a mistake for us in dealing with it to regard it as an accident of the present Administration. I have in my hand a Return respecting the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. It was moved for by the hon. Member for
124
the Rushcliffe Division of Notts (Mr. J. E. Ellis) last year, and I find from it there were then 75 Magistrates in Ireland, who are receiving the grant provided for by this Vote. I call the attention of the House to the composition of this body. Only 14 of the Resident Magistrates have the slightest ostensible connection with the legal profession. In the 14 I include not only gentlemen who have been barristers-at-law, theoretical or practising, but one gentleman who kept all the terms for the Bar, but "for family reasons was not called." I have also included gentlemen who served in the Army after they had been at the Bar. I do not think it requires much knowledge to know what that means. At all events it is a very fair presumption that men who did that were not much fascinated by or attracted to the legal profession. Well, then, there are 24 ex-officers of the Army, 22 ex-officers of the Constabulary, and 15 gentlemen, who are variously described, some as "Hon. Secretary to the Tipperary Agricultural Society," "In the Revenue, Police and Superintendent Departments," "On the Commission of the Peace for several years," and so on. One gentleman is described as an Army tutor. Now, let me ask the House what these gentlemen have to do. Here we can bring the matter more closely home to the present Administration. It is under the present Chief Secretary's legislation that there has been thrown upon these gentlemen some of the most difficult legal duties which possibly can fall on any Court. You have deprived the people of Ireland of the protection of juries, which is given in other parts of the Kingdom, and you have devolved upon the Resident Magistrates the functions not only of Judges, but of juries. I will quote one sentence from one of the greatest authorities we have on criminal jurisprudence. He says—
"Perhaps few things are left so doubtful in the Criminal Law as the point at which the combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal."
Well, this delicate and difficult question of Criminal Law has been handed over to these 75 gentlemen, of whom only 14 are in any way competent to decide a legal question. What do these gentlemen cost? I know the Chief Secretary will say, "The House

125
of Commons does not vote enough money for me to get the article which India, and the colonies, and Scotland and England get. "I have heard him say," I cannot with the Vote that you supply provide myself with perfectly competent men. "I am rather doubtful about that. The Vote is 20 Magistrates at £675, 32 at £550, and 20 at £425. In addition, each receives £100 as travelling allowance, and something more than £100 for their personal and travelling expenses. Judging of Irish salaries by English salaries, applying the test that an Irish Judge of the Supreme Court receives about two-thirds of the salary paid to an English Judge. I think if an Irish barrister receives two-thirds of the salary which is paid to an English Stipendiary Magistrate, the proportion is pretty well observed, and tonight we shall vote to the Irish Resident Magistrates considerably higher salaries than two-thirds of what is generally paid in England to Stipendiary Magistrates, excluding the Metropolis. In addition to these salaries a large number of these gentlemen are in receipt of Army pensions. I concede to the Chief Secretary that we ought to provide sufficient money. This House has never been niggardly in Irish administration. These Irish Estimates are monuments of extravagance. The cost of the Government of Ireland is a great deal too large. When the Chief Secretary obtains from this House, practically without discussion and objection, the most liberal allowances for the Constabulary and every branch of his administration, I am sure the House would not grudge him money to enable him to give the people of Ireland proper administration of justice. Whether we are Home Rulers or Unionists we must be agreed upon, this that the people of Ireland are entitled to a competent Judicial Bench, and until the Chief Secretary comes down to the House and asks for a sum which will enable him to appoint competent qualified men, and the House refuses him such a sum, he has no right to shield himself behind the supposed zeal for economy. Now, how do these gentlemen discharge their duties? The Chief Secretary may say they do their work satisfactorily. I have seen, again and again, in speeches of the Chief Secretary, statements that the appeals which have been made from the
126
decisions of the Resident Magistrates are a very fair indication of the admirable manner in which their duty is discharged. We have been told that a very large number of cases have been heard' by Resident Magistrates, and that there have been very few appeals. I have got the Judicial statistics for 1888. In that year there were 1,082 convictions under the Crimes Act. There were 201 appeals. You may say that that is a small proportion, and that there is a primâ facie presumption that the decisions have been satisfactory. But go a little further, and you find that by the astute manner in which the mode of appeal was dealt with 697 cases were not appealable against. The sentences were below the mark carrying the right of appeal. As a matter of fact, there were only 385 cases which could be appealed against, and in 201 of the 385 cases, appeals were made. In 70 cases, or in 33 per cent. of the cases appealed against, the appeals were successful I believe that is quite as high, if not higher, than any similar effort in this country, A few days ago the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis) obtained a Return up to the 31st of March, 1890. There have been 769 convictions; 204 could not be appealed against, leaving only 565 that could be appealed against. 233 were appealed against, and in 72 cases the appeals were successful—again 33 per cent. I think that is very fair evidence of the effect of the appeals. Let me bring under the notice of the Committee one or two cases. I am not one of the Members, who have been to Ireland, but the reports I have read in the Times, for example, fully confirm my opinion as to the unsatisfactory nature of the system, and prove the in competency of the men who have been put into these positions. But I also rely for a good deal of my Irish information upon what I think is one of the ablest provincial newspapers, the Manchester Guardian. With the permission of the Committee, I will read a few sentences from the account given by the special correspondent of the Manchestvr Guardian of what he saw in Ireland upon the trial of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien). He said—
"People in England are often puzzled to know why the Irish want Home Rule. The

127
best answer to a man in such perplexity would be to take him to a town where a political trial is proceeding and hid him 'Mark, learn, and inwardly digest.' He would see much to astonish him. Passing by the hotel patronised by the landlord party, he would probably observe a group consisting of the Magistrates who were to try the case, the Magistrates who were to command the police and the troops, several police officers with swords and revolvers, several officers of the Army, the counsel and solicitors for the Crown, and, to protect the whole party, a plain clothes detective. That, at least, is the sight which I saw last night, and it is a sight I have often seen in Ireland."
"Turning out this morning after 10 o'clock I found great preparations for meeting the enemy—I beg pardon, I mean our Irish fellow-subjects.—The hussars had saddled their horses, made ready their carbines, and were waiting the signal to mount. The men of the Welsh Regiment were seeing to their accoutrements and trying whether the locks of their rifles worked well. Police—some armed with rifles, others with batons—were pouring in from country stations, and those encamped in the town were preparing their weapons. In all 110 police, 34 hussars, and 50 infantry soldiers were present to make it quite certain that respect for the law is completely restored in Ireland."
The correspondent then gave some details of the trial, and proceeded—
"The Magistrates who were to try a Member of Parliament on a highly complicated charge which would test the acumen of the most learned and skilful judge were Mr. Irwin, a promoted officer of the police, and Colonel Caddell, an ex-soldier. By no possibility could either of these gentlemen have had any legal training worth speaking of, and if an intricate question of law were to arise they were bound to go slap-dash at their conclusion. Now it turned out that the question they had to try was in a singular degree one which the most cultivated lawyer would have faced with hesitation. The charge in the summons was that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Gilhooly had entered into a criminal conspiracy to induce certain persons not to fulfil their legal obligations. Amplified by Mr. Ryan, Q.C, the prosecuting counsel, the formal charge meant this—that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Gilhooly had delivered speeches at Clonakilty, the object of which was to put pressure on Mr. Smith-Barry to desist from his Ponsonby estate operations by inducing his tenants to withhold their rents."
The hon. Member has already alluded to the evidence given in the case, and certainly there was perjury on the part of the police officer, who pretended to have taken shorthand notes. Writing later, the correspondent said—
"A wretched and miserable farce is just over. I suppose that no man with the slightest legal training—I will go further, and say no man with common sense—could have sat in Court this day and have come away without being convinced that wherever the interests of the land-
128
lords are concerned impartial justice cannot he expected from Irish Resident Magistrates."
I have given the Committee some details of the case in order to show how justice is administered in the eyes of an independent observer. I desire now to refer to the attitude of the Irish Magistracy towards Members of Parliament. The Chief Secretary says that if Members of Parliament break the law they should be prosecuted the same as other people, and there I agree with him. But the point in which I differ from him is that Members of Parliament should not be punished because they are Members of Parliament, and that is the crux of the Irish situation. I put it to Gentlemen opposite who have judicial instincts whether after the strong, powerful, and excited speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) to-night, in which speech he mentioned by name certain of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland, it would be decent in case of any alleged infraction of the law by him—I will not put it stronger—that he should be tried by the men he has denounced to night? Is it human to expect justice under such circumstances? Would it be considered fair to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), for instance, that he should be tried for anything he may have said or done, by a Court composed of Gentlemen below the Opposition Gangway? The Irish Resident Magistrates assume that they are part of the great army in the controversy which is now going on, that they are fighting under a distinguished and able general, and that their policy and aim is not the administration of justice, but the winning of a political victory against their political opponents. Let us take the case of the prosecution of the Rev. Mr. Crawley, a Roman Catholic curate, on the charge of having intimidated a Protestant rector. I think a little common sense would suggest to any impartial spectator that where a Catholic clergyman is accused of intimidating a Protestant clergyman, or where a Protestant clergyman is charged with intimidating a Catholic clergyman, or any other clergyman, a good deal of caution should be exercised in dealing with the case, a case which evidently, in the first instance, is not entirely disconnected with sectarian rivalry. But I am not

129
going into the case. I understand it was a case of strong language; and, as a friend said to me the other day, any English Magistrate would have dismissed it. Captain Welsh and Mr. Cecil Roche were the two Judges in the case. Captain Welsh said the defendant was represented as being in a position to sway the people of the district. As the language he addressed to the people carried great weight the Magistrates had no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the Rev. Mr. Hopley and Sergeant Burke were intimidated, and they sentenced the defendant to a month's imprisonment in each of the cases. Would any English Magistrate have sentenced the defendant to a month's imprisonment? Captain Walsh added that, to prevent the recurrence of the use of such language in the future, they would bind the defendant over in one surety of £40, and two of £20 each, to be of good behaviour, after the expiration of his sentence, for 12 months. In default of finding those sureties he was to go to gaol for six months. I call that a travesty—a prostitution of justice. But that evidently did not come up to the requirements of Mr. Cecil Roche, who said—
"The defendant was a very remarkable man. Of considerable power of mind, of splendid physique, he had acted kindly towards his parishioners, who were an ignorant, wild set of people, half mountaineers, half seafaring men. Rightly and properly, he had great influence over them. The part Father Crawley had taken between landlord and tenant was praiseworthy and creditable, but his intense egotism had led him astray."
Fancy Members of Parliament being convicted for intense egotism! Mr. Cecil Roche evidently regards himself as dictator. Such words would never be used in English or Scotch Courts. If any Magistrate acted like Mr. Cecil Roche, the Lord Chancellor would immediately have him removed. The Resident Magistrates have no knowledge of law, and do not appreciate the elementary principles of justice. They are in the thick of a great political fight, and are conscientiously convinced that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is the best policy for Ireland, and that advocated on these Benches the worst; but they are not qualified men to steer an even keel in a country where agrarian disputes are the main
130
source of all criminal trouble. These Magistrates connected with, inflnenced by, belonging to, one class, are not competent to deal out even-handed justice, and the result of their action proves it. What you have said à priori would happen, has happened, in almost every case brought before us. The other night the Chief Secretary made a startling admission. I admire him for having the courage of his convictions. He never shrinks from a paradox, however it may turn against him, or stays to fence with qualifications of the case he makes in his defence.
"It may, he said, be the result of three centuries of mis-government. I form no opinion on that, but the condition of Ireland is such that practically three-fourths of the people cannot he trusted to keep their oaths as jurymen on a trial, and, therefore, a system of procedure unknown in this country had been pursued by successive Governments in Ireland."
Is he going to say the same thing to-night; is he going to say it is impossible to trust the people of Ireland, and hence it is necessary to adopt the system of administration of justice? Is it a necessity in Ireland that we should autocratically and despotically administer justice, shutting the people out from their share in the administration, relying on administration by Magistrates alone? Then I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have competent Magistrates, men like those whom we send to India and to the colonies, and those whom we have in England and in Scotland, men apart from all political prejudice, so that they will show to the people of Ireland that, no matter whether they have Home Rule or rule at Westminster, wherever the Queen's power extends justice will be fairly and impartially administered. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has said that he is striving for principles which lie at the root of civilisation. There is a greater principle than he contends for which lies at the root of all civilisation and society, and that is the pure and impartial administration of justice. In that consists the condemnation of the present system, which we so much deplore, and are trying to put an end to. Whether we succeed or fail—I do not wish to mix this question up with Party politics—I make one more appeal to him, not to defend the present system, but to

131
ask the House of Commons to help him to remedy what is a national danger and a national disgrace.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Every one who has heard the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not an unwelcome interruption to the ordinary course of invective in this Debate against Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman has tried, and successfully tried, to keep the question of politics out of sight, and has asked me to do the same. The right hon. Gentleman has made no personal attack on the Government, who can defend themselves, or upon individual Magistrates, who cannot defend themselves, and, for my own part, I will endeavour in the observations I have to make to follow the example which the right hon. Gentleman has set. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that politics ought not to be allowed to enter into any question connected with the administration of the law in Ireland. In one sense of that recommendation every human being who heard, and every human being who may read those words will, I am sure, cordially agree. That the course of justice should be diverted, if only by a hair's breadth, to serve the interests of any political Party, would be a horrible and disgraceful thing; but if the right hon. Gentleman means, by what he has said, that the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland, in the state of opinion of the Irish people as they were now led in certain parts of Ireland, is to be kept wholly independent of political objects which the commission of crime is intended to attain, that, I think, is not at present possible. The right hon. Gentleman has argued throughout upon the hypothesis that the political objects of a great Party in Ireland are wholly independent of the Criminal Law and its administration. He has argued as if it had never occurred to anybody in Ireland to commit a breach of the Common Law or the Statute Law, in order to gain a political object. I do not wish to introduce more controversial subjects than I am obliged; but the right hon. Gentleman knows that, whether rightly or wrongly, the Government do not follow that opinion, but are forced to the melancholy conclusion that political
132
objects in Ireland for the last 10 years have been aimed at by criminal methods. As long as that unhappy state of things continues, so long as political objects are arrived at by criminal methods, so long will trials which ought to be purely criminal trials, and abstracted entirely on the part of the audience as well as the Judge from all political considerations, be attended with those unfortunate symptoms which the right hon. Gentleman has described, of an excited mob and disgraceful scenes in the streets, which have, unfortunately, so often accompanied the administration of justice in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asks me how it is possible and legitimate to try, for example, the hon. Member for East Mayo before one of the Magistrates he has so cruelly aspersed in his speech. I admit that the fact that the administration of Criminal Law is—through no fault of ours—mixed up with politics, is a great misfortune and a difficulty. But because the hon. Member for East Mayo chooses to make this sort of attack on the Magistrates, is he to be allowed to break the law in Ireland with impunity? I take a purely hypothetical case never likely to occur. I trust the hon. Member will never come into collision with the administration of the Criminal Law; but supposing that the hon. Member, in carrying out his political object, does resort to methods regarded as criminal by the law of the country, is he not to be tried because he has thought fit, in the exercise of his duty, to make a violent and, I am bound to add, a discreditable attack upon certain Magistrates?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I did not say that he was not to be tried, but that he should be tried by an impartial tribunal.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is to say, it only rests with the hon. Member to attack every tribunal—and to do him justice, I think he has attacked every tribunal in turn. Attempts were made in these Debates yesterday to attack the High Court, and this evening to attack the County Court Judges, attacks which were only prevented by the ruling of the Chairman, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if his principle is to be carried out, an hon. Member will only have to add to a breach of the law a violent attack in this House on the tribunal which would

133
have to adjudicate, and he will secure immunity for himself. I have only taken the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo, because it has been cited by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not assume that the hon. Member contemplates any breach of the Criminal Law. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to apply to this system in Ireland the test of experience. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is the proper test to apply. If experience shows that the present system in Ireland works tolerably well, I presume that the case will fail that we ought, by spending a great deal more money, to get a class of men who will not serve at the present salaries. In order to see whether, in a normal condition of society, the existing system of Magistrates works well, we have only to look at that part of Ireland which is in a normal state, and I maintain that in Ulster, or, at all events, in those parts of Ulster which are not disturbed (I am aware that there is a certain amount of disturbance in Donegal), the system works admirably. It is only when, in the exercise of their duty, through no fault of their own, politics are connected with these breaches of the Criminal Law, that it is alleged that the Magistrates fail. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have to deal with a very difficult law, and that they have no legal training. For my own part, I am not prepared to admit that in England experience shows that men of the same class as the Resident Magistrates, military men and others, are incapable of dealing with such matters. How many Chairmen of Quarter Sessions are old officers? The right hon. Gentleman assumes that experience in the Army for a good many years renders a man incapable of performing such duties. For my own part, I maintain that some of the best Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have had precisely the same kind of legal training as these Resident Magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman says the law which these Resident Magistrates have to administer is very difficult, especially the law of conspiracy, but Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have also to administer the law of conspiracy. ["No, no!"] Of that I do not speak with confidence, but I refer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the
134
administration is difficult. We have heard a great deal of the right of appeal, and the right hon. Gentleman has reminded the Committee that there is no right of appeal from a conviction where the sentence is below a month. But on a point of law, whatever the sentence may be, there is an appeal to a Court which the right hon. Gentleman will admit is competent—namely, the Court of Exchequer or the Queen's Bench—by case stated. I have no doubt that appeals on points of law have been taken exactly in those cases where, in the opinion of the defendants' counsel, the Resident Magistrates had shown themselves weakest in law. Since the passing of the Crimes Act to July 1, 1890, there have been 25 appeals to the Court of Exchequer or the Queen's Bench by cases stated. Of these 25 cases, obviously those in which the Resident Magistrates were considered weakest, only three were reversed, and the remaining 22 were affirmed. Therefore, I say that, looking to past experience of the law administered by these gentlemen, it is not at all so weak as the right hon. Gentleman would lead the Committee to believe. The right hon. Gentleman has examined the cases in which there have been appeals on the facts, but I was not quite able to follow the right hon. Gentleman's figures. According to a Return furnished I find that from November, 1888, to June, 1890, 1,393 cases were tried. The number of appeals lodged in that period was 256, and of these only 18 were reversed on appeal. That is a proof that, on the facts, as well as on the law, experience demonstrates that these tribunals are competent, fair, and honest tribunals.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman has left out the cases of reductions of sentences.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There were, no doubt, some 60 cases in which there were reductions of sentence. But with respect to those it must be remembered that two Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction often pass different sentences on cases apparently similar. But such differences of opinion by no means demonstrate that the Court of first instance did not do its duty. As my right hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General for Ireland) reminds me, on appeal the cases were re-heard, and therefore evidence not

135
before the Court below might be, and probably was in most instances, called in the Court above, and, further, that in several cases the sentences have been increased for the very purpose of giving a right of appeal. Therefore the mere fact that a sentence was reduced on appeal by no means demonstrates that the Court of first instance did not do its duty. I pass from that general criticism on Courts of first instance in Ireland to certain specific allegations made by the hon. Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork. The hon. Member for East Mayo accuses the Government of having broken their pledges in not having regularised the position of the Divisional Commissioners by Act of Parliament. Is there any human being who, in the present state of public business, would do anything by Act of Parliament which could be done in any other way? Would it be common sense to come for an Act when we found that it was unnecessary for us to do so? The hon. Gentleman said such a Bill would have been met with the same kind of resistance as the Bill for the appointment of an Assistant Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was met with. If that is so, the Government were justified in taking the obviously rational course of avoiding the difficulty by not coming to Parliament at all. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to make a most violent attack, and exhausted even his budget of invective upon Colonel Turner. But when it all comes to be analysed it amounts to this. Colonel Turner lived with Mr. Stacpoole, who was a landlord in Clare. On account of that unforgiveable offence he has been described as a man who acted as Mr. Stacpoole's lackey, who is unworthy of the confidence of the Government, who ought to be dismissed on the earliest possible occasion, and who is a proper target for the ordinary arrows of Nationalist invective. Why should not Colonel Turner stay in Mr. Stacpoole's house? Is every man who stays in a country house the lackey of his host? Is every man who stays in a country house incapable of doing justice? Is it an iniquity to use the carriage of your host to go to a neighbouring town? Incredible as it may seem to hon. Members who were not in the House when the hon. Member made his speech, that is one of the chief counts in the
136
indictment against Colonel Turner He drove from Mr. Stacpoole's residence into Ennis in Mr. Stacpoole's carriage! Monstrous enormity! Horrible iniquity! Ireland indeed requires Home Rule when such things as these are done in that unhappy country.
MR. DILLON: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he approves of the action of Colonel Turner in becoming an inmate of the house of a land agent in County Clare, in the then condition of the county?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Colonel Turner has never asked me whether I approved or not, and I think it would be grossly impertinent if I interfered in such a matter by expressing any opinion at all. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be driven to rely on his attack on the Irish Magistracy, on some old and some very hypothetical incidents. He gave a long account of what happened seven or eight years ago in County Mayo in connection with a Resident Magistrate, since dead. That might have been a good thing to bring up on the Estimates seven or eight years ago, but it is not a good thing to bring before the Committee now, because it can afford them no guide as to the course they ought to pursue with regard to the present Estimates. The hon. Gentleman then related what occurred to him at Tipperary. He said-he was talking to some friends when Colonel Caddell ordered the police to draw their batons and charge. The hon. Gentleman said the police did not obey their orders, and so nothing happened. But supposing, the hon. Gentleman said, something had happened, then Colonel Caddell would have had to try the case of an injury inflicted in obedience to his own orders. I think the hon. Gentleman in stating this hypothetical case has fallen into several serious errors. Colonel Caddell did not order a charge; the police did not disobey his orders, and if batons were not drawn on that occasion it was because the police followed strictly the orders given by Colonel Caddell.
MR. DILLON: I heard the order to draw batons given myself.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe I have stated the facts as I have been told them by Colonel Caddell; but, at any rate, Colonel Caddell gave no direction which would have justified the police in

137
batoning the hon. Gentleman or his friends. Then the hon. Member said, supposing he had been brought before Colonel Caddell as the result of what might have happened? The hon. Gentleman and his friends have said over and over again that the utmost care ought to be taken not to mix up executive and judicial functions. With that I agree, and every effort is made by the Irish Government not to allow the man who has executive functions to perform to adjudicate on the cases arising out of that executive action. It is in order to pursue that rule that it is necessary to make Resident Magistrates leave one district and go into another.
MR. W. O'BRIEN: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the case of Nunan and Hogan, in which Colonel Caddell combined the two functions?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The two women referred to by the hon. Member were bound over by Colonel Caddell to keep the peace on a day subsequent to the disorder in which they were concerned. Colonel Caddell could have performed that operation on the spot. He preferred to do it next day, and he did it next day. The facts of that case, therefore, do not bear out the contention of the hon. Member. No Resident Magistrate has ever ordered a baton charge and then directed a prosecution of those charged.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: Yes; Mr. Roche did on three occasions.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: No, I am not mistaken. It occurred in my own constituency. I know Mr. Roche quite as well as you.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The other chief ease brought against Colonel Caddell was in connection with the funeral of a man named O'Dwyer. The hon. Member accused the police of violating the graveside, of desecrating the feelings of the relatives of the dead, and of behaving in a way in which no one in a civilised country ought to behave. I will remind the Committee of the facts connected with that funeral. If it had been an ordinary funeral, merely an occasion on which the relatives committed to the earth the body of one who had been dearly connected with them, and chose that occasion for the display of natural emotion, interference by the police would
138
have been monstrous. But was this so? Does the hon. Member claim immunity for a funeral when it is made the occasion of a political demonstration? I think that the hon. Member will feel it to be absurd to put forward any such claim. It had been published abroad that the hon. Member himself was going to the funeral, and that other political friends would be present. There were 12 policemen told off to protect the reporter on that occasion. There were nine reporters not connected with the police present. On this sacred and solemn occasion, therefore, there were nine reporters, I presume, of the Nationalist Press who had come to the grave not to make public the family grief, but in order to take down the speech which the hon. Member might deliver and publish his words all over Ireland with a political object. I am far from saying that the action of the police on that occasion was necessary, but to describe it as a desecration of the grave is surely absurd. There was no attempt to interfere with anyone present.
MR. W. O'BRIEN: Yes. They shouldered the people out of the way.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The police were there because they believed, on good evidence, that this was a political demonstration, and whether they were right or wrong, whether they were necessary or unnecessary, I maintain that the attacks which have been made are utterly outrageous and beyond the merits of the case. There have been cases in which graves have been desecrated and funeral processions interfered with. The other day when a policeman was burying his child in Tipperary the unfortunate mother and father, standing by the grave-side, were assaulted by stones.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: That is false.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As they were standing by the grave they were assaulted with stones thrown by the roughs of Tipperary. I call such conduct as that interfering with the last rites of the dead, and in a manner which is disgraceful and discreditable. Some moderation, however, might be shown by hon. Gentlemen in the language which they use. The hon. Member for East Mayo not only denounced in the most violent language the character of the Magistrates

139
with whom he has been brought into conflict, but he announced his intention of raking up details of their private life, and of dragging out anything which he thought could be twisted into an accusation against them. I have never listened with greater pain to any speech delivered than to this one. I think it most discreditable to the hon. Member who made it. As for Colonel Caddell, who has been made the object of a vituperative attack by the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, who has used language which he would never dare to use outside the House, this Magistrate has nothing to fear from attacks of that kind. If the hon. Member wishes to rake up details about Colonel Caddell's private life I will give the hon. Member some assistance in the task he is undertaking. Colonel Caddell was 23½ years in the Royal Irish Fusiliers; he was an instructor of musketry for three and a half years, an Adjutant in Louth, Deputy Assistant Adjutant General in Belfast during the critical time of the riots; he served in the Soudan campaign of 1884, for which he received a medal and the Khedivial decoration. Colonel Caddell has served and is serving his country, and such attacks as have been made upon him this evening will do nothing to sully the reputation of a man like him. I do not ask hon. Members to moderate the attacks which they make on the Government or the officials in Ireland. Let them make what attacks they please, but surely the private life of those individuals might be sacred. Surely those who from the vantage ground of this House may say anything they please without being called to account for it, might feel that that privilege carries with it some duties; and it is discreditable not only to themselves, but to the cause they desire to serve, that they should seek to use the language of private calumny and private slander.
MR. DILLON: As a matter of personal explanation, I should like to say that nothing was further from my mind than that I should employ the vantage ground of this House to make an attack upon any one and which I should be afraid to repeat outside. When I attacked Captain Segrave I did so outside this House, and I shall do the same in the ease of Colonel Caddell.
MR. BRADLAUGH: The speech just delivered by the Chief Secretary of Ireland renders it very difficult for me to make the speech which I had intended to make on this occasion. I am bound to say that with a long experience in England I cannot conceive the possibility of police acting at funerals in the way which has been described to-night by the Chief Secretary himself without causing much exasperation and irritation by their presence, and I would suggest that it would be better far that one or two rash speeches should escape notice rather than that the people assembling to pay the last farewell to the remains of their friends should be insulted by the presence of the uniformed' officers of the Crown. It was not, however, for that that I rose, but to deal with a case which was discussed two days ago, and which has not yet received any notice at the hands of the Chief Secretary or of the law officers of the Crown. It is the case of Mr. John Kelly, who was charged with conspiracy, and sent to gaol by Mr. Meldon and Colonel Waring for four months with hard labour. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton dealt with the difficulty of the law of conspiracy in a way which saves me the necessity of delivering some remarks I had intended to make. Lord Justice Jervis, one of the most eminent lawyers who ever sat in the Court of Common Pleas in this country, once said that the charge of conspiracy was one of the easiest to make and one of the most difficult to prove. If he had had the experience which we have had of the procedure before these Resident Magistrates, I think he would have come to the conclusion that it is quite as easy to prove as it is to make, especially if he had had any knowledge of the case which I am now discussing. There was not, so far as I am able to learn, a shadow of evidence upon which any reasonable jury would have convicted this gentleman of the charge of conspiracy. A charge of intimidation was preferred against him, but on that he was acquitted by the Resident Magistrates themselves. The general charge of conspiracy was proved by two speeches, one of which was made by Mr. O'Dwyer, who was in Mr. Kelly's company on the occasion of the proceedings which immediately led

141
to his arrest. The speech itself was, however, made in Mr. Kelly's absence, and it was not suggested that Mr. Kelly could possibly have known anything about it until long after it was delivered. The second speech was one delivered by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, and Mr. Kelly certainly could not have known anything of that, because he was in gaol at the time of its delivery. Now, these were the only two speeches on which this charge of conspiracy was founded. It is, I think, necessary that a tribunal which deals with charges of conspiracy should be, from a commonsense point of view, a jury of twelve impartial men, and, from a legal point of view, a high judicial functionary beyond suspicion in dealing with such a case. But what have we here in this case? I say, without fear of contradiction, there was no attempt on the part of the Chief Secretary, who was present during part of the Debate the other night, or on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland, who was in the House the whole time, to answer the case made out by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Dublin against Mr. Kelly's conviction. The case against Mr. Kelly did not involve one single overt act except those I am just about to put to the Committee. All that was shown against him was that, in company with Mr. O'Dwyer, he had gone on to the estate of the hon. Member for South Hunts, and that he had driven on an outside car to the houses of different tenants. There was not a particle of evidence of anything that happened at any one of those places. Of course, if you intend to assume that a man is guilty, and if you intend to convict him, I can quite understand that you may manufacture out of several harmless acts some conclusion in support of a conviction. But there was not a particle of evidence against Mr. Kelly. He went, no doubt, into several of the tenants' houses. It was not alleged that any language was used by him in any of the cases save one. In that one case he appears to have talked with the wife of one of the tenants just outside the house, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who has carried espionage in Ireland to an extent utterly unknown in the history of that unfortunate country, was served to this extent by a constable who was hiding
142
behind a hedge, and who stated he heard the woman say: "This is the real campaign ground about here;" that Mr. Michael O'Dwyer, who was in company with Mr. Kelly said, "Yes, that is the woman to fight;" while Mr. Kelly re joined, "I find that women are a great deal more determined for us than are the men." Now, the only possible portion of the phrase on which there could be a shadow of defence for saying that any sane man could come to the conclusion that a conspiracy existed was contained in the words "for us." What did "for us" mean? What ought it to have meant? What ought the Magistrates to have imported into the meaning? What would a jury have imported into it? Would they have imported the language of the hon. Member for North-East Cork delivered at a time when Mr. Kelly was in gaol? Would they have imported into it the speech of Mr. O'Dwyer delivered some time previously, also in Mr. Kelly's absence? I say it would have been impossible to get an English jury or an English Magistrate to convict under circumstances of that kind. But the Resident Magistrates, having found a general conspiracy in the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, which, I believe is the very speech to which he drew attention in the earlier part of this evening, and having found also a conspiracy in the speech of Mr. O'Dwyer, they import Mr. Kelly into that conspiracy, because he happens to have used the words "for us" in a careless way to a woman who was using language quite natural on the part of a woman in that position. Rightly or wrongly, no doubt there is a conflict in that district between landlord and tenant, and it is a conflict of a most bitter kind. It is not a conflict brought about by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, or by any other hon. Member. It is a conflict which began unfortunately before they were born, and it arose out of a bad state of things which has long prevailed in Ireland. I mentioned on one occasion on which I addressed this House how much I had been struck by some articles in Blackwood for 1844, 1845, and 1846, dealing with the state of things between landlord and tenant in Ireland at that time. You might reprint those articles as descriptive of what is happening in that country to-day. The only difference

143
is that now you have less crime, fewer murders, less moonlighting and outrage, and that is due to the hope put into the minds of the tenantry by the hon. Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork and their colleagues—a hope which induces them to act within the law, because they believe that sooner or later some kind of justice will be achieved for them. Mr. Kelly was found guilty of conspiracy by two Resident Magistrates. In England, over and over again, Judges, when trying cases of conspiracy in which questions of politics might be imported, have warned juries to use the utmost care in weighing the evidence submitted to them. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to urge that he has a right, in cases in which criminal acts are committed for political objects, to resort to special methods for the purpose of dealing with them. I cannot help thinking that he has done much to lower the view which English people will take of Irish justice. I feel sure that the course which is being pursued, and which was pursued in the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo himself when he was brought within the grasp of the Resident Magistrates by the direct act of the Chief Secretary in proclaiming a district so as to bring it within the operation of the Crimes Act, is a course which in England induces English voters—and I believe will still more do so at future elections—to give a rough rule-of-thumb verdict of justice. It will induce them to say that as your Resident Magistrates treat men whom you describe as criminals, as political foes, they are straining the law in sending them to gaol, and as a consequence the English people will, by their verdict, take the political power which you misuse out of your hands.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: Before the Chief Secretary leaves his place, I beg to give a most emphatic denial to his statement that Magistrates do not act judicially and executively at the same time. Unless the Chief Secretary has a shorter memory than we give him credit for, it must have been within his knowledge that cases have been brought to his notice in this House. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget the Vandeleur evictions? Did not Roche at these evictions take part in a baton charge, actually using a stick himself,
144
and did he not afterwards sit on the fence and have the very persons he had batoned brought before him and sentenced to imprisonment? If there is any shame in the world the Chief Secretary, addressing the House amid grave and awful accompaniments, might have paused before he delivered himself of these sentiments. I will give my own case, which was brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary, not only by myself, but by my hon. Friend while I was in prison. Roche, who presided in the case, went out to the steps of the Courthouse of Tralee and ordered a baton charge on the people who had ventured to cheer for me when I came out under arrest. Roche led the charge himself with a stick in his hand, and he never allowed me to go out of his sight until he had lodged me in gaol. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that that is the reverse of the process that has already been referred to—that the Magistrate sat on the Bench first, and lugged his prisoner to gaol afterwards, but I have also brought to the Chief Secretary's notice the case in Dingle of the unfortunate man Ferriter, who was put in gaol time after time for the crime, as it was then, of selling copies of United Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has said there has been no change in his policy—that there has been no change in the administration of the Crimes Act. Why, then, is Ferriter not in gaol to-day? He is still selling United Ireland. This man was brought before Mr. Roche and sentenced, and here also that Magistrate made a baton charge on the crowd, heading the police himself. Several men were arrested, and these men Roche at once proceeded to try. They were committed to prison, and Roche accompanied them and the man he originally tried, to Tralee, a distance of 34 miles. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny this fact? The right hon. Gentleman said I was mistaken. I was not. There are things which have caused our blood to boil and our flesh to creep. I, myself, have seen Resident Magistrates ruthlessly and mercilessly leading these baton charges, and afterwards sitting in judgment on the cases of the very men they had attacked time after time. Instances of this kind have come before me, and I can, if the Chief Secretary challenges

145
the fact, identify these cases by the dates and the particular sentences inflicted. It is a hard thing for an Irishman to trust himself to speak on these subjects. Our feeling is not so much one of hatred as it is of extreme loathing and contempt, and it is very hard for us, knowing how the Government are championed by the political supporters who sit behind the Front Bench, to keep our temper when these statements are made. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, born as I was among the Irish people, that I know them to have a strong sense of propriety in these matters, and that nothing more easily arouses their indignation than when they see those who have to administer the law, and are supposed to administer it equally, making common cause with those who side against them. The Irish people would spurn us if we showed the same partiality as the right hon. Gentleman wants the Resident Magistrates to show, and we claim that these men who are drawn from the off-shoots of landlordism, should at least preserve the appearance of decency in the exercise of their functions.
MR. BRUNNER: I am almost ashamed to mention the trivial matters which I am about to bring before the Committee after listening to the expressions of honest indignation which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House. I can myself bear testimony to what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the partiality displayed by the Irish Magistrates, and I will give an instance. In April last I was on the Ponsonby Estate, during the evictions managed by Colonel Turner. I saw on a police car the agent for the Property Defence Association, and I am sorry the hon. Member for South Hunts is not in his place, as I should like him to hear what I have to say. It struck me with shame that the representative of one of the parties to the dispute on the estate should be honoured and protected by the authorities in that way; and I protested against it to Colonel Turner, saying it was a scandal that that person should be allowed so to use the public property. I am glad to say that Colonel Turner had sufficient sense of right to prevent a repetition of this display on the following day, and I
146
am also glad to tell the Committee, because I sympathise with the people, that not a man was to be found in the Youghal district who would drive that individual. I remember on that occasion seeing the leader of the tenants rudely thrust back when he wished to enter premises from which a family was being evicted. It was his duty to take the number of the family so as to arrange for the accommodation they might require in order to protect them from the weather. He was, however, thrust back by the police, and that, too, from a place where he had a legal right to be. A lady who was with us, and whose warmhearted services to the people are deserving of all praise—Mrs. Byles, of Bradford—protested against the treatment of that young man. What happened? The Police Inspector, Inspector Hill, whose name is now familiar to us, declared that that person ought not to be permitted to enter the premises because he had been in prison. An appeal was made to Colonel Turner, and he replied that if the English ladies and gentlemen wished it the man should be admitted. Well, Sir, as an Englishman, I am ashamed to be represented in Ireland by men who can behave in that fashion. I know, from my experience in this House, that it is a waste of time for an English Member, not to speak of Irish Members, to complain of the conduct of the Irish Magistrates. No heed whatever is paid to us when we declare that the Irish Magistrates have broken the law. We are either not listened to or we are listened to with indifference when we complain of the brutality of these men. To my mind, it is a pity and a shame that English gentlemen should stoop so low as to make it appear, either by their speeches or their silence, that they believe their Colleagues in this House are capable of bearing false witness.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: If I were a friend of the Chief Secretary, I should have compassion on him, because he is called upon to defend the actions and whitewash the blackened characters of his subordinates in Ireland. I should feel sorry that his great abilities were called in play to defend and whitewash a man like Colonel Caddell, whose conduct towards

147
a lady, under most disgraceful circumstances, must be characterised as that of a blackguard. A man who, when remonstrated with by a reverend clergyman in the streets of Tipperary, had no other answer to give to that educated gentleman than to stick his tongue out and make use of insulting language. I say that the action of the Chief Secretary, in whitewashing that blackguard, places him in a position for which his friends ought to feel the greatest compassion. In his defence of Colonel Caddell, he deemed it his duty to make a charge against the people of Tipperary, that they committed an assault upon the police on the occasion of a funeral of a child. I could not hesitate on the spur of the moment in crying out that that was false, and I now say that the statement was one of those official falsehoods which we are accustomed to listen to in this House. When I was last in Tipperary, not long ago, I made it my business to inquire into this matter, and, after continued investigation, I could find no man in Tipperary who ever heard a word about this assault on the police. I went to the spot where the assault was said to have taken place, and none of the neighbours knew or could tell me anything about it. I asked Father Humphreys to investigate the matter, and he willingly undertook the work, and I will now read to the Committee a letter which he wrote to me after he had made that investigation. He says:—
"My dear Mr. O'Connor, since telegraphing to you, I have heard of what happened at the burial of Constable Corcolan's child. No one but the police attended the funeral. When they were passing through the street, some little children of eight or nine years old cried out after them 'Balfour, Balfour' and whistled 'Harvey Duff.' This was the mob who stoned the constables whilst burying a child. The very small children here have a habit of crying out 'Balfour' when they see a body of police passing through the town. I saw a child five years old doing this on a day of eviction. If there was a mob throwing stones, how was it that no one was summoned?"
This, Sir, is a pertinent question. The police were present in sufficient force at the funeral of the child; doubtless there were policemen at every corner in Tipperary. Yet no one was arrested. Not a single charge was made against anyone, and no complaint was made
148
until we heard a statement in this House in reply to a put up question on the part of the hon. Member for Tyrone. I deny that this shameful charge has any foundation in fact, or that any justification can be found for making it, and I demand an investigation into all the circumstances connected with it. If that investigation should take place I venture to assert that the people of Tipperary will come out of it with much greater credit than the officials of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has defended Colonel Caddell, and told us that he does not unite in himself the administrative and executive functions. Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the sad and distressful case of the poor boy Heffernan, who was shot down in the streets of Tipperary by policemen who were under the command and direction of Colonel Caddell. In the course of the investigation which took place into that affair, it was proved that the police were not compelled to act as they did, and that an order had been issued that the greatest humanity, combined with prudence, should be exercised before any attempt was made to fire on the people, and that they should not fire until every other means of preserving their lives had been exhausted. It was proved in the case of the boy Hunt. A verdict of wilful murder was given against Carter. Informations were applied for, and Colonel Caddell, who commanded the police when this boy was killed, was one of the Magistrates who sat upon the Bench, and refused to grant informations against people who had been declared guilty of wilful murder by the Coroner's Jury. Why should the Irish people respect law and order when they find it ruthlessly set aside by the tools of the Government, and when they see the verdict of one of the oldest Courts known to the Constitution ignored? Allusion has been made to the invasion of the sacred rite of burial, in the case of O'Dwyer. It was carried out by Colonel Caddell, and it was a most disgraceful proceeding. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork had intended to make a speech, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is his Government so bad, is the conduct of the Resident Magistrates so atrocious, is the

149
course of the Executive so ruthless, that the criticisms of my hon. Friend could not be permitted? I come to another statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. He defended Colonel Turner from the charge brought against him by the Member for East Mayo, of having stayed at the house of Mr. Stacpoole, a local landlord. No matter how the Chief Secretary may exhaust his powers of rhetoric in defending Colonel Turner, we still hold that it is a disgraceful thing for a man in his position to have stayed with a local landlord. Why did the Land Commissioners give orders to the Sub-Commissioners never to accept the hospitality of anybody connected with the land of Ireland? Because they knew that to do so would be to forfeit the confidence of the Irish people. Is it not the fact that in England Inspectors of Private Lunatic Asylums do not accept the hospitality of those whose institutions they inspect? The Factory Inspectors in England, too, do not accept the hospitality of anyone who is connected with a factory. But in the case of Magistrates in Ireland, they can accept the hospitality of those in whose interests the law is administered in Ireland. This Colonel Turner, fresh from the table, with his legs just drawn from under the mahogany of his friend, Mr. Stacpoole, ordered his soldiers to advance upon the people, and I counted 80 men with bleeding heads after the fray. Yet the right hon. Gentleman expects the Irish people to respect law and order, as administered by these people, who accept the hospitality of landlords and agents. The manner in which the law is administered is illustrated by the remark of Colonel Carew, who said, "I do not care what the law is, but I do care about the instructions from Dublin Castle." Cheering for Mr. Gladstone is a crime to be punished, or calling a donkey by the name of Mr. Balfour, or winking at pigs at the fair, is a heinous offence. Indeed, the Magistrates have tortured the law so as to punish those whom they are obliged to declare innocent, Now, Sir; on the 2nd of July, last year, my hon. friend the Member for Mid Cork visited the town of Tipperary, and he was met by a number of people, whe cheered him. The Police Magistrates considered that a
150
very grave offence, and accordingly some 15 or 16 of these men, young fellows, were brought before the Magistrates. They were solemnly charged, and the case was investigated. The Magistrates retired to consult, and when they returned, one of the young men was dismissed, but with regard to the other 14 or 15, Mr. Meldon said they must stop such disorderly proceedings as cheering for the hon. Member for Mid Cork, and he ordered the defendants to find bail to be of good behaviour for 12 months, or go to gaol for two months. The defendants at once refused to give bail, and said they were ready to go to gaol. That is what I call a straining of the law by the Magistrates. I remember, Sir, reading of the crowd in Liverpool, on the occasion of a great trial, in which a woman was charged with poisoning her husband, expressing by groans its disapproval of the jury who found her guilty. People were so indignant at the verdict that they groaned at the jury and they groaned at the Judge; but there was no baton charge of the police, there were no arrests, no fines, and no imprisonment and why? What was the difference between the two cases? The only difference was this, that the people who cheered for Mrs. Maybrick in Liverpool were Englishmen, and the men who cheered for Dr. Tanner in Ireland were Irishmen. The law was broken, if broken at all, as much in the one case as in the other. I have another case to refer to. There is in Tipperary a man of great influence and great respectability although sometimes the Chief Secretary, as is his wont, tries to throw aspersions on his character. I allude to Mr. John Cullinane, who I might say is my premier constituent. His great offence in the eyes of the Magistrates is that he has great influence with the people. He has often been accused before the Magistrates, but the Magistrates have been obliged to admit that he used his best efforts to keep the peace, and to prevent riots taking place. Recently Mr. Cullinane was brought before Removables Irwin and Caddell, and charged with having taken part in an unlawful assembly. The unlawful assembly consisted in a procession of carts passing through the streets of Tipperary. These carts had been engaged throughout the

151
day in removing earth from one place to another, in order to level the ground for the building of houses for the evicted tenants of Tipperary. The neighbours of these people of Tipperary had engaged in what they believed to be a charitable work. They were formed into a procession by Mr. Cullinane, who believed that would be the best and more orderly manner in which they could get out of the town, as it would prevent delay, it would prevent stopping at public houses, and it would ensure that no opportunity would be given to the police to baton the people. Well, he marched them through the town, and was charged in consequence with an unlawful assembly. The case was solemnly tried by Mr. Irwin and Colonel Caddell. Well, Colonel Caddell, the hero of the Chief Secretary, the warrior with medals and honors, who insults evicted tenants when they are helpless females, who sticks out his tongue at an educated and respected rev. gentleman who addresses a civil question to him—even he could not find that Mr. Cullinane was guilty of unlawful assembly. He said it was for them to consider whether such circumstances existed as put people of firm minds in dread and terror. They did not feel that they would be justified in coming to such a conclusion, and therefore they dismissed the charge of unlawful assembly. But on the evidence before them it appeared that this gathering was "immensely excessive." In other words, Mr. Cullinane was guilty in the eyes of the Magistrates of an excess of legality, because they declared that the assembly was lawful. He was thereupon ordered to find bail, himself in £100 and two sureties in £50 each, to be of good behaviour for 12 months, or in default to be imprisoned for six weeks. Of course, Mr. Cullinane, as an honourable man, would not admit he had been guilty of any offence. If he had given bail for his good behaviour it would have been an admission that he was of bad behaviour, and he therefore elected to go to gaol for six weeks. Thus the Magistrates used the Act of Edward III., not for the purpose of punishing those who are guilty of crime, but in order to put out of the way the enemies of landlordism as it at present exists, and the friends of the people whose only
152
offence is that they are the political opponents of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I shall allude to only one other phase of this question. The Magistrates in Ireland have incited the police to the commission of violent acts, at the time young Heffernan lost his life there was also another man named O'Donovan who was shot down by the police. In reference to this case Mr. Cecil Roche said—
"I quite agree with the sentence of the Court, and I wish to say that in any other country in the civilised world had these men attacked the administrators of the law in the way they have, their lives might have been taken, and they (the police) would have been justified by the Government in taking their lives."
Now, Sir, that language was used by a man in a judicial capacity, and was addressed to a Force which is in a most excited state, and to men who, when they have deadly weapons in their hands are allowed to take drink to an extraordinary degree. In the trial alluded to by Mr. Cecil Roche, on that occasion, it was proved that the man who fired the shot was such a bad character in the eyes of the police that he was several times fined, according to his admission, for want of discipline and for drunkenness. This, taken in connection with language used in another case, is very significant. Mr. Bolton, Crown Prosecutor, said, in open Court, that he was sorry to hear it stated that the police had no right to defend themselves unless the Riot Act had been read three times. He declared that a more absurd statement had never been made and that whether or not the Riot Act was read, and even without command from their officers, the police were entitled to defend themselves with their weapons if attacked by civilians. Now, what I want to point out is, that these two speeches, when taken together, show design on the part of those administering the law in Ireland to incite the police to the commission of murder. After such language as that any constable may say, "I may shoot, maim, kill, bludgeon as much as I like; I have only to say my life is in danger, and whatever I do I shall be defended by Mr. Bolton, the Crown Prosecutor, and shall be

153
acquitted by Mr. Roche, the Resident Magistrate." At the time he made the speech to which I have referred, Mr. Roche said that stones were "deadly weapons," hence we have it that if a small boy—an irresponsible child—hurls a stone at the police in Ireland, it may be taken as an excuse for turning round on a peaceful meeting of citizens in Tipperary, Kerry, or Cork, and firing volley after volley into them. I say that such language as that, coming from such men in authority, and used in the presence of men who are already in a state of excitement, is nothing more nor less than an incitement to murder. We are often told by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, who sometimes acts as his lieutenant, that we have the law open to us in Ireland. I imagine these poor people going before Colonel Caddell or Mr. Cecil Roche—the latter holding his drum-dead court-martial. After an eviction this Mr. Cecil Roche sits on a stone at the road-side, and, after his baton charges, having arrested people, tries them, and gives them six months' imprisonment. Imagine going before this gentleman and expecting to get justice. The Chief Secretary is fond of saying that the ordinary protection of the law is open to the poor people of Ireland. One man in Cashel, a discharged soldier, not long ago took the Chief Secretary at his word, having been seriously assaulted by a constable. It seems that some children were parading the streets, jeering at the police, and singing songs. The only people in the street besides the children were four men standing at a corner, one of whom was the discharged soldier. This man was assaulted by a policeman in a most wanton manner, and, relying on the word of the Chief Secretary, he brought an action against the constable for breaking a blackthorn stick across his head. It was proved that the assault had been committed, and one of the Inspectors was asked—
"Did the men at the corner do anything?"
The answer was—
"No, but I considered if they were allowed to remain they might do something."
The Magistrate heard the case, but the oath of the discharged soldier, who is yet liable to be called upon to shed his
154
blood for his country, for he is in the Reserves, went for nothing, and that of the Inspector, who said that the four men, if they had been allowed to remain on the corner of the street, might have done something, was believed. The Magistrates, to whom we are asked to appeal for justice, dismissed the case against the police. Now, Sir, this case, which could be multiplied a hundreds fold, if it stood alone, would be enough to justify us in taking up the position that the Irish people cannot expect justice in Courts presided over by Resident Magistrates, for the reason that those Magistrates are all on one side in Ireland, that side being the landlords and land agents. That is the side of the Government, who are the friends of the landlords, and the people feel it is no use to expect justice from these Magistrates whose salaries we vote tonight.
MR. O'KEEFFE: The hon. Member who last resumed his seat gave several instances of police misrule in Ireland. Every single county and city in Ireland is prolific in such instances, and were every Irish Member here to bring forward the cases that have come under his own immediate-notice, I think this House would have to sit until the end of the year. The hoc Member referred to the friendly relations which exist between the landlords and Resident Magistrates in Ireland, and referred to the visit of a Resident Magistrate to a Tipperary landlord. Such a system as he described is, to my mind, fatal to respect for the law. As a practising Solicitor, I have seen letters from County Court Judges, declining on very high grounds to receive any entertainment from private landlords or noblemen in the districts over which they are the presiding Judges. I was particularly struck with the assertion of the Chief Secretary, that the law as regards intimidation and boycotting is the same in Ireland as in England. The right hon. Gentleman referred triumphantly to a case which was tried in Liverpool, and said the defendants in that case received a term of imprisonment for having taken part in boycotting practices. But the right hon. Gentleman was most careful

155
to conceal the fact that, assuming the law in its outline to be the same in its administration and detail, there is an essential difference. The defendants in the Liverpool case were tried before a Judge and Jury, but all cases of intimidation and boycotting in Ireland have been tried before irresponsible Magistrates, specially appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. Take the case of Mr. John McHenry of the Limerick Leader. That gentleman was tried for having published an article in his newspaper relating to the intimidation of a certain member in the locality. He was brought before two Removable Magistrates, and received the inhuman sentence of nine months' imprisonment. There upon the Crown prosecutor, Mr. Murphy, whispered to the Magistrates, who thereupon added hard labour to the sentence. That fact can be proved by the evidence of hundreds of persons who were in Court, and it exclusively proves that the Magistrates only sit on the bench to do the behests of the right hon. Gentleman. Several references have been made to the action of the police towards public men in Ireland. About two weeks ago it was my duty to -attend a meeting in the mountains. There were four or five Resident Magistrates at the meeting—Mr. Shannon amongst the number—and immediately I stepped off the car I was shadowed. Two policemen stayed by me, and a Sub-Inspector of Police, who represented the new-fangled department of the right hon. Gentleman, the Intelligence Department, followed me several hundred yards distant. We are justified in holding up this conduct of which we complain to public reprobation, and if we had the least chance of carrying our protest to that extent, we should be justified in refusing the salaries of those who use their position to insult the Irish people and their Representatives. The Vote will certainly not be carried with our approval. The Chief Secretary does not apply himself to any source of popular information to guide him in his administration. I do not refer to those matters in which he is in antagonism with Irish bodies; I refer to Grand Juries. He has stated he has no power over Grand Juries, but when we find that a gentleman holding the important office of High Sheriff was dismissed—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to matters relevant to the Vote.
MR. O'KEEFE: I pass from the allusion I was about to make. All I wish to convey is that the Chief Secretary has not used those avenues of information from popular bodies in Ireland which would lead to successful administration in Ireland. I will give an instance from an experience some two years ago in the city of Limerick, which, I think, has never been referred to in this House. A public meeting announced to be held was proclaimed by the Government the day before the meeting was appointed to be held, and there was the usual paraphernalia of Resident Magistrates, police and soldiers, all the pomp and circumstance of war, to prevent the legal exercise of their rights by the people. That evening a riot took place in the city. I will not enter into details, but it was shown in evidence before the Judge of Assize on a case arising out of claim for damages, that the riot and the damage originated with the action of the police themselves. But what I want in mentioning the circumstance is to give proof in support of my assertion that if the Executive would seek the advice of popular Representatives, they would not fall into the blunders they commit. The Resident Magistrates who on this occasion were the supreme destiny, who had the lives of the people in their hands for 24 hours, when they saw the state of turmoil and riot they had caused by their action, went quietly to the Mayor's office—to the man whose existence they had ignored on the previous day, and said—
"We know your influence, and if you will take over the peace of the city, we will all go away, and there shall be no more police seen in the streets."
They had come to appreciate the gigantic blunder they had made by insulting the people, and these doughty champions of law and order came cringing to the Mayor to induce him to take over the task of keeping the peace which they could not accomplish. I am glad to say the Mayor did as he was asked, the Police Force vanished, and there was no further disturbance. With regard to the particular

157
matter which has been brought before the Committee the character of the Resident Magistrates, I can only say that I have never, in my magisterial experience, and I have had sometimes to associate with these gentlemen, observed any qualities that should invite the confidence of the Irish people. I never heard from them the expression of any lucid idea in law or fact. I remember once having to sit in judgment on a Resident Magistrate.
MR. MAC NEILL: Did you give him six months?
MR. O'KEEFFE: No, I did not. He was guilty of a culpable breach of law. Some flag was hanging out in the street; it waved between him and his allegiance to the right hon. Gentleman, and for the removal he was summoned for trespass. We were merciful to Resident Magistrates, and the Court fined him 5s., with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment. Now, it is asserted that it is impossible for an Irish Magistrate to state a case for a Superior Court, but I know that I gave 15 reasons for the conviction, in each of which I was upheld by the Queen's Bench, although, on a technical ground, it was found the case did not come under the section of the Act. Whether you take the high policy of the Chief Secretary or the details of his administration, his Coercion Act, after four years' experience, is a miserable failure. Has it in any case shaken the allegiance of an adherent to the National cause; has it made one convert? Quite the contrary: its effect has been to intensify the eternal hostility of the Irish people to the system of the Chief Secretary. With all the force of our people's opinion behind us we shall contest that policy. We know that no matter what changes may be effected in Parties here, we know that our words and our actions are justified in the minds of the Irish people, and we know that when we go back to our constituents, any man among us who wishes to return here will not appeal to his constituents in vain. I think the Irish people appreciate the good services rendered by Irish Members who attend these discussions on the Estimates. By this means we show the failures of the right hon.
158
Gentleman's administration. The whole policy of the Chief Secretary has been an entire failure, and the Irish people will hail with delight the moment when the political extinction of the right hon. Gentleman and his Party is announced. On that day the black flag will be hoisted half-mast high over every gaol in Ireland.
MR. MAC NEILL: The Chief Secretary is always interesting when he assumes the high moral tone, and he has discharged all the vials of his wrath upon my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo. In his strictures upon Resident Magistrates my hon. Friend was undoubtedly severe, but the great point of his severity was that every word he said was demonstrably true. If my hon. Friend has erred in his estimate of the characters of these Magistrates he has erred in good company. Archbishop Whateley, who had 30 years' experience of Ireland, said that the time of the Lord Lieutenant was occupied chiefly in trying to get the posts of Resident Magistrates for ruined gamblers or cashiered officers, and Lord Rosse, a Tory of the Tories, used language not a whit less strong than has been used to-night with reference to these Resident Magistrates, stating, for example, that the appointments were infamously jobbed, that no character seemed to be thought necessary for the post, and that half of those appointed had been habitual drunkards. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo made a brief allusion to some letters from applicants for appointments, which passed into our hands, and specimens of these were read to the House by an hon. Colleague in 1887. I lately was reading some of these, and they are worth reading. [An hon. MEMBER: And the dates.]—Dates! O'Neill Segrave was appointed in 1888, and that after being dismissed, branded as a swindler by the Cape Government. This is the first letter from a well-known Gentleman, the late Knight of Kerry, to Lord Carlisle, then Lord Lieutenant—
"My Dear Lord,—The kindness which your Excellency has shown me since I have had the honour of being known to you encourages me to apply to you on a subject deeply interesting to me, although I fear it will need all your

159
kindness to excuse the presumption of the application. My brother (Stephen Fitzgerald) having but a small provision, my father applied to Lord Clarendon, when Lord Lieutenant, for a situation for him, and received an encouraging reply, with a conditional promise; but nothing having resulted therefrom, he continued to lead an idle life at home, and fell into habits injurious to himself and distressing to his family, who could not but lament to see considerable talents, united with an excellent natural disposition, completely going to waste. He has latterly, I rejoice to say, been leading a different life, and recently formed an attachment for a most interesting young Scotch lady, one, who especially in point of deep religious feeling, is all that could be wished for, and their union, so very desirable, is only delayed in re erence to his financial position. Under these circumstances, I venture to ask your Excellency's kind aid in procuring a situation for him. That of Stipendary Magistrate is one for which I think he would be extremely well qualified, as he has regularly and very efficiently discharged his duties as a J.P. in this parish and in the neighbouring district; but if that post be unattainable, some one of less value would be just now very acceptable. I really dislike more than I can well say thus troubling your Excellency in such a personal matter, but I feel at least that you will make great excuse for my so doing in a case where more than the temporal interests of an only brother are involved.
I have the honour to be, my dear Lord,
Your Excellency's very obedient and obliged Servant,
P. FITZGERALD.
(Knight of Kerry)."
MR. KELLY: Will the hon. Gentleman mention the date of that?
MR. MAC NEILL: About a quarter of a century ago. But my contention is that instead of growing better these appointment have been growing worse. These appointments are not like good wine; they have not improved with age. And now let me give another specimen.
THE CHAIRMAN: The letters may have been amusing when first read, but to read them now offends against the rule against tedious repetition. Moreover, they are not relevant to the Vote.
MR. MAC NEILL: My only object is to prove my contention that bad as they were in those times they are worse now. I was about to read a letter from Lord Monck on behalf of his brother-in-law who desires an appointment, whose qualifications seem to have been that he was an ex captain in the 17th Lancers, not on good terms with his
160
father, with nine children, and in embarrassed circumstances. I will not read the letter from Lord Monck, having in view your ruling, but I may refer to the appointment of Colonel Forbes, who is still, I believe, a Resident Magistrate. Here is the letter in which this gentleman is introduced:—
"62, Great King Street, Edinburgh,
January, 23rd, 1890.
My Dear Sir,—May I venture to introduce to you my cousin, Major Forbes, late of the Third Light Dragoons, a very distinguished officer at Sobraon? His military testimonials will speak for themselves. He is a candidate for one of two Stipendiary Magistracies in Ireland, where his brother, Colonel Forbes, has recently purchased property in County Galway. Their father commanded the 56th. Foot. They are all Roman Catholics, but mostly gentlemanly and popular men. Major Forbes has been resident at Edinburgh.
Yours faithfully,
J. J. HODSON, D.D.,
Merton College, Oxon."
Well, the application was successful. Colonel Forbes was the Resident Magistrate at Kildare, and at the Kildare Quarter Sessions, in April last, he was the defendant in three suits for goods supplied to his wife. His defence was that he was not liable because he had made a separate allowance for his wife, but it was stated in evidence that his wife had not received any allowance for three and a half years, and decree was given in each ease against him. Surely that is not the sort of gentleman who ought to be a Judge of the political conduct of Irish Members. At the risk of tedious repetition, for I know it has been very often mentioned, I would recall the Committee to a statement made on the 17th May, 1887, by the Chief Secretary. In that statement the right hon. Gentleman expressly declared that an appeal should be given in every case from Resident Magistrates' decisions under the Coercion Act. But now he has withdrawn from that, and his Magistrates give short sentences to prevent appeals. Thus we have Mr. Redmond, the editor of a Wexford paper, sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment, and he asked to have the sentence increased to give right of appeal. That entreaty was refused. Who were the persons who inflicted the

161
sentences on these gentlemen? One was Mr. Considine, a gentleman of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied, although he has never been called to the Bar. His coadjutor was a promoted policeman. It has been repeatedly urged that these Magistrates, these 14 lawyers, who are nothing but the sweepings of the library of the Four Courts, are selected because they will administer the law as between man and man. But the law which they do administer is one which cannot be tried by ordinary Magistrates at all. It can only be tried in this country in the Superior Courts before a Judge and Jury. It cannot be tried in a Court of Petty Sessions, and this duty in Ireland is reserved exclusively for Resident Magistrates. It is said that the same law prevails in Ireland as in England. Why, as I have already stated, in England tradesmen and operatives, according to declaration of the Home Secretary, are especially protected under the Workmen's Liability Act, whereas the Irish peasants are treated under laws entirely different from those affecting people of the same class and social condition in England. During the last 15 months there has been a development in the proceedings of the Resident Magistrates. I mean in connection with the novel provision of giving bail. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockton, when the matter was first brought forward, said that in all his experience he had never known of a case in which a man had been called upon to give bail for good behaviour when no crime had been committed. But what is the course in Ireland? The first person who was brought under the operation of this provision was the hon. Member for Mid Cork, who was taken before a brace of Removables, of whom one was Mr. O'Neill Segrave. These Magistrates stated that he was not guilty of the charge originally prefered against him, but they then produced a long document, on the strength of which they sent him to prison in default of giving bail for his good behaviour. Surely that is another instance of the inequality of English and Irish law. I have the authority of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved in England for saying that no person can be held over to he of good behaviour for
162
committing no offence. A case recently occurred in England in which a man named Miles was tried for assault. The Magistrate did not inflict any punishment upon him, but held him over to be of good behaviour. Subsequently fresh evidence was forthcoming, which showed the assault to be of a very aggravated nature, and he was then put upon his trial for the aggravated assault. But the plea was put forward that he had already been convicted of the assault, and punished by being called upon to give bail for his good behaviour, and the Superior Court held that the call made upon him to give bail amounted to punishment for the offence, and that, consequently, he could not be tried a second time for that assault. Yet in Ireland, without any offence being proved against any accused person, the Resident Magistrates are held to have the power to hold him over to bail for good behaviour. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast was once called upon to give bail. He declined to do so, saying that if he did he would admit his moral culpability, and he preferred to go to prison rather than place himself under a moral stigma. I say the administration of the law in this respect is most shameful. Some man becomes an object of suspicion and even hatred to the Government. Proceedings are promptly instituted against him under this Coercion Act. It happens in all probability that the charge against him is not provable, and the Magistrates who are dependants of the Chief Secretary inflict upon him the arbitrary and cruel punishment of sending him to gaol in default of giving bail—bail which no hon. Member would ever dream of giving. Lord Spencer has been referred to, and, in a speech which he delivered on the 17th December last, he said that the Resident Magistrates, dependants of the Crown, are absorbing the legitimate jurisdiction of the Petty Sessions. He added that in his time Resident Magistrates were only employed in exceptional cases, but now they are employed in Petty Sessional Courts, and they oust the jurisdiction of the country gentlemen who are on the Commission of the Peace. A most remarkable instance of this has occurred in Tipperary. A Coroner's Jury found a verdict of wilful murder against two

163
policemen in connection with the death of a boy named Heffernan. The two accused persons were taken to the Petty Sessions, but the Bench was packed with two Removable Magistrates—Mr. Meldon and Colonel Caddell—who refused to send the men for trial. Again, we have heard Resident Magistrates say that they represent the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has repudiated that assertion. He stated that Colonel Carew had never made any such statement. I am surprised that a man of the Chief Secretary's ability should so absolutely assert a negation—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I stated that Colonel Carew never said that the Crown had given him directions in regard to judicial decisions.
MR. MAC NEILL: That is a beautiful dialectical curiosity. Now we will come to the real facts. This case occurred on the 7th September, 1887, and I think the Report which I hold in my hand will fully prove my contention that these Magistrates combined executive and judicial duties. Some men were brought before Colonel Carew (sitting not as a member of a Coercion Court, but as a member of a Court of Petty Sessions) for assault. What occurred? Colonel Carew said—
"I have received orders from Dublin Castle that these men shall he tried before the Coercion Court, and I now order them to be taken back to Kilmainham Gaol."
The solicitor who defended said—
"I should like to have this thing done formally. I understand that the prisoners have been served with a summons since they came here to-day. If the Crown desire a remand they must make application in the usual way.
Colonel Carew (to the Clerk): Make out the warrants for the prisoners.
The Solicitor to the defendants: The case must be first called on. Then you must hear what the Crown have to say, and I may have something to say on behalf of my clients. I wish to know does the Crown withdraw the charge?
Colonel Carew: I represent the Crown here, and I have instructions that these men shall be tried under the Coercion Act.
The Solicitor for the defendants: Pardon me, you no more represent the Crown than I do. Your business is to hold the scales of justice evenly.
Colonel Carew: I am a Resident Magistrate here and as such represent the Crown. The prisoners will be tried under the Crime Act."
I think, Mr. Courtney, that the right
164
hon. Gentleman owes me an apology for denying that a Resident Magistrate has ever stated that he represents the Crown. Now, I propose to proceed to another case, and that is the action of the Chief Secretary in moving these Resident Magistrates about the country, like pawns upon a chessboard. One Magistrate, a respectable gentleman in the County of Cork, was dismissed by the Lord Chancellor from the Commission of the Peace, simply because he went a short distance outside his district in order to adjudicate upon a case in which a charge was brought against a policeman. But what does the right hon. Gentleman do? We find that he sends his Resident Magistrates all over the country. And why does he send them? Because the Government find they are handy tools for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Cecil Roche had got promotion because he richly deserved it. But he deserves it simply because he always does the right hon. Gentleman's behests. Mr. Cecil Roche got promotion also because twice when he was on the Bench he incited policemen to the commission of crime. He incited them to the commission of acts which might have resulted in murder. Of course, in the eyes of hon. Members opposite murder is not so serious a crime as boycotting. A policeman if he fires a revolver in the air is guity of a dereliction of duty, for has not the right hon. Gentleman said that it should be the object of a policeman to "fire to kill?" I want to know if Colonel Caddell is an independent Magistrate what right the Chief Secretary has to closet him. These Magistrates are all said not to be dependent upon the Chief Secretary, but we continually see announcements, or rather we did see them until I drew attention to the fact in the papers, to the effect that Resident Magistrate So-and-so "having been in attendance on the Chief Secretary in Dublin has returned to his duties." Surely that is not a proof of the independence of Magistrates in connection with the Divisional Magistrates. In conclusion, I should like to point out that Colonel Turner has not been so wise as Captain Plunkett was, and he has openly endeavoured, in connection with the Vandeleur Estate,

165
instead of promoting peace and order, to do the very reverse. I will only add that the more we disclose these facts to the people of England, the more we show how the whole machinery of justice in Ireland is used for political purposes, the surer will be our victory at the next General Election.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I should have left the House to judge of the accusations which have been made, and the defence of the Chief Secretary, had it not been for the fact that hon. Members opposite will persist in saying that they speak in the name of the Irish people. I do not deny that they speak in the name of some of the Irish people, but I absolutely deny that they speak in the name of all the Irish people, and I, therefore, ask the permission of the House to intrude for a moment or two in a Debate which concerns the maintenance in Ireland of law and order. There is one advantage that the Government, whether Tory or Liberal, is sure to possess, and that advantage is that they know that a certain portion of every Session, when the Irish Estimates are under consideration, will be devoted to attacking the Government and the Irish Executive. The present Debate has pursued the usual course. A mild attack was made upon the Vote of the Lord Lieutenant, and it was proposed, I think, to deprive him of the advantage of a Chaplain and a Secretary. Avery powerful attack was made upon the Vote for the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That Debate is in the memory of the House, and it appears to me that instead of the attack being made upon the executive policy of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, hon. Gentlemen opposite complained principally of his manners in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for North-East Cork pointed out that the Chief Secretary, under the thrashing he had experienced, had improved. The hon. Member for East Mayo, who followed in the Debate, said the Chief Secretary was far from improving. After all the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite to improve my right hon. Friend he has not attained that high level of Parliament decorum which is prevalent below the Gangway. Then the police were
166
attacked. There is a sort of familiar likeness in all these Debates—a certain number of cases were brought forward, but I think the weakness of the attack must have been palpable to the House and to the country. Now I come to the last act of the tragedy, or rather comedy. With regard to the speech we have just heard I will say nothing. When I called out "date," it was not done to annoy or interrupt the hon. Member for South Donegal, but to bring out the fact which I want the House to appreciate, that the letter was written 42 years ago, and was written under a Liberal Administration. The hon. Member for East Mayo made a violent attack on the Police Magistrates, and referred to the case of Mr. Hamilton, who, he said, was an Orangeman. I challenged that statement, and the hon. Member then said that if Mr. Hamilton was not an Orangeman he had an Orangeman's heart.
DR. TANNER: I rise to order. The hon. Member has challenged a statement that Mr. Hamilton was not an Orangeman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
DR. TANNER: I say, as a point of order, that Mr. Hamilton told me with his own lips—
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of order. The hon. Member must be ignorant of the elementary rules of order.
DR. TANNER: He told me with his own lips that he was an Orangeman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Colonel Saunderson.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I believe there is one thing in common between Mr. Hamilton and the Orangemen—they are both on the side of law and order in Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo then pursued a different and, I believe, an entirely new line of attack in this House. He attacked Colonel Caddell, and said he believed that he could prove that Colonel Caddell's character was as disgraceful as that of Captain Segrave. Colonel Caddell is not here to defend himself, and I look upon such an attack, founded upon merely an assumption of knowledge, as one of a most cowardly description. No hon. Member of this House has ever before attacked the character of another,

167
whether that person is in or out of this House, on the mere assumption that he believed he could prove in the future that the character of the person attacked was as bad as that of some other person indicated, and I think the hon. Member for East Mayo will yet feel ashamed that he has made the statement. It is a statement he dare not make outside, where there would be another method of dealing with it. But under the privilege of Parliament he fires this barbed arrow at a man unable to defend himself. The hon. Member then went on to attack the Executive, and I agree with him when he says that Government could not be carried on in Ireland without unpleasant expedients. That is so, because the Executive has to deal with the criminal expedients of the Nationalists. Shadowing is an unpleasant expedient, but the persons shadowed have to be looked after. It is unpleasant for the Magistrates to interfere with the right of public meeting, but when meetings are held with the object of intimidating the people the duty becomes necessary. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton also has found fault with the Irish Executive on the ground that they have not the confidence of the Irish people, by whom I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means that portion of the people who are represented by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. That may be true, but what conceivable Executive or Magistracy or police would secure the sympathy and support of those hon. Members? It would be as hopeless and foolish a task to seek to satisfy them in those respects as it would be to try to create Magistrates and to enlist police that would satisfy the aspirations of the criminal population in London. The issue between the hon. Members opposite and the Unionist Government is as to what is crime, and on this point agreement can scarcely be expected between them. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, however, went on to say that he did not impugn the action of the Resident Magistrates on personal grounds, but because they were not lawyers and had not received legal training. The Irish Magistrates have dual functions to perform—executive and judicial—and the executive function, when they find the people hounded on to
168
lawlessness by certain persons, among whom are Members of this House, requires something more than a legal training to discharge efficiently, and I know of no persons better qualified for such a duty than men who have occupied distinguished positions in the Army. The main result of the Debates on the Irish Estimates must be to convince the majority of the House and the country that the Executive in Ireland are attacked simply because they have sought to maintain in Ireland the laws that Parliament has passed. It is also apparent, from the line that has been adopted by the leaders of the Party opposite, that this attack is on no particular Government; it applies to all Governments, of whatever Party, who dare to maintain the law in Ireland, and the attack made on this Unionist Government sinks into insignificance when compared with the violent and unscrupulous attacks that have been made on previous Governments. Therefore, the Chief Secretary may feel very well satisfied with the result of the Debates, for they have faded away into matters of very little importance. So persuaded are they of the great popularity and triumphant success of my right hon. Friend, that for the first time, for I do not know how many years they have allowed the Chief Secretary's Vote to pass without a Division. There is at the present moment one feature which differentiates these Debates from those which have preceded them. In former times, I am not going into ancient history, for I only speak of four and a-half years ago—an attack on the Irish Executive and the Stipendiary Magistrates was always—
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going into matter which is not relevant to this Vote.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I think, Sir, if you will allow me to follow the matter up, I can show that the line I am taking is absolutely relevant We have had an attack made on the Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland, and I want to point out the circumstances which differentiate this attack from former attacks on that body. Formerly these attacks came alone from hon. Members below the Gangway, whereas now, they

169
are joined in by those who at one time were responsible for this Vote. The hon. Member for East Mayo has attacked Colonel Turner on the ground that he has changed his opinions, and that he has a convenient conscience; that whereas, in former days he was a Home Ruler, he is now a Unionist. I wonder what most of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench thought of that attack on Colonel Turner's position. Sir, I have no doubt what the final verdict of the country will be when the country appreciates the facts. [An hon. MEMBER: "Barrow."] An hon. Member cries "Barrow," but I think it will not be denied that the Barrow Election did not turn on the Irish Estimates. The Barrow Election turned on the attempt which was made to float the foundering ship of Home Rule on the advancing tide of teetotalism. When these attacks on the Irish Magistrates which are now made are read, I think it will be found that the verdict of the country will be that the Irish Executive, which is specially represented in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, has brought about in Ireland at the present moment a condition of peace and prosperity that has been unknown in that country for many years.
MR. CLANCY: We have heard the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Saunderson) a good many times. He tells us that we are the party of disorder, and that the Orangemen of Ireland are the party of law and order. This comes well from the champion of the party which has threatened to kick the Queen's Crown into the Boyne. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went to Belfast at the General Election, and did not remain there very long. He tried to champion the candidature of Colonel Somerset Thaxwell, and was hunted out of Belfast. He has compared the population of Ireland with the criminal population of London; but among the Irish people is the constituency which he himself represents, and that also which returned my hon. Friend the Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane) without contest at the last two elections. But Armagh is not the only part of Ireland containing this criminal population; more than half of Ulster must be included. The Counties of
170
Donegal, part of Derry, part of Tyrone, Cavan, and Monaghan, are all embraced in his sweeping and, as I venture to term it, disgraceful declaration. When we attack the Orangemen of Ulster we do not impute to them criminal instincts from their birth; and I think the time has come when even the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own Party ought to repudiate the attacks he makes upon his own country upon every occasion when he speaks in this House. The hon. Member has referred to the date of a letter, which has been quoted, and stated that it was written 42 years ago; but if more recent letters could be got at, I think it would be found that they would be very much of the same character. We are unable to produce the documents we should like to have. We cannot produce the letters which led to the appointment of C. Roche, Mr. Segrave, and Major Waring; but if we could get them I think it would be found they were very much like the letter read by the Member for South Donegal. We have to-night been treated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to a washed-out edition of the speech he did not deliver on the 12th of July. I hope he will repeat that speech as often as possible, especially at the bye-elections, because if he does our victories will be more numerous than ever. He has pleaded for the colonels who sit on the Magisterial Bench, and argued that men who had served in the Army were those best fitted to administer justice in Ireland. To my mind the sooner all these Magistrates are colonels the better, because in that case the sooner will the present system be terminated. At present you mix up a few lawyers and non-military men with the great military geniuses who figure on most of the Magisterial Benches, and the result is that you do not get at the truth as you would do if all the Magistrates were colonels, because then the system would be shown to be so ridiculous that the British people would at once get rid of it. I might, however, suggest that considering the position the hon. and gallant Gentleman has himself held in the Army he might have left his eulogium of the colonels to other hon. Members. He has referred to the American phrase that the people were "agin the Government." I do not think we could produce any phrase more strongly condemnatory

171
of the Irish Government than that. That phrase, which is historic, involves an emphatic commentary on the disgraceful system pursued in Ireland for the last 300 years. Ever since the dawn of civilisation in Ireland, as testified by Sir John Davis in the reign of Charles I., the people have been claiming equal justice. Why do they not get it? It is because you have made the Government of "law and order" a byword. You have so governed the Irish people that to expect them to obey the law would be to expect them to be more than human, and I do not hesitate to assert that if the Irish people had the least respect for law and order as now interpreted they would not be fit for freedom. In conclusion, I would give the House one illustration of how justice is administered in Ireland. Last year Mr. John Cullinane was charged before two Justices, including Colonel Caddell, with unlawful assembly, and in the judgment then delivered it was stated that the terror resulting from the assembly was not sufficiently great to justify the Magistrates in concluding that the meeting was unlawful, and consequently they would have dismissed the case but for the fact that the gathering was excessive, and the consequence was that Mr. Cullinane was held to bail in £100, with two sureties in £50 each, or in default to undergo six weeks' imprisonment. In the case of Cullinane the man was actually acquitted of crime. The Magistrates decided that no crime was committed, nevertheless they bound the man over to keep the peace, and because he would not confess that he had broken the peace and been guilty of crime by entering into his own recognisances, he was sent to prison for six weeks. Was anything more monstrous ever heard of? Is it any wonder that the Irish people throw dirt upon, and spit upon, the present administration of the law in Ireland. It they did not kick it from one end of Ireland to the other on every conceivable opportunity, they would not be worthy of the liberty for which they are struggling.
MR. W. REDMOND: I feel bound to raise a protest against the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). He compared
172
the Irish people to the criminal population of London. When speaking of the portion of Ireland he represents he should have remembered that the majority of the Representatives of Ulster sit on these Benches and not behind Her Majesty's Government. As representing an Ulster constituency in which Catholics and Protestants stand side by side, I am bound to say that I repudiate in the strongest possible manner the hon. and gallant Gentleman's insinuation. He said these attacks were made on the Irish Estimates every Session, and that within his own knowledge these attacks have been constantly made during the past 22 years. Why, Sir, the fact that these complaints are made year after year and Session after Session is the best proof that they are not without foundation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this Debate has been a comedy, and I must say I never, in my life, heard a bolder assertion. He must be aware that one of the reasons we have made these speeches has been to complain of the wanton and cruel murder of unoffending persons in the towns and villages of Ireland. References have been made in the course of the Debate to the conduct of the police in shooting down people in cold blood when acting under the orders of Resident Magistrates—shooting down men and boys for no crime whatever, or for doing that which in this country would not even evoke an order to "move on." The hon. and gallant Member said that these Resident Magistrates in Ireland should be military men, and he scoffed at the idea that they should be expected to have any legal training. But one of the principal class of cases upon which these men have to adjudicate is that of conspiracy, and every one knows that that is the subject of all others in dealing with which legal training is required. The hon. Member gave his case away when he said that these Magistrates should be men of military experience. It is our complaint in Ireland that the majority of these men are fitted for military affairs, but certainly unfitted to administer the civil law. Would complaint be made if a state of things similar to that in Ireland existed in England and Scotland? Why, if we had no other grievance in

173
Ireland this would be a monstrous one under which our people could never be expected to rest contented. I myself have had the honour and advantage—for we consider it such in Ireland—of being sentenced to three months' imprisonment by two of these Resident Magistrates. When I was undergoing prosecution, one of the Magistrates, who had been in charge of 400 police and soldiers, was asked what were his qualifications to be in command of these men on a critical occasion, and he replied that for a short time he had belonged to the Inns of Court Volunteers. He was then asked what were his qualifications to sit on the Bench and sentence me to imprisonment, and he had to admit that he had never been called to the Bar, or attended a single legal lecture, or passed an examination in his life, and that his only qualification was that he had eaten a few dinners in the Middle Temple in London. It was by a man of that kind I was sentenced to imprisonment, and when anyone complains of our rising in this House and giving vent to our complaints under such circumstances, I say that it is most unreasonable.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not desire to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but, before the Vote is taken, I am anxious to say a few words on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I think those who listened to his speech will admit that, though he spoke with his usual ability, he utterly failed to make any adequate reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. My right hon. Friend showed that of the 75 Resident Magistrates in Ireland, only 14 have received the first rudiments of legal education, and that they were briefless barristers who had been appointed because they had failed at the Bar. Of the remainder, a very large proportion are military men—half-pay officers—and the others are political hacks who, like Mr. Cecil Roche, having been defeated at the polls in England, reap their reward on the Bench in Ireland. How did the Chief Secretary attempt to deal with the complaint of my right hon. Friend? He drew a comparison between the Chairmen of English Quarter Sessions, many of whom are soldiers, and the Irish
174
Resident Magistrates; but according to my experience the former class are the very pick of the English Magistrates, and many of them are experienced barristers. Then they are assisted and controlled in all difficult cases by juries, and I would not trust even those gentlemen to deal with difficult questions of conspiracy without a jury. It is the jury who is the protection in England against injustice being done under the law of conspiracy. That law would never have been allowed to remain on our Statute Book if it had not been for that protection. Yet this, which is admitted to be the most difficult part of our law, is in Ireland committed to the jurisdiction of these incompetent, broken-down lawyers or soldiers, who form the great bulk of the Magistracy in that country. The Chief Secretary further urged that the Resident Magistrates have stood the test of experience, and have given great satisfaction in Ulster. But, owing to the peculiar conditions of Ulster, no parallel can be drawn between the position of the Resident Magistrates there and in other parts of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman went on to claim credit for the Resident Magistrates on the ground that only a certain proportion of decisions had been reversed, and he said that even in cases where terms of imprisonment of less than a month had been inflicted there was still an appeal to the Superior Courts. But it must be recollected that it was very difficult for poor people to proceed by way of writ of certiorari, and when they did it must be borne in mind the presumption of fact was always against them. Some of the Judges had declared that they would not over-rule the Courts below on questions of fact. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am not surprised that there was not a large number of appeals of this kind. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was altogether silent on the case of Father Crowley, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. My right hon. Friend showed that this gentleman was convicted of conspiracy in a case in which no jury in England could have been found to convict, and sentenced to imprisonment for one month, and to give bail to be of

175
good behaviour or go to prison for a further term. That is a glaring instance of the injustice perpetrated by these Resident Magistrates, for they know perfectly well that gentlemen of this character decline to give bail. Then, with reference to the case of Colonel Turner, who took up his abode with the leader of the landlord party in his district, the Chief Secretary says that it would have been impertinent for him to direct Colonel Turner where he should live. But in the case of the Land Commissioners a rule has been laid down forbidding them to accept the hospitality of landlords, lest they should lose the confidence of the people. Colonel Turner has shown himself a thorough partisan, and is universally distrusted in Clare, as I can vouch from experience, having visited the district. It seems to me it was a very unfortunate thins: that Colonel Turner identified himself with Mr. Stacpoole; and also that the Chief Secretary did not drop him a hint that it would be wise not to accept this hospitality. With regard to Colonel Caddell, looking only at his public character and acts, I think he is a most unfortunate officer in his district. He is a constant source of danger to the district, appearing to be interested in inciting the people to a conflict with the police and the military. I have had some experience of this gentleman, for when, last autumn, I went to Tipperary, I was followed by 600 or 700 people to the house where I was going to stay, and when I arrived I was invited to address them from the steps of the house. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] I am not ashamed of it. I did not go there for the purpose of making a speech, but had desired that there should be no demonstration. However, it was very difficult to avoid one. When the people asked me for a speech there immediately started up a force of 30 or 40 armed police, with Colonel Caddell at their head, and posted themselves on the flank of the crowd, and a conflict between the police and the people seemed imminent. That is a good example of what is taking place in Tipperary daily. Colonel Caddell is a representative man of his kind. I believe the Chief Secretary would do well to remove Colonel Caddell and appoint some more moderate and
176
cautious man. One of the worst symptoms of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman is that he never makes any concession to public opinion, and has no sympathy for the feelings of the people, and there can be no better illustration of this than what happened at Mr. O'Dwyer's funeral. A great outrage was committed by the police on that occasion. Colonel Caddell proclaimed the funeral in advance as an illegal assembly, and I venture to ask whether in the whole history of Ireland such a thing ever was done before, or whether in any other country in Europe the Government has ever been known to proclaim a funeral? Was there any reason to believe that any harm would have resulted from allowing this funerals to take place in the ordinary way? The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) delivered an address, and I am sure the presence of the police made no difference in his utterances on that occasion. His speech was couched in terms of the greatest possible sympathy for the people of the district, and no-exception could be taken to it on the ground that it had an illegal tendency. It would have been well, in my opinion, to have allowed the funeral to take place without the intervention of the police. What harm could it have done? Political funerals are not uncommon on the Continent, and the authorities, however despotic they may be in general, usually make an exception in favour of a funeral and allow things to be said which they would not allow to be said on other occasions. They recognise that it does not do to outrage the feelings of people on such occasions. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done well to have allowed a political funeral to take place in this case. I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not altogether pleased with the action of Colonel Caddell on this occasion, for he said he would not express an opinion as to whether it was right or wrong. I would suggest that it would have been wise of him to have gone a little further, and to have made some small concession, even at the last moment, to public opinion in Ireland. Few people who, have not been present at some of the Magisterial inquiries in Ireland can form an adequate notion of the relation of the

177
Resident Magistrates to the executive. The fact is that these Resident Magistrates are part of the executive, and are completely under the thumb of the Crown lawyers. I have myself seen three or four trials of this kind, and what most struck me about them was the complete helplessness and feebleness of the Resident Magistrates in the presence of the Crown lawyers. I am not one of those who believe that the Resident Magistrates actually receive instructions from the officials in Dublin, but I could not help seeing that they were the complete slaves of the Crown lawyers—not from bad faith, but because they were so feeble and so ignorant of the law. I believe that hundreds of these cases come before the Crown Prosecutor and the Attorney General. I think I am right in saying that all these cases come before the Attorney General before the prosecutions are entered upon, and that he therefore is primarily responsible for them. The Resident Magistrates practically carry out the suggestions of the Crown lawyers and the Attorney General. What is also conspicuous about these cases is that they have all been perfectly futile. I believe I am right in saying that all these cases are connected directly or indirectly with disputes between landlords and tenants. They are entered into for the purpose of breaking down the combination of the tenants and enabling landlords to collect arrears of rent. In this respect I undertake to say they have been utterly futile from beginning to end. I challenge the Chief Secretary, as I have done once before this Session, to say whether he can show that any adequate result has accrued from any of these prosecutions under the Coercion Acts. Has he succeeded in breaking down any of the combinations between landlords and tenants; has he succeeded in breaking up any of the so-called suppressed branches of the National League; has he prevented people from attending meetings to protest against the injustice of their landlords? I say he cannot show that any good has been done, even from his own point of view, by the course that has been pursued. It is true that many of the disputes between landlords and tenants have been brought to an end, but this has been done, not by
178
coercion, but by the landlords giving' way. I can only say, in conclusion, that if the right hon. Gentleman were to devote one-tenth part of the labour he bestows upon defending these cases in the House of Commons, preparing the various implements of coercion and instructing his various agents in Ireland, to persuading the landlords to arbitrate in these disputes, he would in a very short time find all difficulties at an end and no farther necessity for prosecutions under the Coercion Act.
(11.33.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 124.—(Div. List, No. 190.)
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
Committee to sit again to-morrow.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolutions [16th July] reported.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

  CLASS III.
  1."That a sum, not exceeding £80,099, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of certain other Legal Departments in Ireland, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  2."That a sum, not exceeding £80,687, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of" payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission.
  3."That a sum, not exceeding £66,117, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of. Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin.
  4."That a sum, not exceeding £56,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the gum-necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland.
  5."That a sum, not exceeding £4,540, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum, necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Main-

  179
  tenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution agreed to.
  Second Resolution postponed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Third Resolution."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have a few words to say on this Vote with reference to the treatment of Catholic policemen in the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I was able last year to speak in high terms of the Dublin Force. They are a most respectable body of men, who do their duty very fairly and satisfactorily, and in great contrast to the Royal Irish Constabulary. One reason for this is that the officers are all men drawn from the ranks, whereas, as a general rule, the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary are all men of a different type. A very strong feeling, however, exists among the men of the Force that discrimination against the Catholics is practised in the matter of promotion. I have a very large number of documents giving instances of this discrimination. I do not intend at this hour to trouble the House with a long complaint on the subject, but I do wish the Catholic constables of Dublin to feel that we are not satisfied with the way they have been treated, and we wish Mr. Harrell to understand that a very strong feeling exists on the subject. I also wish him to understand that a very strong feeling exists among the men against proselytising ladies being allowed to go to the barracks and preach the doctrines of a Creed in which the majority of the Force do not believe. Some Catholic ladies are prevented from entering the barracks, and I am sure hon. Gentlemen from the North of Ireland would at once complain if ladies of Catholic religious orders were allowed into the barracks and Protestant officers were more or less brought into contact with them. Protestant ladies are, however, allowed in the barracks, and if they may not preach to them they can come and go
  180
  amongst the Catholic men. More than that, it is believed by the Catholic policemen that promotion goes according to the amount of attention they pay to these evangelising ladies. It is most offensive that anybody should have to depend for his promotion upon the amount of bible reading he does. Such a system was introduced into the Post Office by Sir William Blackwood. I have already brought it to the notice of the Chief Secretary that a police sergeant named Chase so arranged the men's duties that Catholic officers could not attend mass upon the days when such attendance is obligatory. I could give a number of instances, but I will not mention names, for the reason that Mr. Harrell would be bound to say whether what is asserted is true or not, and he would know who the men concerned were. I do, however, trust that Mr. Harrell and the officers under him will understand that there is a feeling amongst the Catholic officers that they are unduly depressed, while those of the opposite religion are promoted.
  MR. DILLON: I do not intend to trespass long on the attention of the House; indeed, I only rise for the purpose of pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman that the difference in the tone of Irish Members when speaking of the Dublin Police as compared with the character of their remarks on the Irish Constabulary is very significant. I do not know anything of the complaints of my hon. and learned Friend, but I do desire to say a word in recognition of the highly satisfactory manner in which Mr. Harrell, the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, discharges his duties. Mr. Harrell was at one time Resident Magistrate in East Mayo, and a more honourable and just man I never met. Frequently Mr. Harrell exposed himself to danger in his anxiety for the safety of the people in troubled times. So highly was he respected by the Nationalists of East Mayo that when he left they presented him with a memorial of their regard. The promotion of Mr. Harrell is, indeed, the only honest promotion I have ever known the Irish Executive make.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: It has been remarked, and made matter of

  181
  complaint in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, that with or without the knowledge of Mr. Harrell a distinction is made in the treatment of the Catholic and Protestant members of the Force. If the former are observed to be in conversation while on duty they are liable to be reported, but if those ladies who take an interest in the religious young men of the latter class engage in talk for an hour with them there is no report for neglect of duty on the part of the men. I hope the remarks which have been made by my hon. and learned Friend, in which I agree, may not be taken as in any way a wish to introduce a religious controversy in this matter. We are far too much mixed up in our religious views to desire any thing of the kind, and are only anxious that all the members of the Force should be treated fairly. I have every respect for sincerity of convictions, but the greatest contempt for any system that permits fraud—for fraud it is to say that because men have attended this or that chapel they shall be patronised, have stripes on the arm, and be promoted over the heads of those who have beaten them in competitive examinations. I know that grievances of this kind have been brought to the notice of Dublin Members, and without wishing to raise any question as between Catholics and Protestants, and finding no fault with the men, I appeal to the Chief Secretary to address his attention to the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure all who know Mr. Harrell will agree with the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). As to the specific complaints that have been made, all I can say is that I entirely concur in the opinion expressed. That promotion and favour should in any way be based on religious opinions would be destructive of discipline in any Force, and neither Mr. Harrell or any responsible officer would for a moment countenance such a policy as has been indicated and rightly condemned by the hon. and learned Member for Longford. Mr. Harrell will probably see a report of this discussion, or I will call his attention to it. I feel sure that Mr. Harrell is actuated by the desire to carry out the policy which Members on either side of whatever creed would wish to prevail in this Civic Force.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered to-morrow.

SCHOOL BOARDS ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) (VOTERS' QUALIFICATION) BILL.—(No. 370.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. CLARK:May I ask the Lord Advocate whether, after hearing the views Scotch Members have expressed, there is any intention to proceed with this Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The opinions expressed by Scotch Members show that it will be impossible to proceed with the Bill, and I take the opportunity of saying this and moving that the Order be discharged.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

EDUCATION OF BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL. [LORDS]—(No. 365.)
Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [LORDS]. (No. 230.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I think it right to state that we attach considerable importance to the Bill, and if the clauses to which exception has been taken could be carefully guarded there would be no objection to the Bill going forward. But we propose to take up the subject in conjunction with the Trust Companies Bill and refer it to a Select Committee, with the hope to carry it into legislation next Session.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: On the understanding that the Trust Companies Bill will be referred to a Select Committee with this Bill next Session I am content the Order should be discharged.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

PARTNERSHIP BILL [LORDS].—(No. 373.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I hope the House will assent to the Second Reading of this Bill. It has the approval of Lord Herschell and Lord Justice Lindley, who is master of the law on this subject, and, with the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Horace Davey), I think I can, in Committee, satisfy any objections to this, which is a Consolidation Bill, though, if it should be thought desirable, it shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Law.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: There is one clause objected to very strongly, the clause which gives power to a majority to bind the minority.
  SIR HORACE DAVEY: I concur that it is desirable to pass the Bill. It was carefully considered last year by a Select Committee. With a view to amendment in Committee, I hope the Committee stage may be deferred for a week.
  Objection taken (Mr. Caldwell).
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  Colonel NOLAN moved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again;" but the Chairman, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL. (No. 358.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 246.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES) RULES.
MR. MACARTNEY: I regret to have to trouble the House with a Motion at this hour, but the time within which I can call attention to this subject before these Rules become law is limited.
DR. TANNER: I object.
MR. SPEAKER: Objection does not lie against the Motion, which is in pursuance of the Standing Order, the Rules remaining before the House a certain time for approval.
MR. MACARTNEY: As at present arranged, these Rules will very seriously affect the shipping interest and will have a specially injurious effect on the passenger traffic between England and Ireland. Last year Rules identical with these were made, but were not carried into effect, in consequence of the representations made. The objections are two, and the first relates to the regulations as to boats, the second to life belts and other appliances. In the first place, I contend that the provision for new boats is unnecessary, and, in the second place, if a vessel is equipped with boats according to the scale laid down the result will be illusory. I may illustrate this by reference to particular steamers running between this country and Ireland. Owing to the number of boats being made dependent upon the cubic measurement, a magnificent ship like the Ireland, which runs between Holyhead and Dublin and generally carries about 200 passengers, will have to carry six more boats than it now does, although it is a new vessel and fully equipped with six boats; whereas the Mayo, a smaller vessel, but one which sometimes carries 1,000 passengers, will only be required to have three boats altogether.

185
The objection to many boats is that they occupy deck space, and further, the crew will be insufficient to man so many boats. Objection is also taken to the rule that requires each ship to carry as many lifebelts as passengers. The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company at harvest time carries about 8,000 men across to England in three nights. It would be most unreasonable to expect the company to have 8,000 life-belts for all these men. And, even if they were supplied they could not be used, as there is no place in which to stow them so that they might be at hand on an emergency. The circumstances of this passenger traffic are altogether different to those of the Transatlantic traffic, when each passenger has his berth, and these rules, as applied to the passenger traffic between England and Ireland, will be impracticable and will press very hardly an those engaged in it. The Board of Trade Rules now in existence give the Board a discretionary power as to life-saving belts, and no lives have been lost, so far as I am aware, which would have been saved by these new rules. Those who are engaged in this trade ask either that the Board of Trade should continue to exercise the discretionary power they now have with regard to certifying vessels, or that, before these rules are put into force, they should be referred to a Select Committee, so that the evidence of the traders may be taken on the subject. The Committee by whom these rules were drawn up contained no representative of that class of the mercantile shipping community which is engaged in the coasting trade. They had no opportunity of pointing out how difficult—how absolutely impossible it would be to utilise these rules as the Board of Trade and the public would like to see them utilised, and they are confident that if they had an opportunity of demonstrating to a Committee the reasonable requirements of the case their views would be at once acceded to. The Amendments I have placed on the Paper suggest that the number of life-belts in each vessel should be in proportion to the tonnage, and I have placed the proportion at 10 to every 100 tons. That is not a number I should be disposed to adhere o to if any larger number were desired, but the shipping community consider that the number I suggest
186
would meet all the requirements of the case. They do not for a moment desire to stand in the way of any reasonable protection of life on board these ships, but they contend that these rules, if they were rigidly carried out, would do more to endanger life than to protect it. Further, they say that the rules could not be carried out on board coasting vessels. If the Board of Trade insist on working the Rules as they now stand the result will be that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and other companies engaged in carrying harvestmen to England will have to alter their present arrangements, and the men will have to cross the Irish Channel in the old slow way, instead of being brought over rapidly in large bodies. For these reasons, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will consider favourably the suggestions which have been made in the Amendments on the Paper. They have, I can assure him, been put down not with any desire to deprive the public of reasonable and proper safeguards while crossing the Channel, but because, in the opinion of those who have drawn them up, they are really the only practical suggestions that can be made.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient that the Rules be amended, by adding at the end of Class 3(a), of Division A, the words, 'Provided that where in existing ships the boats are in good order and of sufficient capacity they shall not be required to be altered under this section.'"—(Mr. Macartney.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I will endeavour to consult the convenience of the House by making my remarks as brief as possible. This is really not a matter for the decision of the Board of Trade. Let me remind the House of the history of this subject. In 1887 a Committee of the House sat, which recommended that such precautions should be taken for saving life at sea as might be deemed necessary by a Committee representing the various interests involved. Accordingly, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of 1888, a Committee of 14 members, presided over by Mr. Ismay, of Liverpool, and including five representatives of the shipowners, was

187
appointed in 1888. In fact, all shipping interests were represented. [Mr. MACARTNEY: Not the coasting trade.] The committee drew up certain rules with a view to the saving of life at sea, to be observed on the different classes of ships. Objection was taken to these rules last year, when they were laid on the Table, by the coasting trade, upon whose behalf the hon. Member now speaks. I therefore thought it right to suspend their operation so that the representatives of that trade might have an opportunity of being heard. The representatives of this trade placed their case fully before the Committee in the early part of last spring, and the rules were, to some extent, modified. They are now laid on the Table, and I do not feel disposed to take the responsibility of altering the recommendations of a Committee constituted in that way. The matter was one of great technical difficulty and of the gravest importance to the saving of life at sea, and I should be sorry if the House rejected the recommendation of the Committee. There is a clause which provides that no ship shall be called on to carry more boats and rafts than are sufficient for the accommodation of all the persons on board. The sole objection to these rules is on the part of a few interested traders, who object to some extra expense which will be thrown on them. As to the Irish harvest men, to whom reference has been made, their lives are as valuable as the lives of anyone else, and in their interest, as well as in the interest of all who go to sea, I hope that these rules will not be altered.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: I think the words which have fallen from the President of the Board of Trade show that this Debate may take the form of a general discussion on these rules. I will, therefore, take this opportunity of pointing out a grave omission in the rules, namely, that there is no provision in them with regard to life-saving appliances on board fishing boats.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: They were excluded from the Act.
MR. MARJORIBANKS: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that on no class of vessels is there so great a loss of
188
life or so many accidents as on fishing boats, which, as a rule, are undecked and have no protecting side rails. I do take this opportunity of impressing on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of doing something in the interests of fishermen.
COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to point out that, as a rule, the people who go out in fishing boats are the owners and their sons, and they ought to be consulted before any fresh regulations are made affecting them. Passengers, however, stand on an entirely different footing. Thence the justification for these rules.
DR. TANNER: I only wish to say that really the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment should seriously consider before he adduces such absurd arguments.
MR. MACARTNEY: I shall not, of course, put the House to the trouble of a Division, but I wish to say that the representations I have made did not proceed from one Irish company, but from a number of companies. I am, moreover, bound to say that I think the reflections the right hon. Gentleman has made on one of the leading commercial firms in Dublin, who have done much to improve the steam service between Ireland and England, were somewhat uncalled for. I regret the Board of Trade cannot see their way to making these rules more practicable, because if they are put in operation much of this passenger traffic will be diverted, and the harvestmen will have to find their way to England as best they can, for the companies cannot afford to carry them at a loss.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 210)
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 390]
House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock,

Preamble
The Lord Howard of Glossop—Took the Oath.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON STREETS (REMOVAL OF GATES) BILL
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders in order to give a Second Reading to the London Streets (Removal of Gates) Bill, and that is so simple a proposition that I should not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any remarks on the subject had it not been that I see a notice standing in the formidable name of my noble and learned Friend Lord Bramwell for the refusal of the Second Reading. I do not think it is usual to make long speeches about private Bills, and it is the less necessary in this case, because I
  2
  presume every one of your Lordships who is an inhabitant of London is well aware of the nature of the obstruction which this Bill seeks to remove. In fact, I should have thought there could have been no opposition to a simple proposal of this kind. The wonder to me is that those obstructions should have been allowed to remain so long, and that in the middle, or towards the latter end, of the 19th century there should be a single district of London which is shut up for the night from 11 o'clock to 7 the next morning, and through which the passage of heavy traffic or vehicular traffic from different parts of the greatest city in the world is strictly forbidden by the existence of these bars. Well, as I have said, I should have thought there could have been no opposition; but there has been a Petition filed in opposition to this measure, and I do not doubt that it is that Petition which my noble and learned Friend is prepared to support. But I do not see any opposition from the one quarter from which especially it might have been expected to come with some show of right, and that is from the noble Duke

  3
  himself (the Duke of Bedford), whom I do not see in his place. The intervention in this matter is entirely on the part of persons who think their comfort will be affected by the removal of these bars, and, therefore, beg your Lordships to forbid the passing of this Bill. In the first place, I would venture to remark that these bars were not made for the protection of the repose or the protection of the comfort of the inhabitants of this district in the slightest degree. That is a proposition to which I have no difficulty whatever in asking the assent of my noble and learned Friend. I hold in my hand the copy of the Act under which these bars were set up, and it is set out very clearly and plainly what their object was. It was in no degree, as I have said, to protect the comfort of the inhabitants, but it was to protect the roads which had been made by the Paving Trust of that district from being invaded or utilised by the inhabitants of the neighbouring estates. That is set forth clearly enough in this Bill to which I refer. It hands over to the Paving Commissioners, as Trustees, the roads that had been made on this estate. It hands over to them the freehold, and appoints those Commissioners for five years, and then to be renewed at the end of five years. The clause that I think will throw most light on the object with which those bars were set up is the 63rd—
  "And be it further enacted that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed, declared, or taken to extend, to prevent or preclude the said Duke of Bedford, his heirs and assigns, or the owner or owners for the time being of the said pieces or plots of ground from erecting or placing any posts, rails, or other obstructions at the end of any streets, squares, or places intended to be made in pursuance of this Act, which shall lead into the estates now or late the property of the Worshipful Company of Skinners, or of Hans Winthorpe Mortimer, Esq., so as to prevent any horses or carriages passing or re-passing through the said streets, squares, or places, into or upon the said estates now or lately in the hands of the Worshipful Company of Skinners, or of Hans Winthorpe Mortimer, Esq,"
  and so on. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the object of those gates was what I have stated, and that the roads made on the adjoining estates being now quite as good as those on this estate, the reason for the existence of the gates has disappeared, and they are now simply a
  4
  mediævalanomaly in the middle of London at the end of the present 19th century. And here I would venture to remark that these Paving Commissioners to whom, these roads were made over in freehold have disappeared, and that the Vestry have succeeded to their powers. The Vestry is the representative of those Commissioners. Have the Vestry petitioned against the removal of these gates? Not in the slightest degree. On the contrary, the Vestry petition for their removal. I only notice that in passing; but my point, which I was going to bring before your Lordships, is that if under these Paving Trusts it was intended that the gates and bars elsewhere should be kept up as they are now kept up in these four places London would have been so hampered and harassed that its development would have been absolutely impossible. In 1865 there were 316 of these Trusts, and I ask your Lordships to consider what the condition of London would have been if the other 315 Trusts with powers of barring up the streets of London had been exercised as they have been in these four places. Then I would ask the further question, when has it ever been customary in London to give compensation for the introduction of new lines of traffic? I speak with great humility and deference in the presence of my noble-and learned Friend, but I do not suppose that even he can produce one instance in which such compensation has been given. Your Lordships will remember an instance, which must be very familiar to you, where private property did sustain very signal damage by the admission of traffic for the purposes of public utility—I allude to Hamilton Place. That was one of the most agreeable residences, no doubt, in London. It was a cul de sac. The houses there were almost like country villas, with the park on one side, though they had the public street on the other. But suddenly public opinion demanded that Hamilton Place should be thrown open. Park Lane was opened, and Hamilton Place was roughly invaded by traffic. But I venture to say that not one farthing of compensation was paid for that damage to property. Again, at this moment, there has been a considerable introduction of heavy traffic into streets which hitherto have been free from it.

  5
  For example, of the west side of Grosvenor Square and South Audley Street, and that district which has hitherto been kept apart from public traffic, there is a perpetual and increasing stream of omnibuses and heavy traffic passing to and fro at all hours of the day; but I have yet to learn that the inhabitants of that district have come before your Lordships with an appeal on the ground that their repose has been in any degree interfered with. The honest and plain truth is, that putting all legal technicalities aside, my noble and learned Friend admits he cannot produce a case in which compensation has ever been paid for the introduction of traffic, and that if you live in the centre of the greatest city in the world you must take the drawbacks of that position as well as its conveniences. I do not believe if you brought a traveller to London and took him into this district and explained to him that, under the provisions of a private Act of Parliament passed in the year 1799, it was the prerogative of this district to be locked up in monastic seclusion from 11 o'clock at night to 7 o'clock in the morning, and to prevent the passing of traffic through that quarter, he would place the slightest credence in your assertion until he had learned the fact from experience. I believe that if there is any compensation to be paid, if compensation is due in any quarter, it is rather due from the inhabitants of these districts for the privilege they have so long enjoyed at the expense of the public than it is due from the public to the inhabitants of these districts. Then I would ask this: Is there anything in their covenants which gives them a right to expect any such redress? Have they, under the covenants of their houses, any claim for the preservation of these bars? I challenge my noble and learned Friend to produce such covenants. As a matter of fact, there is no such agreement, and they took their leases with the Act open before them under which these bars were fenced, and from which I venture to make a few quotations to your Lordships. Let me refer to another clause to prove what I say. It provides—
  "That nothing shall prevent or hinder the said Francis, Duke of Bedford, his heirs or assigns, or the owner or owners of the said plots of ground for the time being, from re-
  6
  moving the said fences, gates, posts, rails, or any of them at his or their free will or pleasure."
  So far, therefore, from having a vested interest in these gates, the inhabitants of this district took their leases with the Act of Parliament open before them giving the ground landlord, at any time, at his own free disposition and arbitrament, power to remove these gates, rails, and posts. I venture to think, under those circumstances, your Lordships will not refuse, at any rate, a Second Reading to this Bill, and that, in view of the large interests with regard to public convenience that are involved, in view of the fact that a Committee of the House of Commons patiently and laboriously investigated this matter and have passed the Bill unanimously, nothing could be more ill-judged than that your Lordships should at this day refuse a Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Order made on the 10th day of March last, 'That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday the 20th day of; June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a;."—(The Lord Rosebery, E Rosebery.)
  LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, on behalf of the people who live within the district which is affected by this proposal, I ask your Lordships to reject the Bill. I have no authority to speak for the Duke of Bedford, but I know he has expressed himself as sorry for the position of these persons, of whom upwards of 200 have petitioned against this Bill. I suppose your Lordships know where this district is now, though some 50 or 60 years ago it was considered a good joke by Theodore Hook and some of his school to represent Blooms-bury as a terra incognita which people then knew nothing about. Less than 100 years ago this district was all fields; there were no houses upon it. But by the 39 & 40 George III., to which the noble Earl has referred, a scheme was recognised and means were given for carrying it into execution of erecting houses and making it a residential district, if I may use the expression. Your Lordships may possibly know that this was carried into execution, and that houses of a very good character, though not palatial—not as good as your Lordships find in Mayfair or Belgravia—but

  7
  houses of a very good description, indeed, have been erected there, and are occupied by most respectable tenants. I am surprised to hear the noble Earl say that these barriers were not put up for the benefit of the district and of those who live there. They most manifestly were, and I will ask your Lordships' permission to refer to the Act in order to show it—
  "That nothing shall prevent the said Francis, Duke of Bedford, his heirs and assigns, or the owner or owners for the time being of the said pieces or plots of ground from erecting posts, rails, and other restraints in order to prevent traffic passing over and through the said streets, squares, and places."
  The noble Earl says the people in the district are at the mercy of the Duke, who could remove these bars if he thought fit. I think it is very likely he can. I am not instructed that there is anything in their leases which gives them the right to insist on the maintenance of these bars; but they are satisfied that the noble Duke and those who succeed him will, unless your Lordships prevent it, continue these bars for the purpose of adding to the comfort and convenience of those who inhabit the district. Instead of building on the ground where those barriers exist, the bars and gates have been erected and the space has been sacrificed upon which houses might have been built. So far as that has been done, they feel satisfied that these bars will be continued, as the property will thus remain more valuable both to the occupier and to the freeholder. So much for the region of these barriers. Seventy years ago, in the 57th year of the reign of George III., another Act of Parliament was passed which was intended for the better paving, improving, and regulating the streets of the Metropolis, and in that Act there was this clause—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to authorise the taking down or removing of any bars, gates, rails, or other fences fixed for preventing any thoroughfare into, or from, any square, street, place, or way, without the consent of the owner of the estate or property upon which such bars, gates, rails, and other restraints shall be situate."
  It is true that by the original Act of Parliament Commissioners were appointed for the special purposes of rating the occupiers of these premises, and of paving and performing certain duties that were afterwards taken from them and transferred to the Vestry. It was an incon-
  8
  venience, I dare say, as the noble Earl has said; but by the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, it was provided (I will not trouble your Lordships with the particular language of the Act) that those Commissioners should cease to exist, and that the Vestry should take upon themselves the duties which the Commissioners had formerly performed, and that the rating should be a rating by the Vestry instead of by the Commisioners. In that Act, which was not a private, but a public, Act of Parliament, there was this provision—
  "Nothing in this Act shall extend or he construed to extend to authorise the taking down or removing any bar gate rail or other fence fixed for preventing any thoroughfare into any street square or way without the consent of the proprietor of the estate or property upon which such bar gate rail or fence or square street or place shall be situate."
  So that the freeholder had the rights continued which he had by virtue of the private Act to which I have called your Lordships' attention, and which the noble Earl has referred to. They are continued to him by this public Act of Parliament. I suppose at that time it was hardly thought that the rights of owners could be taken away in the unceremonious way in which it is proposed by this Bill that they shall be. This, then, is the condition of things. Those are the rights which are given to these people by the law of the land—not merely by their having the property in the land, which they could apply for another purpose if they thought fit, because of course they could build upon it, but those are rights given to them, which they say, and which it cannot be denied, are useful to them for the purpose of preserving the privacy and quiet of their dwellings, and of preventing those inconveniences which will result from their being created an open thoroughfare. I agree that the public has a right to expropriate any property for public purposes. I entirely agree to that; every man who holds real property in this country holds it subject to the right on the part of the public to take it away from him. But upon what terms? Why, upon the terms of paying him for it, and upon no other terms. Your Lordships must know that the most careful provisions are found in all Acts of Parliament authorising the taking of land for railways, canals, or other public

  9
  purposes. The most careful and scrupulous provisions are put in those Acts for the purpose of compensating every man whose land is so taken. That is not denied here, and why? The noble Earl says he is astonished that the inhabitants of this district should like the present condition of things. Well, I should be very much astonished if they did anything else, and I will take the noble Earl's own illustration. He says the west side of Grosvenor Square is now used as a thoroughfare for a line of omnibuses, and that the people there very much dislike it. I have no doubt they do. But he says they are entitled to no compensation. Why? Because they had no right to stop the omnibuses. They had no powers by which they could lawfully have prevented any portion of the public traffic which should take that direction. Your Lordships cannot doubt—I think it is impossible to doubt, and I wish your Lordships knew—probably you do not—what may be called the quiet and privacy of this neighbourhood; but it is to be invaded by traffic, and I suppose cattle are to go through it and lines of omnibuses, heavy trucks, and all traffic at all times of the day and night. I ought here to mention that the only traffic which is at all excluded is that of a heavy character, such as that I have mentioned to your Lordships, and also that it is only from 11 o'clock at night to 7 o'clock in the morning that the gates are closed to the light traffic of cabs and carriages. There cannot be a doubt that it will be a loss to these people. They say the result of it will be that, instead of the district being a residential one, it will become to a certain extent altered; that it will be lowered in its character, and they put forward this which I think is a matter eminently entitled to your Lordships consideration—they say they have leases, and that by their leases they are prohibited from turning the houses into shops or places of business. They must keep the houses as private residences, and they say the tendency of this Bill, if your Lordships pass it, will be to leave them saddled with their leases, under which they will be unable to continue to use their houses for the same purposes as those for which they at present use them, and which they can put to no other use.
  10
  Now, I want to ask this question: Supposing that those who laid out this estate, instead of paving the space on which the bars were put, had put houses there? Do your Lordships know why they did not do so? They did not put houses on these spaces that are occupied by the bars, but they put bars there instead, because they knew that the property would thereby be made more valuable than it would be if these spaces had been covered with houses. But would anybody have thought for a moment if that had been the case, if houses had been built there, that the houses ought to be pulled down now without compensation? Nobody would have ventured to suggest such a thing without compensation being made to those who had suffered from it; but because it is a bar it is to come down, although that bar is something which makes the property more valuable. It is to be taken down—and why? On account of the convenience to the public. But if the convenience to the public is worth causing loss which it will occasion to the tenants, the public ought to pay for it. If it is not worth that loss, then that loss ought not to be inflicted upon the people. It is a dilemma of a most undeniable character, as it seems to me. But, no; because the bars are there as a sort of invitation, if one may so say, to suggest to people that they should be pulled down, this proposition is quietly brought forward. When, as I have said, if houses had been placed there instead, nobody would have thought of it. It puts me in mind of a case that came before a very sagacious Judge, where the plaintiff complained that the defendant had got a brickfield very near to him. When the defendant was called upon for his defence, he said, "It is so convenient; that it was a convenient place where they were burning bricks." "Convenient to whom?" said the learned Judge, Mr. Justice Wightman, "not to the plaintiff?" "No," was the answer, "convenient to me," and the plaintiff got a verdict. And I trust your Lordships will here give the verdict to those who are in this situation. It is convenient to the public that these bars should be pulled down, not to those who will suffer, as I have no doubt they will from that being done. Let there be no mistake about it

  11
  at all. The proposition is not that these bars should be taken down and compensation made to those who suffer, nor is there any suggestion that they will not suffer; but the Bill is that, whether they suffer or not, down must come the bars, and no compensation paid. That is the case that is laid before your Lordships. I want to know what is to be the result of it? Here is property being taken merely because it will be a convenience to the public without any compensation being made to those who are injured by it. What is the precedent for it? Are all the other bars in London to be taken down in the same way? Some of your Lordships know the convenience and comfort that such bars afford to those who live in the districts where they are. But if the reason put forward is a good one; if the requirements of civilisation in the greatest capital of Europe, as the noble Earl stated, necessitates this being done, it is a reason that would be equally applicable to every bar in the Metropolis, and it is a reason which, as far as I can see, should not stop at bars but been tended to houses or to any other property standing in the way where it is proposed to open a thoroughfare. My Lords, I ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I trust that notwithstanding the alarmist speech which has just been delivered by my noble and learned Friend you will give this Bill a Second Reading. In asking your Lordships to reject the Bill, my noble and learned Friend can only support that proposal if he can establish the proposition that in favour of those whose interests he has represented the interests of the public at large are to be absolutely disregarded. Of course, the reading of this Bill a second time does not preclude any of these petitioners from making out such a case as they can before a Select Committee for such compensation as the law may warrant or your Lordships' House may deem them entitled to. But my noble and learned Friend is not satisfied with that; he asks your Lordships to say that, because these bars have
  12
  existed, and because their existence produces a certain amount of comfort to 200 people—
  LORD BRAMWELL: No, 2,000.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I took the number which my noble and learned Friend himself stated. Because that is so, the interests of thousands in this Metropolis are to be thoroughly disregarded. The truth is, these bars are an anachronism, barring as they do the passage across this great Metropolis from one district to another, and from more than one important railway station, at inconvenient times in the day, making them inaccessible except by going round a very considerable distance. I should have thought that the right of the public to have their interests considered in this matter, and to have these bars removed, whatever claims any person might have to consideration, was absolutely clear. At the time their erection was sanctioned, the state of things which existed was something totally different from that which exists to-day. Since that time railways and railway stations have come into existence, and the vast amount of traffic has arisen in different parts of the Metropolis, owing to the extension of London, which finds its outlet and inlet by these railway stations. And when you look at the object with which those bars were erected, you will find that object was not one which had in contemplation this purpose for which it is now desired they should be maintained against the public. In those days the cost of paving and repairing the streets, the ownership of the streets being in the freeholder, was cast upon those living within the particular district, which was, practically speaking, really the estate where the streets were made and the bars erected; and the object of the bars was to prevent the owners of adjoining estates using the streets that had been made at the expense of those residing within the limited area for their purposes. That was the original object. But what has happened since then? It is obvious that, whilst the burden of paving and repairing streets is not cast upon the inhabitants generally, the Act of Parliament says that they shall not use those streets, but that these people shall have an exclusive right and control over them, and use of them, which no other part of the

  13
  Metropolis possesses. If they want compensation—if my noble and learned Friend talks of what is just and fair—I say that during all those years they ought to have paid higher rates than the rest of the people in the Metropolis who have not enjoyed those advantages. It seems to me they have really during all those years been enjoying a very good quid pro quo for what is now asked of them. But the cost of repairing those streets is no longer cast upon the inhabitants of the district; the whole parish pays for it. They pay every penny of the cost of the repairs.
  LORD BRAMWELL: The people in these houses are rated for it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Yes, but they are only rated as everybody else is rated; and whilst they have, at all times of the day and night, the use of the streets for which the general public are rated, they ask that the public shall be restrained from using those streets which are within the area absolutely during the Eight.
  LORD BRAMWELL: There has been less traffic over those streets, and, there-fore, they have required less paving.
  LORD HERSCHELL: They have required less paving to some extent, but, at the same time, nothing like the extent that would justify or give these people the right to say that these streets should not be made available to the inhabitants of the other parts of the parish. These streets are now vested in the Public Authorities for the use of the public, just as other streets are; and whatever rights the inhabitants may have to compensation—and I will say nothing about that at present, as that is a question for Committee, and not for your Lordships' House, upon the Second Reading of the Bill—I say that gives them no right to say that these streets shall not be made available for public use in the public interest, and to the full extent to which the public interest requires. I entirely concur that the Committee will have to consider that which the House of Commons Committee had to consider—that is to say, the question whether a right to compensation has been established by anybody. My noble Friend speaks of this as a most alarming proposition, as one which is destructive of the rights of property, and I know not what. But it is, I think, a very sad fact that such a
  14
  lamentable measure has been passed, not by a Radical House of Commons at all, but passed unanimously by a Committee which had for its Chairman a respectable Conservative County Member. It is surely a shocking thing to think that we have come to such a pass that such a measure should have been sanctioned by a Committee presided over by a Conservative Chairman! But in addition to that, it has been passed by the other House, the majority of which can hardly be regarded, I think, at the present time as representative of Radical opinions. Therefore, it comes to your Lordships from a Body, and with an impress which ought to mitigate the alarm which otherwise my noble and learned Friend's speech might have been calculated to produce. The sole question is now: Ought your Lordships to read this Bill a second time? That must surely be decided quite apart from the question of compensation which will arise hereafter. It is a question simply whether there is a right in the interests of the public to remove a great obstruction to the public traffic, even though doing so should, to a limited extent, interfere with the comfort and convenience of the residents in the district. That is a proposition which I scarcely thought my noble and learned Friend would have disputed as regards compensation. I certainly do not mean either to trouble your Lordships with or to suggest to the London County Council an argument against the right of compensation to counterbalance the arguments which my noble and learned Friend has adduced in favour of the right of compensation. Those arguments will, no doubt, be put fully before the Committee of your Lordships' House by learned counsel representing both sides, and I think there would be no advantage in anticipating the able speeches which no doubt the learned advocates will be well prepared to deliver, and adequately and highly remunerated for, by addressing their arguments to those who are learned in the law in your Lordships' House. I think those arguments may be left for the consideration of the Committee. My noble and learned Friend has spoken of the petitioners in this neighbourhood. He did not very clearly define their position, but, as I understand, the petitioners are not con-

  15
  fined to those who are residing in these particular streets which are protected by the bars, but some of the petitioners are persons residing in adjoining streets at some little distance who say that if you take down these bars, though they do not dwell in any street where the bars are, more traffic will pass into their streets from the protected streets. It is very difficult to draw the line and to say how far such claims shall extend, if they should be admitted at all. It is true they say:—"We do not live in these streets, bat we relied incidentally upon the protection which we received from these bars, and the people who live in the streets themselves have no more legal right than we had, because they had no bargain with their freeholder that those bars should be kept up; and if you take down those bars, our houses will be rendered less convenient and comfortable, and, therefore, we also claim compensation." That danger, therefore must be kept well in view in considering this question of compensation—that is to say, the extent to which it may go. My noble and learned Friend answered the case which was put by my noble and learned Friend Lord Rosebery, with regard to traffic coming where traffic had not come before, by saying that that did not arise from any change arising from the removal of the bars. But there have been numbers of cases where, owing to street improvements, streets which were formerly quiet streets, apart from everything but local traffic, have been made part of the public thoroughfare, along which the traffic has become very considerable. It seems to me that, if my noble and learned Friend is right, the principle for which he contends might be just as much relied on in the case I have put, although no such claim for compensation has ever yet been entertained or heard of, as far as I know. There have been many cases, as my noble and learned Friend knows perfectly well, where street improvements, authorised by Act of Parliament, have turned streets and portions of streets, which hitherto have been free from traffic, into thoroughfares for the public traffic. If you once acknowledge that compensation must be paid it would be difficult to argue that there would not be just as much right in those cases as in the present. I have not desired to pre-
  16
  vent any argument upon the question, which will have to be discussed no doubt, as to whether any of the persons are entitled to compensation if this Bill goes before a Committee of your Lordships' House. All I wish to do is to point out that the case is not so very simple as my noble and learned Friend seemed to suggest, and that such claims, even if any of them be legitimate, cannot be accepted wholesale; but there will need to be the greatest possible discrimination shown with regard to them unless you wish hereafter to establish a doctrine which will hamper all Metropolitan improvements by making the ratepayers pay an enormous amount of compensation in satisfaction of claims which have never yet been heard of.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I should advise the noble and learned Lord opposite to accept the species of compromise which has been offered by the noble and learned Lord' who has just sat down. He entirely admits that the question of compensation remains open, and if the question of compensation is not settled to the satisfaction of my noble and learned Friend, or of those who oppose this Bill, it would be entirely in the power of your Lordships' House to deal with that matter when the Bill comes back from Committee. The result of your Lordships' accepting the proposition which has been recommended by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) would be that under no possible circumstances has the public any right to relief. I confess that is rather a difficult theory to substantiate that under no possible circumstances has the public a right to be relieved from these obstructions to traffic. I feel that all the more keenly because I am a constant passenger by the Great Northern Railway, and I must say that I have never passed the sacred gates in going to the Great Northern Station without mental imprecations against the persons who originally set them up and the persons-who have since maintained them there. The question whether they have a right to compensation is not now before your Lordships. The question whether compensation ought to be given is a question for the Committee, and it is one which must be examined

  17
  into in detail. I thought the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down hardly kept his promise when he said he was not going to argue on the subject of compensation, and then proceeded to deliver a very subtle argument against it. He, however, drew our attention to the fact that it was the case of a legal opinion being given without pecuniary reward, and I trust he will forgive me for saying that in this case particularly a legal opinion is worth precisely what is given for it. But I would venture to submit to the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that the whole question is with what view and under what understanding did the people who have acquired interests in these houses acquire them? Have they given more money, or consented to pay more rent, distinctly for the sake of this protection which they knew had come into existence in a legal manner and which they had every reason to believe would be perpetual? I do not see how you can avoid their claim to compensation. But I quite agree that any accommodation which people derive from the fact that traffic does not go through their streets is a right which is held upon a precarious tenure, and people in those circumstances have no right to complain of a change of condition in the Metropolis which may lead the traffic by their doors which they had previously been fortunate enough to escape from. Those are matters which would be better discussed in the whole House; and as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down stated, examination must be made into each individual case, and each case will have to be dealt with upon its merits. There are questions here of common right depending upon the understanding upon which each man has entered into the bargain he has made, and I should be sorry if your Lordships were to prevent that examination from taking place by refusing to read the Bill a second time, and thus not allowing it to go before a Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I propose to add a few words in support of the appeal which the noble Marquess and my noble and learned Friend have made. I certainly will not say one word with regard to the merits of the question. I am quite satisfied with the way Lord Rosebery and Lord Herschell have put
  18
  that, but I really think it is very important as a matter of procedure in this House. The noble and learned Lord' admits that if there be a public advantage it is quite right to legislate in a sense to serve that public advantage, but with the reservation that some compensation should be paid to those who suffer. But the result of his Motion to-day would be, while postponing the question of compensation, to put an end to this obstruction, for the public advantage, which, has been so strongly advocated by my noble Friends. I do not think anybody in this House can deny that those gates-and bars are a very great inconvenience indeed to a large body of the public; but I am most anxious to point out that it is the constant practice of this House to refer questions of this sort to Committee, and to reserve to ourselves, if necessary, after the question has been dealt with in Committee, the power of dealing with it, without our being now called upon to pledge ourselves one way or the other. This question of traffic is one of pressing importance in London. It happened that a day or two ago a similar scheme was brought forward, and I do not say whether the Committee were right or not in rejecting it, but it was rejected; and now here is another proposition for relieving the traffic in London, and I should really feel sorry if we bound ourselves to be obliged to reject it in a summary way before the Committee has dealt with it. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) quoted the Duke of Bedford, though he said he was not authorised to speak for him. I have, certainly, no authority to speak for the Duke of Bedford, and I do not know which way his desires would go; but if I were speaking as a landowner of London, I must say I should be very glad to be relieved from, such a very invidious position as he occupies with regard to the convenience of the public. However, that is for the Duke of Bedford to judge of. He may appear before the Committee to support or to oppose the scheme, or he may abstain altogether; but I think the best conclusion for your Lordships to arrive at is, in conformity with your constant practice, to allow this Bill to be read a second time, not pledging yourselves for the future after it has been dealt with in the way to which my noble and learned Friend has referred.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I would venture to support the appeal which has been made by the Prime Minister to my noble and learned Friend. It is quite true, as he has said, that everyone holds his property under the tenure of its being liable to be taken for the Public Service; but on payment of compensation; the whole question turns on the payment of compensation. No one can say it is of greater importance to the public that a thoroughfare should be opened to the North-Western and Great Northern Stations than that a battery should be erected for defending our Dockyards from attack; but I have never heard it suggested that the Government is to seize the land on which a battery is to stand on account of its great public importance, and of its being indispensable to the defence of the country without paying compensation. I must venture to claim for myself a little prescience with regard to the line which the London County Council have not hesitated to take. I ventured to say, in the Debate on the Local Government Bill, that I thought they would try to divert public attention from an expensive and not very efficient management of Metropolitan concerns by introducing Bills to conciliate popular favour at other peoples' expense. They quite lately brought in a Bill which was rejected by a Committee of the House of Commons, to introduce a new principle of betterment. They want to conciliate popular favour by improving? the Metropolis, and they shrink from honestly paying, or inviting the ratepayers to pay, what is justly due to the parties affected. I felt convinced that before very long that line would be taken by that popularly-elected body, but I did not expect that my predictions would be verified within one year. This Bill, however, was introduced without any hint of compensation for any damage done, and without any suggestion that such a question could arise; and then the noble Earl, the late Chairman of the London County Council, gives us as an example of similar injustice done, and of reasonable facilities of communication being afforded to the public at the expense of the comfort of private individuals, the opening of Hamilton Place. But Hamilton Place was sealed at the end by Crown property. There was no question of any Act of Parliament
  20
  sanctioning that impediment. I myself was the person who carried, through the Metropolitan Communications Committee of the House of Commons, some 40 years ago, I think, the recommendation that Hamilton Place should be opened to the public. A quarter of a century after that recommendation Hamilton Place was opened; and a very great convenience it has been, though an inconvenience to the persons whose houses are there. But there was no ground for compensation being paid to them, seeing that there were no bars existing there, but simply part of the Crown property, which was liable at any moment to be taken for public improvements. A more infelicitous illustration of the justice of the present claim I can hardly conceive. A real hardship arises to the parties who are resident within these bars in the fact that their existence has been confirmed and sanctioned distinctly by the Metropolitan Local Management Act. What the noble Earl proposes is practically to repeal a clause in the Metropolitan Local Management Act which was inserted simply as an act of justice, as a great deal of traffic was already at that time going in that direction between other parts of the Metropolis and these railway stations. It was inserted in consequence of the conviction of Parliament of the justice of the claim of the parties interested in its insertion.
  LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, I suppose I need scarcely say that after what has been said by the noble Marquess and the noble Earl on this side, I will, with your Lordships' leave, withdraw my Amendment. But permit me just to say that really I have attained my object. I am pretty sure that if compensation is to be paid, your Lordships will not be troubled with this Bill again. I did want to save your Lordships the trouble of discussing it in Select Committee and to save the parties that expense; but as it will now be an open question for the Committee, I feel pretty sure how it will be dealt with, and whether compensation will be paid. As that is the case I have no objection. The Lord Chancellor the other day quoted an opinion of an "old Parliamentary hand" that all the Second Reading of a Bill meant was that something was required to be done in the matter. Well, now, I am a young Parliamentary hand, but I

  21
  should have thought there was another thing involved in it, which is this: That not only is there something which requires to be done, but that the something in the Bill was the right remedy. I do not see any indication in the Bill that people shall be paid for the loss they will sustain. However, as that is now possible, I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn; Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. (No. 33.)
To be printed as amended by the Commons. (No. 203.)
COURT OF CHANCERY OF LANCASTER BILL.—(No. 93.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL. (No. 182.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships now to give a Second Reading, is one of very considerable importance, and, at the same time, of considerable complexity, and abounding in details of a highly technical and legal nature. As I do not anticipate that there will be any objection to giving the Bill a Second Reading in this House, I shall only detain your Lordships for a few moments in explaining in general terms what are the objects for which it is brought forward. The leading Act which settled the law and practice as regards Limited Liability Companies was, as your Lordships know, passed in the year 1862. It has been amended upon several subsequent occasions, notably in the years 1867, 1879, and 1880. But nearly all those amendments had much more relation to that part of the original Act which deals with the creation of companies and their formation than to the other parts, which are scarcely less
  22
  important, dealing with the method by which those companies which have been formed are wound up and cease to exist. The object of this Bill is to amend the provisions of the Act of 1862, mainly as regards those parts which have to deal with the winding up of Limited Liability Companies. At the outset, I should like to mention one ground of objection which has been brought to this Bill as it at present stands. Objections have been taken to it that it does not attempt to codify and consolidate the existing law. I believe that the existing law as regards companies stands in considerable need of consolidation and codification; bat I think it would be unwise to attempt at the same time so large a measure as codification and consolidation and this necessary amendment of the law. What is intended by this Bill is to amend the law as regards those parts of the Act which are thought to require amendment, leaving to be dealt with hereafter the question of consolidation and codification of the law as it will then stand. I wish simply to say that, because this is only an amended Bill, and it must not be thought there is any attempt at consolidation of the law as regards Limited Liability Companies. As regards these companies, I think it may be safely said that on all hands it is considered the existing law is inefficient, unsatisfactory, and requires amendment. At any rate, I am able to say that the commercial community have been loud in their demands for some amendment of the law. But I find that the complaints are rather as regards the delay which accompanies the present practice than as regards any inefficiency in the law in the proper and stricter sense of the term. The present method of winding up companies is exclusively under the control of the Court of Chancery. The Judges in the Court of Chancery are all hard-worked men. They all have full engagements, and whenever any matter regarding the winding up of companies has to be brought before them, they have to make an appointment in regard to it very often a fortnight or three weeks ahead. If for any reason that appointment is not sufficient, if everything is not done that may have been expected or required at that time, owing to some unforseen difficulty, no other appointment can be got sometimes

  23
  for another fortnight or three weeks, thus occasioning great delay. These constant delays, while irksome in themselves, lead to other difficulties, because they lead to a great increase of expense; and it is in the hope of avoiding not only the unnecessary delay, but the unnecessary expense, that this Bill for the amendment of the law is brought forward. I also venture to say that public opinion and public interest are alike in favour of as large publicity as possible being given to all proceedings as regards the winding up of companies, and there are in this Bill provisions for securing further publicity and advertisement in regard to certain matters which it is desirable should be more widely known than are known at the present time. I claim for the Bill that it carries out more effectually than the existing provisions of the law what was the real intention of the Legislature when they passed that Act. I believe this Bill will deal more effectually with the winding up of companies, and that the conditions which will be imposed upon those who are perhaps responsible for the solvency of some of these companies will have a deterrent effect upon the management of concerns which are not yet insolvent, but which may hereafter come under the provisions of Bankruptcy Law. I venture to say, and I have no doubt I shall carry the House with me when I say it, that there are two main objections to be kept in view in these matters. You have first to keep in view the necessity for a fair and proper administration of the bankrupt estate, so that you may effect a speedy and expeditious distribution of the assets, and at the same time the public interest demands in any case in which there is any suspicion of unfair dealing there shall be an independent investigation into the conduct of those concerned. The main objects of this Bill are, in the first place, to effect a certain transference of jurisdiction, so as to cheapen the proceedings in the winding up of the smaller companies, and to bring them more nearly into harmony with the practice of winding up individual bankrupt estates. There will, therefore, be a more efficient and thorough supervision of the judicial and administrative duties which have to be discharged in the winding up of these companies. Mainly, this Bill assimilates the practice in the case of winding up insolvent companies
  24
  to that which now obtains under the Act of 1883 in the case of estates of individual bankrupts. The Official Receiver under this Bill will be to some extent the officer of the Court, but he will be also in other capacities an officer of the Board of Trade in his administrative functions. Dealing with the assets of the company, he will be the officer of the Court, and he will still continue to act by and under the authority of the Court. But if questions arise as to the conduct of those who have had the management of the company he may make a report to the Court, and the Court will have power to act or not to act upon that report as far as regards a judicial investigation into the conduct of the persons concerned. I do not think I need say anything more as regards the general principles contained in this Bill, and I will mention very shortly one or two of the provisions in some of the most important clauses. The first three clauses deal entirely with measures of jurisdiction. The 4th clause contains, certain provisions as to the liquidation. The 5th clause contains a power which is new in the administration of affairs of companies. That provision is that power is given to the Court upon the application of the Official Receiver to appoint a special manager to manage the estate or business of the company. The 6th clause is also new as regards the administration of insolvent companies. It makes provision that compulsory separate meetings of creditors and contributories shall be held to determine the appointment of an Official Liquidator in place of the Receiver, and the appointment and constitution of a Committee of Inspectors. If those two meetings, of classes whose interests are not, of course, identical, should happen to disagree, the Court will decide between them. The 7th clause is also important. It requires that a statement of the company's affairs shall be made out and submitted to the Official Referee. The statement is to be made by and in the name of one or more of the Directors, and by the Secretary, or such other persons as, being Directors, officers, and promoters, have acted within one year from the time when the winding up order has been made. Then there is also the 8th clause, which requires that certain reports shall be made from

  25
  time to time by the Official Referee to the Court. He can, if he is dissatisfied with the first inquiry that is made, or if he thinks that there is a primâ facie reason for taking proceedings in the case of any individual concerned, make a report to the Court asking for a further inquiry to be made. If, as the result of that inquiry, he comes to the conclusion that there is a ground for proceeding, he makes a report again to the Court to that effect, and the Court may thereupon take action upon that report. There are other provisions in the Bill for carrying out and applying more thoroughly the principles of the Act of 1883 to the winding up of companies. I think those are almost entirely matters of detail, and that they will be better considered by one of the Committees of your Lordship's House than on Second Reading. I will, therefore, say nothing more at this stage, but merely ask your Lordships now to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh)
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I think the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced is likely to work well, and to he a great improvement in relation to the winding up of companies; the general scheme of it being to assimilate the provisions relating to the winding up of companies and to bring them into conformity with those which now exist in relation to bankruptcies. That scheme is, I think, a sound one. The only matter to which I would call the noble Lord's attention on that point is the danger of leaving measures of this description to officials, which always results in creating a tendency after a time to too rigid and cast iron a system. There comes to be a tendency to run in a groove and to assume, when the working of an Act is once started in a particular direction, that all is well, and to continue the same system without perhaps sufficiently considering whether it is not capable of improvement. What I was going to submit to the noble Lord was this, whether there would not be some advantage, having regard to the complaints which have been made of the working of the official part of the bankruptcy system in the Board of Trade,
  26
  in appointing a small Departmental Committee to inquire into the administration of the Bankruptcy Act under the Board of Trade, with the view to ascertain whether improvements might not be brought about in the mode in which its details are carried out. It strikes me that the present time, when you are about already to enlarge this system by extending it to the winding up of companies, which obviously will entail a large addition to the work of the Department, and is a new departure, would be a good time to take advantage of the working of the Bankruptcy Act, of which there has been now seven years' experience. We are now going to apply it to another subject matter, and I think we should take advantage of this experience which has been gained by the seven years' working of that Act. I think a Departmental Inquiry of that sort would be likely to result in suggestions for improved working of the law in regard to winding up, and that if that is to be done it would be advisable to do so simultaneously with the proposal to extend the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act to these matters. That is with regard to the principle of the Bill. There are several matters of detail to which I will call the attention of the House at a later stage. There is, however, one which I would point out now. I cannot overlook the fact that the present Bill extends only to England and Wales, and does not extend to Scotch and Irish companies. Certain of the provisions of the Act of 1862 are repealed by this Bill, and repealed because others have been substituted for them which will, it is considered, be of a satisfactory character, but, as far as I have seen, the circumstance appears to have been overlooked that these intended provisions only apply to England and Wales. Obviously, for instance, you ought not to repeal altogether those provisions which exist with regard to malfeasances of Directors when the substituted provisions apply only to England and Wales, and not to Scotland and Ireland. I think the section also which contains the interpretations of the word "Court," and defines the Court for Scotland and Ireland as well as for England and Wales, ought not to have been repealed for a substituted definition applying only to England and Wales. I only desire to make these

  27
  remarks at present, and I will not now trouble the House with further matters of detail.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I wish also to say that the principle of this Bill appears to me to be very sound as far as its object is to assimilate as much as possible the winding up jurisdiction to that in bankruptcy. The two subjects are obviously so nearly related to each other that they may almost be called identical, and the separation of the jurisdictions is purely arbitrary. I see that the Bill is a cautious Bill, because it enables the jurisdiction to be exercised either by Chancery Division Judges or by the special Judge in Bankruptcy. That, perhaps, is quite right. We know that the Judges of the Chancery Division have acquired great knowledge on the subject; and to withdraw all these cases from them at once may be unnecessary, and perhaps inexpedient. But the general principle appears to me to be entirely right. I must say at the time when I had personal experience of the administration in winding up in the Court of Chancery I did not think it satisfactory. It was a very long operation, the administration being left very much of necessity to Official Liquidators, whose expenses were extremely large. Without being able to anticipate how this Bill may work I think there was very considerable room for improvement in the administration of winding up matters, and I hope that improvement will take place under this Bill as it is framed. With regard to the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend, that there should be a departmental Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the latest Bankruptcy Act, certainly I see no objection whatever to the suggestion; but I am bound to say that, as far as I can judge, the present Bankruptcy Act has succeeded very much better than any of its predecessors. No Bankruptcy Act, and no winding up Act, ever will give satisfaction to creditors who are not paid, or to shareholders who are ruined, and such people there will always be to the end of the world. The most you can do is to aim at the least expensive mode of proceeding, and the one which shall,
  28
  as far as possible, exclude the abuses which have been almost always incident to the unhappy state of things which leads to those proceedings: and if this measure of the Government should produce that effect in reference to winding up proceedings, I think they will be entitled to the public thanks.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to say at once that as regards the important point which has been brought before the House, as to repealing certain sections-altogether of which the substitution is only as regards England and Wales, that matter, of course, must be looked into. The noble and learned Lord is perhaps aware that there is a Bankruptcy Bill for Scotland this year, but I see it has been withdrawn. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland has told me that if we will communicate with him, he will take care to get advice upon the Bill as it stands, so far as it has reference to Scotch Law. I can only say that I shall take care that objection does not arise. With regard to the departmental Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act of 1883, I will, of course, consider that point, and if the noble and learned Lord will allow me, we will communicate with him before the Bill leaves the House. With regard to the other remark, that perhaps officials, when discharging duties of this kind, have a tendency to run too much in the same groove, that may be an accusation which is not altogether without ground as regards officers of some of the public Departments, and if it is to be brought against officers of the Board of Trade, I think it must also be with regard to officers who have to perform public functions under the existing law.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to law, &c.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.—(No. 184.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 168.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I am surprised to find that the Railway Companies have petitioned against this Bill. The matter has been well thrashed out by the House of Commons, and I have not been able to find out that the Railway Companies then expressed any dissatisfaction with the object of the measure now before the Committee. It is a Bill promoted by the London County Council at the instance of the Vestries and District Bodies. This Bill proposes to do away with some obvious defects in the law, in regard to the paving of roads and ways. The first two clauses merely define the purposes of the Act. By Clause 3 any Vestry or District Board may, from time to time, repair or pave roadways within their parishes or districts, although such roadways may not at the time of the work being done have become reparable by them. According to the Camberwell Vestry case, if a Vestry or District Board repairs a road, however slightly, they are held to have taken it over, and cannot afterwards recover the expense of paving the street. This is an unsatisfactory state of the law. It is sometimes necessary for District Boards or Vestries to pave streets partially, inasmuch as the inhabitants may squabble among themselves about it, and the road is left in an inefficient state of repair, but under this provision the Local Board may do the work and recover the expense of paving the street, when it shall become a new street under the Metropolis Management Act. By Clause 4 a penalty is provided for the commission of illegal acts in regard to sewers or drains made contrary to approved plans. By Clause 5 penalties are imposed for certain other illegal acts in regard to making connections in sewers. Clause 6 is for the purpose of enabling Vestries or District Boards to take portions of houses and property, as they may require, for purposes of improvement, if in the case of houses or buildings such portions can, in the opinion of the jury, be severed without material detriment to the rest of the property. Under the present law
30
Vestries and District Boards may be required or compelled to take thousands of pounds' worth of property for the purpose of carrying out an improvement, with the result that in many cases improvements are not effected which otherwise would be carried out. By Clause 7 the subsoil under a street or roadway and so on is not to be removed without the consent of the Vestry or District Board, and without complying with such conditions in regard to securing foundations and so on, as the Vestry or Local Board may impose. At present damage often arises from the method of filling up sites with rubbish. In that way-have been caused subsidences of pipes, with resulting explosions. I may mention that this clause was carefully considered in the House of Commons when the clauses were gone through one by one. I need not trouble your Lordships with the remaining details of the measure, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and referred to a Select Committee.

INTESTATES ESTATES BILL.—(No. 148.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I hope your Lordships will not proceed with this Bill. Almost all the Peers-belonging to Ireland are opposed to it as contrary to the customs and wishes of the agricultural classes in Ireland; and the same reasons that make it objectionable in Ireland make it objectionable to the agricultural classes in England, which furnish most of the intestates. No cause has been shown for altering the law, and it is a great objection to such changes, that it is a long time before such changes become generally known to intestates, whose intentions to abide by the actual law are thus frustrated.
LORD BRAMWELL: This is a speech against the Second Reading. As the noble Lord has said that all the Irish Peers are contented with it, and it is only an English Peer who is discontented, that certainly seems, if I may venture to say so, rather an Irish mode of objecting. I hope your Lordships will adhere to your opinion with regard to the Bill on. Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must venture to demur to the doctrine of my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down with regard to Second Readings. The other night we were told by noble Lords that when a Bill is read a second time that is only meant to express agreement with a principle, and not giving a pledge that certain things ought to be done. If that doctrine is correct, and if we are now to be asked, as my noble and learned Friend asks us, when we get to this stage not to object on the ground that we have given our assent, it seems to me that our opportunity of objecting to Bills is reduced to very slender proportions. I do not object very strongly to this Bill, although I do not know why the widow should have exactly £500—why that should be the sum fixed—and although I do not know why no account should be taken of anything that has been done for her during the lifetime of her husband. However, I do not think it is a measure of very great importance, and I therefore do not offer any resistance.
Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a to-morrow.

BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 164.)
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
BARRACKS BILL.—(No. 163.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL. (No. 98.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, before this Bill finally passes from your Lordships' House I should like to return my thanks to the Lord Chancellor for having consented to carry out what I proposed to do in another Bill, which was referred to the same Committee namely, the Protection of Children Bill. I desire also to thank the noble Lord for having practically permitted the addition to his Bill of clauses which were the principal ones in the Bill I had the honour to introduce into this House. It
  32
  will be within your Lordships' recollection that I have, on several occasions, drawn the attention of your Lordships to the difficulties under which philanthropic persons and institutions labour under the present law, owing to unworthy persons taking away their children from them just at a critical age, and just at the time when they can earn money for those unworthy parents. By the introduction of this Bill by the Lord Chancellor, and owing to the inclusion of some of the clauses which I have proposed in the Protection of Children Bill, I hope that those institutions and benevolent persons will find it much easier to carry on their work than they did formerly. I feel that this Bill, going forth from your Lordships' House with the sanction and with the power of the Government at its back, it will be much more likely to succeed in passing the other House than it would have had if it had borne my name. I hope, therefore, the Government will do all they possibly can to pass this Bill through the other House, and that it may prove a very great benefit to the large class of persons and children who are interested in it.
  Bill read 3a(according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BIRSTALL WESLEYAN CHAPEL TRUST SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.—(No. 204.)
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 205.)
    REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 206.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ESHER, in rising to call attention to alleged defects in the administration of the law, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue a Royal Commission to inquire into such alleged defects, and to propose remedies for such as are found to exist, with a view to immediate legislation, said: My Lords, with as little pleasure in doing it, as your Lordships will have in hearing it, I have undertaken to talk law for some quarter of an hour. Some 15 years ago the administration of the law was much altered by the passing of the Judicature

  33
  Acts; that the Judicature Acts have done much to ameliorate the administration of the law I think cannot be doubted, but some defects are alleged still to continue, and some defects are said to be even increased by the working of the Judicature Act. These alleged defects are put forward by people of weight and consequence, and I think ought to be carefully considered. I propose to name several alleged defects and to examine into them shortly, and to say that, as far as I am concerned, I think some of them will be found not to be established, but that some of them, and those very important defects, are established. Still, I cannot propose to act upon my own opinion, from which other people may differ; and what I ask, therefore, is that those allegations should be inquired into. Now, one great defect which it is said exists is the delay of the trials of disputes between parties, and that there is a considerable delay in some parts of the administration of the law I think is clearly made out. I am happy to say that in the Court to which I belong there really is at present no delay and no arrear. I think that in the Appeal Court there is no case; coming from the Queen's Bench Division which is more than four months old, and the number of appeals yet untried are not more than 24. From the Chancery Division the number of appeals yet untried are not more than 16. I think that, considering some years ago the arrears from the Queen's Bench Division were some 260 appeals, and that some of them were more than two years old, the way in which they have been worked down cannot be held to be otherwise than satisfactory; but with regard to the Chancery Division and the Queen's Bench Division the case does not stand so well. In the Queen's Bench Division itself, taking the cases before the Divisional Courts, I do not think there is any considerable arrear; but with regard to the cases to be tried by Judges with juries, or by Judges alone, there is, most unfortunately, a very great arrear. There are arrears in London and Middlesex of trials by special juries at the present time 280 cases, and of Common Juries 176 cases, and of non-jury cases, that is cases to be tried by a Judge with-
  34
  out a jury, 440. So that the total arrear of causes at present in the Queen's Bench Division amounts to 896. But it should be recollected that in the Queen's Bench Division the number of Judges who would have had to try these causes has, for the last year or more, unfortunately been very much diminished. There were two Judges taken off for nearly a year for a Commission, which is now famous, and there have been, unfortunately, since that time two more of the Judges absolutely disabled for a time during illness. Still, that is a great arrear. Then, in the Chancery Division, there are at the present time to be tried, that is for the purpose of the trial which is to fix the rights of the parties, 456 witness actions and 101 other actions, making 557 yet untried. The oldest of those causes was entered in January of this year, and many of them date back as far as June of this year. I think that is a painful arrear, and that matter, I think, therefore, should be inquired into. Now, one great allegation against the administration of the law is that appeals are too numerous, and, therefore, oppressive. It is very popularly said there are four appeals. The instance always given is, that you first take a case before a Master, then before a Judge, then before a Divisional Court, then before the Court of Appeal, and then to the House of Lords. It is generally so stated, as if that were the case in almost every instance of an appeal. Now, I have had a Return made of a number of summonses in Chambers, which is the first step, during a year, and I take the year 1888–89. In the Queen's Bench Division there were before the Masters in that year 37,400 summonses heard. Of those there was that which is hardly an appeal—that is to say, a reference to a Judge in Chambers—in only 3,636 cases. Going from the Master to the Judge in Chambers is not an expensive thing; we never call that an appeal, and really it is not expensive at all. Now, of those 3,636 cases heard by the Judge in Chambers 634 only went to the Divisional Court, and of those 634 which were taken to the Divisional Court only 85 came to the Court of Appeal. Therefore, so far from it being a common tiling that every summons before

  35
  the Master—or nearly everyone—goes from the Master to the Judge, and from the Judge to the Divisional Court, and from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal, the truth is that out of 37,400 summonses in one year—and in almost every year it is about the same—heard before the Master only 85 go to the Court of Appeal. With regard to going on to the House of Lords, I believe the fact is that there has been only one such case in five years which went to the House of Lords, and in that case the House of Lords overruled the decision of all the other Courts. Therefore, as it seems to me, the case alleged of too numerous appeals is hardly made out. Then there is another matter to which I must refer, that is, that in those 83 cases, out of the 37,400 which have come to the Court of Appeal the appeal was by no means frivolous; although upon some point of practice it was very often a point of very great importance. It might involve the construction of the Rules, which are not always easy to construe, but it very often concerns a matter of the greatest importance. Suppose that an Order has been made for a Commision to go to China or Japan or India. If that Commission goes out it costs hundreds of pounds, and causes a delay of months; and if the Order has been inadvertently passed by the Master and the Court of Appeal is applied to, and reverses the Order for the Commission, there is an end of it, and the Court of Appeal has saved the parties some hundreds of pounds and a delay of months. So much with regard to the practice appeals. Now with regard to appeals from trials, there were in one year in London and Middlesex 1,179 cases tried by the Judge or the Judge and jury, and 844 on the Circuits; that is to say, there are 2,023 causes tried in the year. With regard to those causes which have been tried to the extent of 2,000, some of them are tried by a Judge without a jury, and some of them are tried by a Judge with a jury. With regard to those tried by a Judge without a jury, the appeal has been and is direct to the Court of Appeal. It does not go to a Divisional Court, and then to the Court of Appeal; it goes straight to the Court of Appeal. Those tried by a Judge and jury, up to this time, have gone to the Divisional Court, and from the Divisional Court
  36
  there has been a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. In the year in regard to these 2,000 causes, there were appeals direct to the Court of Appeal in 137 cases; that is to say, there were 137 appeals direct to the Court of Appeal where the case had been tried by a Judge without a jury, and of those tried by a Judge and jury, there were 11.8 motions for a new trial of them in the Queen's Bench Division. Of those causes, 63 were appealed from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. So that the appeals out of those 2,000 causes that have been heard in both Courts together are 255, and of those, up to the present time, there has been a double appeal in only 63 cases. Now by the Bill which is before your Lordships' House, which was brought in the House of Commons by Mr. Finlay, those 118 appeals in regard to new trials which went to the Divisional Court would come straight to the Court of Appeal. So that out of the 2,000 cases which are tried in the course of a year, there will be 255 appeals direct to the Court of Appeal, and, therefore, only one appeal, unless they go on to the House of Lords. How many cases come to the House of Lords I am not prepared to say; many noble Lords here will know that much better than I do; but I apprehend myself there are not more than about 20 in the course of the year. So that I cannot think the allegation of too numerous appeals is really made out. And I may say this, that I do not think an appeal to the Court of Appeal is a very expensive matter. I have inquired into it carefully, from practitioners in London and elsewhere, and I do not find that is the expensive part of litigation; other people may have different opinions; I have given mine, that neither as to practice cases, nor as to other trials, are the appeals frivolous, and I do not think, after that statement which I have made to your Lordships, they can be said to be exceedingly numerous. Now, the next and most important allegation in regard to the administration of the Civil Law seems to me this: that the expense of actions is far too great, and it is further said that the expense of actions has been increased since the Judicature Act came in to operation instead of being diminished. I have come to the conclusion myself that that allegation is true, and that the expense of actions is far greater than it

  37
  ought to be. When I come to consider what the cause of it is, the very first fact is the fact that I have mentioned, namely, that amongst the summonses, of which there are 37,400, before the Master, I cannot help thinking that there must be a great many more summonses that there ought to be. Opportunities for summonses are given in the hope that those summonses may do good; but we find in practice that wherever parties have an Opportunity of making any movement in a Court they are sure to make it, and the numerous opportunities for summonses which were instituted under the Judicature Act, in the hope of shortening cases, have been invariably used to their full extent, and have lengthened causes, and caused great expense and delay. The chief cause of expense in summonses has been the constant use in Common Law actions of summonses for discovery, and the use of summonses for the purpose of interrogating parties. The truth is the in the Court of Chancery a great of their administrative system was carried out by discovery and inspection of documents and by interrogatories, and when the Judicature Act was passed a person of great influence, that is to say, the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, was strong enough to carry into the new rules the Chancery system, not merely the Chancery principles, but the Chancery procedure in Common Law actions. In my opinion that system is not fit for Common Law fictions, and I think it causes great oppression. It is just this. Take the case of a dispute between two merchants in the City of London about the construction of a contract, or about the delivery of goods or the non-acceptance of goods. The parties begin on both sides by asking for discovery, the meaning of which is that each party asks the other, "What books do you keep, and how many books did you keep with regard to this matter," and then, having obtained an answer to that from the other party, you are obliged to go to the merchant and get an affidavit as to that. Then the next thing is to say, "We want to inspect the merchant's books," and then the attorney or the attorney's clerk goes to the merchant's office and ransacks his ledgers and letter books, and I do not know what, not only to the
  38
  expense, but to the disgust of the merchant, who does not like to have his books gone into in that way, and very little good ever comes of it, for in almost every case it comes to nothing. Then, as to the administration of interrogatories. The system of administering interrogatories in an ordinary case is a system of the most oppressive kind. It is almost invariably used, because it can be used, and, therefore, if your baker brings an action against you he first asks you whether you keep a diary, and then if you do he asks to see it, and then he asks to see his own bills which he has given you, and then he interrogates you upon them, and the interrogatories go sometimes really to matters which would not be allowed to be asked even at the trial. In the City of London I am told this is a great cause of the increased expense of causes, and it is a cause of the greatest possible irritation; that instead of the dispute between two merchants being managed until it comes to trial by their solicitors, the merchants themselves are tormented by having to make discovery and make affidavits and answer interrogatories, which they generally have to answer by saying they know nothing about it. But then if they say that, there is at once an application made for what is called a further and better answer. Why for that purpose the Chancery practice is to be used in ordinary common law or mercantile causes I cannot understand, although I say again other people may be of a different opinion. It is considered to be expensive, oppressive, and to cause infinite delay. I think that is a grievance which ought to be inquired into and, if possible, met. Then the next complaint is in regard to the delay in trials. I have shown your Lordships already that there is a delay in trials both in the Common Law Courts and in the Chancery Division. That delay, of course, is the result of many causes, but one of the very first causes is this multitude of summonses, because if you have a multitude of summonses one after another, and more particularly these summonses as to discovery and interrogatories, until after all that has been got rid of and passed through at great expense and with great delay of course the trial cannot go on. Those summonses, therefore, are the

  39
  cause of a great part of the delay. Well, another thing which causes delay in London and Middlesex is said to be the want of a sufficient attendance of Judges in London. The want of a sufficient attendance of Judges in London has been the result up to the present time, first, as I have said, of the illness of some of them; and, secondly, of the employment of some of them upon other matters. But there are other reasons. The Judges are bound to go circuit. The number of circuits have been increased, and therefore every time you increase the number of circuits you, of course, increase the time during which a certain number of Judges are absent from London. Can this part of the cause of the delay be cured? I have already suggested that the quantity of summonses can be cured, because I think, after looking into the matter carefully, that a vast number of them can be got rid of altogether. With regard to these interrogatories and summonses for discovery they must be bridled and limited by some rule or other, so that they shall only be used in cases where they are really wanted. But with regard to the absence of Judges on account of going circuit, I cannot help thinking that it is worth while to consider whether at the present time there are not too many circuits. There are three or four circuits now—I forget which at the moment—for the trial of prisoners. The Judges are obliged to go to every county for the trial of civil causes. In many of the counties the number of civil causes has become very small indeed, and yet the Judges are obliged to go there to be ready to try them. One mode of obviating the necessity of Judges having to go to each county for the trial of a very small number of civil causes would be this: The railway system has brought the Assize towns practically much closer to each other than they were in former times; and many of those who have had to, consider this matter (as far as I know, all of them) have come to the conclusion that one mode of saving time would be to, what has been called, "group" the trials of civil causes on Assizes, or, in other words, to take the central towns as representative of those immediately round, and to decide all the civil cases
  40
  there, taking care that the parties to them and their witnesses are not brought too far; that is to say, instead of trying civil causes in each town, to try them in some representative or district town. I think there was a resolution of the Judges that it was advisable that it should be carried out, but it has not been acted upon, and I should like that point to be further considered. Then as to the number of Criminal Assizes. It has been proposed that there should be a less number of Criminal Assizes, while, to meet the difficulty that would be presented of keeping prisoners too long in prison waiting for trial, if there were only a few of them, it was suggested by many of the Judges at one time that in each county the Quarter Sessions should be held halfway between the Assizes. We should thus have got rid of many of the criminals, who many of the Judges think ought all to be tried at the Assizes whenever there are any in prison at the time. It was objected on behalf of the counties, and I think it was a weighty objection, that that would call the Justices together at Quarter Sessions at inconvenient times when not necessary for the county business; but at the present time the Justices have been relieved of many of their duties in reference to the county business by the County Councils, and there would be nothing unfair to them in such a proposition in regard to the criminal business; and I think we could now get the country gentlemen to take the Criminal Sessions half-way between the Assizes. One or two of the Justices would, I think, be willing to act for that purpose. If that were done, you would have in most counties only two or three Criminal Assizes, and you would consequently have the Judges kept out of London for a much shorter time. Then there is another thing as to criminal procedure which might well be done now. A man is put into prison and kept there before trial. In certain cases he might be let out, but people will not go bail for him, and he cannot get bail. In the old condition of things in England if a criminal were not imprisoned until trial, he might get out of the way and you might never see him again; but I cannot help thinking that in the present condition of England that

  41
  is next door to impossible; and I think a great number of prisoners might be let out on small bail, or without bail, on condition that if he moved away from his ordinary residence or left the district without giving notice to the police he might be re-apprehended and put into prison. That would secure their appearance if they attempted to get out of the way. By those means you could diminish the number of Criminal Assizes, and you would have the Judges kept out of town a less time for the purpose of trying prisoners at them. Of course, the more you succeed in doing that the in more you would obtain the services of the Judges in London. Those are methods which I think in the Common Law Division you would be able to keep the Common Law Judges longer in London than they are now, and they would, of course, be able to deal with the cases to be tried in a more satisfactory manner. Now, it has been suggested that there should be an increase in the number of Judges in the Queen's Bench Division. I have considered that matter also. Everybody must be of opinion, I -should think, that it is not well to have too many Judges; and I have come to the opinion myself that if these other arrangements were made, there is no occasion in the Common Law Division to increase the number of Judges. There is another grievance as to the mode in which the civil cases are dealt with in the Queen's Bench Division. It is difficult to make out where a case will be really tried when there are a good many Judges trying causes, and there are now a great many more than there used to be. Of course, there is but one Judge trying each list of cases before him. Those cases are put down for trial before that particular Judge in their order. But if the Judge who has those cases in his paper on one day does not try them all, they are not left to be tried before him, or even in the same Court, but they are very likely transferred on the next day into another Court for trial before another Judge. The result is, that your case may be put into the list in Court I. It is at the bottom of that list. All the cases before yours are tried. If your case remained in that Court it would be the first in the next day's list; but that is not the way at is done. It is taken into another
  42
  Court, and, instead of being first in the list and tried at once, you may be kept there all day, because perhaps it is the last in the list in the next Court. That has been the cause of a great deal of irritation; and I think it might be cured by some arrangement for consultation as to the mode in which the lists of cases are to be managed. As to the mercantile cases, it has been said by people of considerable weight in the City that they are driven out of the Queen's Courts and into arbitration, or forced to settle their cases because they cannot get them satisfactorily tried in the Queen's Courts. There was a great grievance felt about that. Their cases were put into the general list. You might, therefore, have a mercantile case between merchants placed in the list in one Court, but, as I have stated, not reached, and the parties would be brought from the City into another Court on another day, and, considering the nature of their business, and what a burden it is for them to be present for two days in Court with their witnesses, that was recognised to be a great hardship and inconvenience; but by arrangement with the Lord Chief Justice, having regard to the practice in the City, this grievance has almost vanished; the City causes are put into a list by themselves, and they are called on one after another; but in the City these formal applications which I have mentioned as oppressive upon mercantile men, with regard to inspection of books, answering interrogatories, making affidavits, and so on, affect them very much, and for these reasons they have a disinclination to go to law. Now, I come to the Chancery Division. There are grievances with regard to the Chancery Division. That matter was inquired into in 1875 by a Committee over which I presided, not composed of Judges or lawyers alone, but of Judges, lawyers, and some merchants. That Committee reported to the Lord Chancellor that there were grievances as to the mode in which the business of the Courts of Chancery was conducted. The defects there are said to be these: In the Chancery Division cases are now tried with witnesses instead of an affidavit. They are called witness-causes, and they may be taken before any of the Chancery Judges. A case is not transferred except under particular

  43
  circumstances from the Judge in whose Court it is. If, therefore, he has witness-causes to try, he can only give a certain number of days in the week to the trial of witness-causes. The result is, that he may be trying a cause with witnesses on the two days in the week that he may give to hearing such causes. He has not then finished the cause, but he does not go on the next day until he finishes it; he postpones it until the next week, and the parties who may have come from a distance must go away with their witnesses, and come up again the following week. That system has caused very great inconvenience, and constantly causes very great expense. There is one Judge in the Chancery Division who tries witness-causes only, and the hearing of the causes put down for trial before him goes on one day after another until they are finished; but causes of that description may be put down before the other Judges, and, if so, they are taken in that way. Another cause of complaint in the Chancery Division is this: When the case after the decree is pronounced has to be worked out, that has to be done in the Judge's Chambers before the chief clerk, and the way they proceed, necessitated, I suppose, by the magnitude of their business, is this: The chief clerk generally gives an appointment to the parties for an hour only, and when the matter goes before him, therefore, the hour is up before much has been done, or, at all events, before the matter is finished, and he stops that case in order to go on with another. He is then asked by the parties when they are to come again; and he tells them they must go down to the bottom of his appointments. So that after having been before the chief clerk with their witnesses for an hour, the matter, so far from being finished, has hardly been begun, and the parties are sent away. But they do not go on the next day; they have to take an appointment at the bottom of his list, which may throw them over a month. They then have to come up again with their witnesses for another hour; they cannot finish then, and they are sent away again. That seems to me to be a matter which ought to be cured, and which can be cured. I will say no more than that. An elaborate Report was made by that Committee upon the subject, and when you look at the large business
  44
  that is done in the Chancery Division, notwithstanding the Judges have worked extremely hard, as it is well known they have, your Lordships will not be surprised when you see the arrears as compared with those which I read at first. At the present moment there are 557 cases in the Chancery Division which are not heard, and they are practically 9 or 10 months in arrear. We came to the conclusion then that we ought to have another Judge added to the Chancery Division, and I should like to have that well considered now; not adding one to the Queen's Bench or taking away any, for there is not one too many, but adding; another Judge in the Chancery Division with a proper staff. We might then have-two Judges in the Chancery Division trying what they call witness cases. There is another matter in regard to the Chancery. Division. A great many of the cases, which are now brought in the Court of Chancery are really Common Law cases—real pure Common Law cases. It is, said, but I cannot vouch for the fact, that costs are more liberally allowed in the Chancery Division than in the Common Law Division, and that that induces some people to take a case into' the Chancery Division. If that be true, the matter ought to be looked into. We ought to look into the costs of both Divisions, and see whether with regard to the very same kind of action the costs ought not to be the same, so that that, temptation may be taken away, and then the cases should be sent where they ought to go, that is to say, to the Common Law Division. Now, so far, I have; gone into the question of the administration, of the law in civil actions. I do not pretend that I have exhausted it, but I have: shown heads which I think justify inquiry, and which ought to have speedy treatment. But now I come to one off the most important things in my view that is, the criminal administration, and I cannot help thinking that the burning question with regard to that is the question whether there ought not to be a Court of Criminal Appeal. If there is to be a Court of Criminal Appeal what ought to be considered about it with regard to the extent to which the appeal ought to be allowed? There has arisen a state of things which I cannot help thinking inmost dangerous with regard to the administration of the Criminal Law.

  45
  Now-a-days, the moment a prisoner is condemned to death or to any severe punishment, that is done which never was done before, the attorney for the prisoner endeavours to get it set aside. Up to a very late date, according to my recollection, and as far as I have ever known, the two people who could not interfere after the trial of a prisoner either on his behalf or against him were his counsel and his attorney. But now the constant practice is that the moment a prisoner is convicted and sentenced to a heavy punishment his or her attorney immediately begins to set about to get up petitions in favour of his client. It must be and is well known that he gets the petitions signed by people who cannot possibly know anything about the case. Multitudes of people sign a petition which is drawn up by a prisoner's attorney before they see it—without seeing what the petition states they sign their names. Then the next point is to get a Member of Parliament to ask a question of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, and pressure is then put upon the Home Secretary. If that is allowed to go on it will practically produce an appeal to the House of Commons in each case. The Home Secretary used hardly ever to be invoked unless for the purpose of mere mercy; but now he is invoked on almost every occasion, and asked to consider whether the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the Court were both right. It has become a question of an appeal to the Home Secretary, it is nothing else. It is not the exercise of the prerogative of mercy now, it is an appeal to the Home Secretary to revise and overlook the verdicts of juries and the sentences of Judges. In my opinion it is in many cases necessary, and it is well recognised, I think, that the verdicts of juries in criminal cases ought to be re-considered, and that the sentences of Judges ought to be re-considered; but I say that to leave those two things or either of them to be done by one man is throwing a greater weight upon that one man, however high his character or great his ability, than he is able to bear. I, therefore, for one, suggest that there should be a Court of Criminal Appeal created, and that it should be empowered to deal to the same extent as the Home Secretary is able to deal now with
  46
  criminal verdicts and sentences, that is to say, that they should re-consider them carefully and investigate with the utmost patience, in order to see whether the verdict may not unhappily have gone wrong, and that they should have the power of advising that sentences should be altered and to what extent. Of course, that there should ever be a new trial of a prisoner who has been acquitted is contrary to the law of England. In my opinion, the Court of Appeal might absolutely set aside a conviction if satisfied that there had been a wrong conviction; but to try a prisoner over again would be contrary to every principle of English law. It is also contrary, in my opinion, to every idea and principle of English law, that a sentence which has been passed by a Judge should be increased. But a sentence which is too severe may be diminished. I cannot see how that can injure anybody, and it is no more than justice to the prisoner. My suggestion for a Court of Criminal Appeal is not that it should be a changing Court as in our present Courts, with the Judges changing from day to day, but that there should be a permanent Court of experienced Judges nominated by the Crown, and that that Court of Criminal Appeal should have the power of setting aside a conviction when they came to a clear conclusion that it had been wrong, instead of the matter going before the Home Secretary, upon whom the burden cast is too great, and also that they should have the power of diminishing sentences when they thought those sentences had been too severe; and that for the purpose of doing either they should not be confined to the strict laws of evidence, or to any other strict law, but that they should be allowed to take into consideration, as the Home Secretary now does, any circumstance, either before or after the trial. They should take into consideration any circumstance which might be brought before them. But, nevertheless, the institution of a Court of Criminal Appeal should in no way interfere with the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in dispensing mercy, either before or after an inquiry by the Court of Appeal, but such mercy should not be extended on the ground of either a wrong conviction or a wrong sentence, those being questions left for

  47
  the determination of the Court. That prerogative should be exercised by the Crown just as it is now. Then it may be said there might be a difficulty in getting this Court of Criminal Appeal to meet. My suggestion is, that the Judges nominated on that Court should undertake—it will be a fresh burden upon them, but they must under take it—to hear any criminal appeal within, say, three weeks, or such other time as might be limited, but a very short time after the trial, when it was desired to revise the sentence. At any time of the year they must be ready to attend the Court, for promptitude in these cases is a matter of essential importance. My Lords, these are matters in the administration of the law which I cannot help thinking of great importance all of them. They are defects which it may be made out—they are all alleged defects—which ought to be inquired into, and if they are found to exist they ought to have a remedy applied to them. I have thought that the best way of getting people to consent to be convinced that some of them were, perhaps, not well founded, and as to those which might be found to be existing, the best way to consult upon their remedy, and to suggest a remedy, was to have a Royal Commission, a Commission not of Judges alone, not of lawyers alone, but of persons of experience in business, in country life, and in London life; and then, if they come to an accord, I have thought myself that any legislation would be greatly facilitated if brought forward by the Lord Chancellor. As has been said by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) to-day of himself as a young Parliamentary hand, I do not pretend to have any experience as to Parliamentary procedure. I find myself generally wrong if I attempt to do anything in the Parliamentary way, and if my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack thinks there is any other mode of getting at the facts and carrying out this inquiry, of suggesting a remedy and getting that remedy carried out in any better way than by a Royal Commission, I am quite ready to accede to that. But this I will say, that having brought my mind that at all events some of these things would be for the benefit of the law, as far as I am concerned, I will never stay my hand until I have had the matter fully inquired
  48
  into, and until I have either through a Royal Commission or in some other way secured a suggestion for remedies which I think may be carried out by the Legislative.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not suppose there is any one of your Lordships who will deny the importance of the several topics to which the noble and learned Lord has called attention. The difficulty one has in following him is that the topics are so wide and so important, and have been spread over such a considerable field, that, with regard to some of them, it is impossible to suppose they are proper subjects of inquiry. They are subjects of high State policy, upon which we are quite prepared to consider any legislation which my noble and learned Friend may think proper to bring forward. I shall have a word or two presently to say upon the other points in his speech; but upon the subject of his last observations in regard to a Court of Criminal Appeal, I have only to point out to him, that an increase would be necessary in the number of Judges. He says there is already considerable arrear in the performance of their duties by Judges of first instance in the Queen's Bench Division, and the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal, would involve the necessity of adding other Judges, increasing their labours by the necessity of sitting within three weeks of the conviction appealed from. A prisoner could not be worse off, and might be better off, by an appeal, and it would not be unnatural, therefore, to suppose that everybody who is convicted would like to take his chance of getting off rather than he would remain under the sentence of the Judge who convicted him. I only point that out to my noble and learned Friend as showing the difficulty which arises from spreading over so wide a field matters, some of which might need inquiry, and others might be made the subject of legislation, if my noble and learned Friend thinks proper to bring it forward. I cannot help thinking that in the latter part of his speech, he, to some extent, filled the character of Balaam; because, having begun by showing defects in the administration of the law—
  LORD ESHER: May I ask my noble and learned Friend to forgive me? I said "alleged defects."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite certain that one gets rid of an observation by introducing a qualification of that sort. I am at a loss to know what is meant by an alleged defect, which is not a defect, for which a remedy is desired. He has at all events suggested to your Lordships that, so far as the Court of Appeal is concerned, it gets through its work extremely well, and is in a highly satisfactory condition. Of course one is glad to hear that thus there is a sort of favourable contrast with other Courts. But there was one factor in that problem which he omitted to notice. The Judges of the Court of Appeal are supposed to have undertaken to go circuit if necessary, but they have been relieved from that necessity; and they have thus escaped duties which have now to be discharged exclusively by Judges of the Queen's Bench Division. It is not unnatural, under those circumstances, that the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division have not been able to get through their work. Therefore, it is not a full statement of the case to say that the Judges of the Queen's Bench have not been able to get through all their work, while the Judges of the Court of Appeal have done so, because there has been a transference of work from one set of Judges to the other. Now, with reference to the alleged defect by reason of delay, I think my noble and learned Friend has hardly done justice to the course of legislation as affecting our administration of the law in later years. For very sufficient reasons I think the Legislature has determined that parties should be admissible witnesses, and also that in the Courts of Chancery oral testimony should be substituted for written proceedings in the trial of causes. The inevitable effect of these two changes has been that causes last a great deal longer than they used to do. What is known as a "short cause" has almost disappeared; wherever there is a question in dispute plaintiff and defendant and their witnesses have to be called to contradict each other, and the natural consequence is that the hearing of causes is prolonged. In spite of these changes, however, the work of the Courts is done more quickly, and judgments are arrived at more rapidly, than they used to be in times past. My principal objection to the
  50
  suggestion that we should institute an inquiry as regards many of the matters mentioned by my noble and learned Friend is that, if the defects exist as he states them, the facts are susceptible of being ascertained by the Rule Committee, of which the noble and learned Lord, like myself, is a member. If there are these great defects, two of them to which he gave the adherence of his own weighty opinion, namely, the abuse of the system of interrogatories, and of the inspection of documents, summonses, and so forth, are defects which would be manifest upon very short inquiry by himself and the other members of that Committee, and they are susceptible of being removed by the Committee. They have complete jurisdiction, and the Rule Committee was intended by the Judicature Acts to have complete jurisdiction in order to get rid of any defects in the administration of justice which might be found to exist. During the last five years, I can answer for it, my noble and learned Friend has not brought before the Rule Committee or suggested any rule or order with the object of remedying any of these alleged defects. I can assure him, as far as I am concerned, and I think I can answer for the other members of the Rule Committee, that the Committee will now gladly receive and consider any suggestion he may make for the purpose of removing these defects. Then my noble and learned Friend referred to the Committee over which he presided; but he does not seem to be aware that out of 41 suggestions that have been reported by that Committee, it has been my pleasure and privilege to carry 21 of them into effect, and that the whole of them would have been, at all events, attempted—I do not say successfully—to be carried into effect but for the difficulty of procuring the assent of Parliament to the appointment of a sixth Judge in Chancery, as he recommends. That is also a question capable of being brought before the House. Are we to suppose that the inquiry already made before my noble and learned Friend and his Committee is to be thrown away, and that we are to begin again de novo to inquire into the subject as if there had been no such inquiry? I have here the Report of the Committee, which extends over 108 pages. A great many witnesses

  51
  were examined, and the Committee came to the conclusion I have referred to. All that the Committee recommended which could be carried into effect has been done. I may remind the noble and learned Lord that he was himself a party, a short time since, to making a new rule or order that would have a considerable effect in saving costs, and which was made for the purpose of rendering the costs in the different divisions of the Courts the same. That has not been so long ago as that one can safely say yet that it has failed. Then, with regard to the only complaint as to our usual administration of justice, which my noble and learned Friend put forward as being a necessary subject for inquiry, I think it will be found that the noble and learned Lord has, on more than one occasion, admitted that, according to his judgment, from the inquiries he has made, many of the complaints that have been made against the administration of justice are unfounded. I think if, with his experience and his knowledge of the subject, he thinks they are unfounded, and says so, it cannot be said to be desirable that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into them when we have his own authoritative statement that they are not so well-founded as some people imagine. Then, as to the Circuits, the noble and learned Lord thinks that the Circuits ought to be diminished, but except in particular counties where the number of the population has been supposed to render it necessary to maintain them, he must be aware that the number of the Circuits has been diminished. That change was made not so very long ago. A Bill was passed last year with the object of relieving her Majesty's Judges when on circuit from the trial of certain classes of heavy cases which had hitherto almost exclusively occupied their time, and which had occupied them longer on circuit than they need be. At this moment I have not the number of criminal cases which they have been relieved from, but it has been not inconsiderable, but the Bill passed last year has been a relief in the same direction. Then, with reference to the suggested relief which my noble and learned Friend mentions as to the sittings of the Courts of Quarter Sessions, I am not aware that any inconvenience is felt in
  52
  the present condition of things after the passing of that Bill which it is not now perfectly easy to remove without any legislation and without any inquiry. If inconveniences are supposed to exist nothing can be easier than to call attention to them and to endeavour to remove them. My noble and learned Friend has also said that I attempted to carry into effect a resolution of the Judges, to which he has referred, passed with the view of better apportioning the work of the circuits, that is, with reference to the grouping of certain centres of population, and not sending the Judges of Assize to each county in turn. Why, I was met by protests from every county in England, and the opposition to my proposal was headed by the Lord Chief Justice, who is particularly conversant with those matters, and who thought it his duty to publicly protest against the carrying out of the resolution of the Judges. Of course, in the face of such opposition, both by the counties and the head of the Common Law Division, it was impossible for me to attempt to carry that resolution of the Judges into effect by legislation. In such circumstances what possible good could further inquiry do? What further inquiry is wanted on the subject?—because that seems to be the point of my noble Friend's observations. We know what the facts are. If you have only a certain number of Judges, with more for them to do than they can do, the causes must either be delayed or you must increase the number of Judges. My noble and learned Friend is against increasing the number of Judges, at all events in the Common Law Division, and for the purpose of diminishing the difficulties which consequently exist, as he says, at present, he proposes to cast new duties upon them. I do not think it would be quite desirable to proceed to examine the whole of our Common Law administration, either by Royal Commission or even by extending such observations as I am addressing to your Lordships to-night. Now, turning to the remarks that have fallen from the noble and learned Lord in reference to the adminstration of the Criminal Law, I think the observations made by my noble and learned Friend as to the desirability of bail being allowed, are perfectly well-founded; but the answer which I have

  53
  to make is this. I wish to point out that it lies entirely within the discretion of the Magistaates whether prisoners shall be let out on bail or not, and I confess that in these days, when railways and the electric telegraph make it so difficult for persons out on bail to escape from justice, I cannot understand the reluctance of Magistrates to allow prisoners out on bail. The Magistrates can do it if they like, and, as far as I am concerned, I have over and over again protested against the reluctance of some of the Magistrates in this country to admit people to bail, even on their own recognizances. They can do it if they please, and if they think it right to do so. It is only right to observe that at Common Law a misdemeanant is entitled to bail. For reasons which seemed good to the Legislature not so very long ago the law was altered, and it was left to the discretion of the Magistrates whether misdemeanants should be entitled to give bail or not. But that is a condition of things which no inquiry by a Royal Commission could alter. No alteration of the law is required in that respect. It depends upon the modes in which the Magistrates think it right to administer the law personally. I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend that it is the idlest thing in the world in the present day, when it is so difficult for people to move from place to place without being detected, for Magistrates to manifest so much reluctance to admit to bail, but at present I cannot see why any Royal Commission should be appointed to make a difference in the law, the Magistrates having now full power in the matter. With regard to the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal, I am afraid I cannot concur with my noble and learned Friend in the observations he has made. For instance, I cannot understand his objection on the ground of novelty to the solicitors of prisoners petitioning the Home Secretary in the interest of their clients. I do not think it is so entirely novel a proceeding that the solicitor of a person who has been convicted of a capital crime should interfere after the sentence and attempt to obtain mercy, as my noble and learned Friend supposes. I suspect that was always done; and why the solicitors or even the advocate for the prisoner should be prevented from doing that I have not
  54
  the least notion. Lord Esher says there was a rule rgainst it. I never heard of any such rule, nor do I think such a rule every prevailed. I can only say that I know a great many cases in which it has been done, and I doubt whether the practice of their doing so is much more common than it was formerly, although, no doubt, such cases are brought more prominently before the public now in consequencs of the increase of sensational literature. That has, no doubt, increased very much, and public attention has been of late years addressed to such topics much more than it used to be; but why the solicitor who has defended a convicted person should not be all owed to send in Petitions to the Home Secretary, if he pleases to do so, I cannot understand. Neither do I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it would be the duty of a Court of Criminal Appeal only to decrease, and not to increase, sentences, if deemed necessary. On the contrary, in my opinion, it would be the duty of such a Court to pronounce the sentence that the Court below ought in the first instance to have pronounced. I have no desire to make invidious distinctions, but I can remember one very remarkable instance in which, when, in consequence of a case having been tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, it was possible for a new trial to be had, a man, who had been indicted was tried before Sir Cresswell Cresswell, and sentenced' on his first trial to seven years' transportation. A new trial was ordered, though the Privy Council afterwards held that the Court had gone beyond its functions in doing so; but when the man was tried a second time and convicted, his sentence was not the same, for, instead of seven years' he was sentenced on the second occasion to tea years' penal servitude. That certainly does not show that it is contrary to the law of England that a sentence should be increased. I rather think my noble and learned Friend has been somewhat misled in this matter, having regard to the confirmation and increase of sentences in Ireland. It is quite true that according to the summary jurisdiction in. England you cannot increase sentences; but the Irish Act is differently framed, and there is a difference, therefore, with regard to dealing with the sentences of Magistrates in Ireland and England.

  55
  Now, on the whole, the only thing I can say to my noble and learned Friend is this: That a great many of the defects in the administration of the law to which he has referred, are, I think, susceptible of remedy, if they exist, under the existing law. Whether they exist or not must be within the knowledge of the learned Judges of the Court of which he is a member; and if the noble and learned Lord will bring forward these matters before the Rule Committee, and make any proposals for amending the administration of the law, I will undertake to say that they will receive the most thorough and careful consideration, with the utmost desire on the part of myself and the other members of that Committee to remedy, and then when we have done all we can, and exhausted that means of remedying the defects which he perceives, and it is found that legislation or inquiry is desirable in addition, in order to do more than we have been able to do by our existing powers, I think then the time will have come when my noble Friend will be entitled to say we have exhausted all our powers, and yet there are defects to be remedied in the English law, and that he calls for a Royal Commission. But until that time has arrived, until he has exhausted that very practical mode of operation, I think it is undesirable and unwise to tear up the Judicature Act of 1875 by the roots to see how the plant is growing. Until then I cannot give the noble and learned Lord any encouragement in the notion that the Government will consent to the appointment of the Commission he asks for.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble and learned Friend opposite has made an important, useful, and interesting speech, but I cannot help agreeing with the Lord Chancellor that he has not made out a case for the appointment of a Royal Commission, though I should be the last person to deny that there may be cases which are best met in that way. But when certain definite allegations are made upon the subjects of delay and of expense, I think it ought to be shown that there is reason to believe that those evils, as far as they really exist, are so connected with the general system of judicature established by law as not to be capable of having remedies applied to them, either by existing authority or by
  56
  new legislation, as experience may suggest, without taking a step, which, as it seems to me, might involve a general revision of the whole system for which there is no necessity. That, in my judgment, would be an evil, unless there were a necessity for it. I quite concur with my noble and learned Friend in thinking that such evils as unnecessary delay in trial, unnecessary details of procedure which contribute to delay and expense, and unnecessary expense generally, are evils to which the minds of everyone connected with the administration of justice ought to be addressed. But I must say that as to some things which my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has adverted, the Council of Judges, or, if necessary, a Departmental Commission such as my noble and learned Friend presided over, have quite adequate powers to obtain the needful information and to suggest the necessary remedies, and I should not feel confident that such a mixed Commission as has been suggested would, as to many things which are so very technical, have equal weight with the other modes of inquiry. Therefore, I cannot but hope that these matters will be dealt with without that elaborate and large machinery. I do not like travelling into the numerous and interesting topics to which my noble and learned Friend has adverted; but I am tempted to say a word or two as to his views of a Court of Criminal Appeal. I shall not say anything as to the abstract desirableness of having some more effective Court of Criminal Appeal than we have at present; but I do think it is necessary, when that matter is considered, that its consequences should be thoroughly considered too. If there were such a Court of Appeal as my noble and learned Friend has suggested, it seems to me there would be a great probability of the criminal work of the Courts being very largely increased, so as to make their existing strength for the trial of civil and criminal cases quite inadequate. If the conditions were such as my noble and learned Friend has suggested; if, as the Lord Chancellor has said, the prisoners may possibly gain, and could not possibly lose, I should imagine that, subject to the consideration of expense which might operate in some cases, it would be the almost

  57
  universal practice, in important cases, to make such an appeal. The mere delay entailed would, in cases of capital importance, be a sufficient inducement for an appeal, and would render the carrying out the sentence improbable; because, after a considerable delay, and one or more protracted investigations, there would be very little probability of the capital sentence being carried into effect in any case. But I must go a little further and say, if there is to be such a Court of Criminal Appeal, I think it would never do to give it both the functions of a Court of Law and the discretion of the Home Secretary. If I did not misunderstand my noble and learned Friend, he suggested that a Court of Criminal Appeal should not be bound by the rules of evidence. Now, I do think that is a departure from the principle of a Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal may be very competent to determine whether there has been a satisfactory trial of a prisoner, or whether there has been a proper sentence passed upon him, and, if necessary, to direct a new trial, or, in some cases, even to reverse a sentence; but to do that as a Court of Appeal, not acting upon ordinary judicial rules, but by way of departure from them, seems to me to be a confusion of functions essentially discordant. And further. I do not believe that the applications to the Home Secretary when the appeal had been heard, and had failed, would be at all less numerous', or that the way of dealing with them would be at all different in its character from what it now is. There must always be a tribunal capable of advising the Crown as to the prerogative of mercy, as my noble and learned Friend himself said; and you cannot exclude, and ought not to exclude, from the consideration of that tribunal matters which are not to be judged by the strict rules of evidence, matters which go to mercy, and which do not go to the correctness or incorrectness of the verdict or sentence. The two processes must, in my judgment, be kept distinct; and I feel tolerably sure that those who imagine that the functions of the Home Secretary and his duties would be materially limited by the establishment of such a Court of Appeal are mistaken. It may be that the reasons for the estab-
  58
  lishment of such a Court are sufficient to justify all the delays, and all the inconveniences, which, I think, would inevitably arise from it. But, for my part, I am not dissatisfied, from all I can learn, with the way in which the functions of the Home Secretary have been exercised. I agree it is a very onerous duty, but it is a duty which must be discharged. I greatly doubt whether prisoners in general would gain anything by appealing if sentences could be increased; and I am not satisfied that if you had an appeal in criminal cases—I agree, of course, that a man who has been acquitted is not to be tried again—that there is any just or sound reason why, whatever ought to have been the sentence passed in the first instance, whether it be more or less than that actually given, should not be pronounced.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I should judge from the state of the Benches that this legal discussion has not proved very attractive or exhilerating to the Members of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless I feel it only right to add a few observations, even if it detain your Lordships somewhat longer. The sum and substance of the speech of the Lord Chancellor appears to be this—everything is in most perfect and satisfactory condition; inquiry is not wanted, because we are perfectly acquainted with all the facts; that as to most of the complaints made we have the Rule Committee, which could remedy them at once, eager and anxious to act; and that as to the remainder we have a Legislature prepared to deal with them with great readiness. But, unfortunately, some of these evils have been existing for a long time now, and the Rule Committee does not act, and Parliament does not legislate, and we are left where we were with these evils still unremedied and with the complaints still as serious as ever they were. Now, I quite sympathise with some of the objections which my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has urged against the inquiry asked for; but, on the other hand, I think he under-estimates one great advantage which would be derived from such an inquiry. It would bring to a definite point the complaints that are made and the allegations that are levelled against particular parts of our judicial procedure. There would be forth coming

  59
  an authoritative and definite statement as to the existence or non-existence of the alleged evils, and as to the remedies which are desirable or possible; and and that having been done, it would mot be so easy for those who have the power of dealing with the matter to hold their hands and do nothing. I am not making any complaint against either the Rule Committee or Parliament. We know the natural indisposition to inaugurate and start any considerable change. There is a certain amount of scepticism as to the existence of the evil and doubts as to whether alterations would be really likely to remove the complaints; and in the absence of something which points definitely to the evils and to the remedies those even who have the power to deal with the matter are indisposed to move. I cannot help thinking that some form of inquiry—it might be by a Departmental Committee—into these matters to ascertain the existence of the evils and to deal with the remedies would be of real value. On one point I cannot agree with my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down, as to the institution of a Departmental inquiry. I think that the addition to the Departmental Committee of one or two gentleman outside the body of the law would be of distinct advantage and would add to the probability of the recommendations being carried into effect. Departmental Committees have been appointed which have had upon them others than lawyers. Take one matter to which my noble and learned Friend opposite alluded, the question of increasing by one the number of the Chancery Division Judges. I think if we had a layman about whom no sort of suspicion could arise, it would be difficult to resist such a recommendation. It is true that was recommended by the Departmental Committee over which my noble and learned Friend presided, but I am afraid there is a little indisposition on the part of Parliament to accept the views of Judges upon the question of additions to their number. There is an idea—I believe it myself to be quite an unfounded idea—that they would be likely to urge additions to their number, with the view of lightening their work. My experience in the House of Commons has told me that that is certainly the impression entertained: and I cannot
  60
  help thinking that if such a recommendation came with the additional opinion of a layman, it would come with such a weight of authority as would be difficult to resist.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I am right, that recommendation had the additional weight of a layman's opinion, the Member of the Committee representing the Treasury.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am aware it came with that additional weight of being a recommendation by a Member of the Treasury. I cannot help thinking that the addition upon the Committee of a man versed in public affairs would add considerably to the confidence felt in their Report, and consequently to the probability of the recommendations of the Committee being adopted. I am not going in detail into the matters to which my noble and learned Friend has called attention. I quite agree with him that these questions of discovery of documents and administration of interrogatories broadcast in every action demand serious and immediate attention. I am quite satisfied that with all the advantages which I believe have resulted from the Judicature Acts, they have brought with them, as was inevitable in a great change of that description, certain mischiefs which have been a drawback to the general advantage. But after a system has been in work for a considerable number of years, as this has, those drawbacks become manifest, and you have acquired sufficient experience to gauge their importance and to determine whether they should or not be grappled with. The expense attending ordinary Common Law actions has been very greatly increased, undoubtedly owing to the new system of procedure which has been adopted; and that is, of course, a very great evil. One matter to which I should like to call the attention of the Lord Chancellor is the large number of appeals from inferior Courts to the Divisional Courts. This is a great part of the work of the Queen's Bench Division, and a very important part. The tendency has been constantly—and I do not complain at all of it—to send more and more work to the inferior tribunals of this country, and appeals from their decisions are brought to the Queen's Bench. But those appeals are so numerous and often raise such impor-

  61
  tant questions, that the Court of Appeal in such cases should certainly be of a satisfactory character; and, except incases where there has been a further appeal, sufficient attention has not been paid to the importance of making that Court of Appeal one of a satisfactory character. At present a Divisional Court is formed on no particular principle; any two Judges available at the time may sit as an Appeal Court from the decisions of the inferior Courts—to-day these two Judges, to-morrow other two Judges—and very often matters of great importance are determined by them conclusively without appeal. I venture to suggest that this Court of Appeal from the inferior Courts ought to be a tribunal constituted for the purpose, and selected from among the Judges, with, of course, power to substitute one for another should occasion require it for this purpose; so that it should be understood to be the regular Court of Appeal from the inferior Courts, and selected of Judges whose decisions would command general satisfaction and reliance. If you were to do that, I believe you would greatly improve your judicial system; for I cannot help thinking that, while you are sending these cases more and more to the inferior Courts, it is necessary that you should have an Appeal Court that will be satisfactory. As matters stand at present, if a man has sufficient means, he may rely on getting his case thoroughly and satisfactorily tried; but I do not feel altogether the same amount of certainty in the case of a man who had not those means, and whose case may be dealt with in a different fashion. So that I think if cases are to be sent to the County Courts, it would be much more satisfactory that you should provide a really reliable Court of Appeal from those tribunals. It is not only a question of the County Courts, but there are the Justices' Courts, among others, from which the Crown cases come for determination. This work which has become important enough of late years requires to be specially dealt with. Then, with regard to the circuits, I do not think you would gain very much by the proposal to concentrate the circuit work in particular towns, when you weigh the inconvenience that would arise from witnesses having to be brought considerable distances, and the dissatis-
  62
  faction that would be produced by making the trials less local, against the possibility of a few days saved in the circuit. I will not pursue the inquiry into the further questions which my noble and learned Friend has touched upon except the last, as to the creation of a Court of Appeal, which is of so important a character that I think it would be wrong for me to be silent upon it, inasmuch as I agree very much with what my noble and learned Friend has said, and have the misfortune to differ very completely from both my noble and learned Friends who followed him. I have always felt it to be utterly discreditable to our jurisprudence that we should have no Court of Appeal in criminal cases. I cannot see how, on principle, this state of things can be justified. If there is a £10 note at issue in a case, the Legislature provides abundance of appeals to secure that neither shall a jury wrongfully fix a man's liability nor the law determine wrongly against him, yet in a matter of life and death there is no such provision. If a man's liberty for the rest of his days or for a lengthened period, or even his life is at stake, the decision of the jury and the sentence of the Judge are to be regarded as absolutely conclusive. That state of things has always appeared to me to be entirely unjustifiable, and only to be excused if the evils of introducing a system of appeal were shown to be so overwhelming as to render it undesirable to do so. It seems to me the burden is on those who opposed such a proposal to show that it is practically impossible to carry it into effect. My noble and learned Friend who has just spoken said that the way in which our Home Secretaries have from time to time discharged the onerous duties resting upon them is deserving of all praise, and I quite agree with him. It is a most distasteful task that the Home Secretary in such cases has to perform, and I believe that every Home Secretary has brought to bear upon it the greatest possible pains and care to do only that which is right and just in the discharge of the onerous duties connected with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. Nevertheless, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the public are taking an increasing interest in the administration of justice, particularly in criminal cases; and in a

  63
  particular case recently the conduct of the Home Secretary was canvassed to an extent which never occurred before; and not only is that the case, but his determination is even felt to affect the Government of which he is a Member. It is quite conceivable that cases might arise—recent occurrences have shown, indeed, that it may actually so happen—where the position of a Government may be seriously affected by the decision of the Home Secretary in dealing with this question of prerogative in particular cases. I cannot help thinking that nothing could be more unfortunate than that that state of things should exist. The prerogative of mercy, of course, must remain in the Crown, and the intervention of the Home Secretary will have to be in some cases sought; but the unfortunate state of things which I have mentioned ought as far as possible to be remedied, and I cannot doubt that in many cases the trouble would be avoided altogether if there were a Court of Criminal Appeal. If you had some tribunal to which an appeal could legitimately be made, you would stop the kind of public agitation which now supervenes after sentence is pronounced and when the matter is brought before the Home Secretary for his consideration. Now, the objections that have been urged are: that if you were to allow this to be done, and if such a Court were in existence, you would be overwhelmed with these appeals, and your Judges would have more than they could do. That seems to me at the outset to be an objection which should not be considered for a moment. If this is a right thing to be done in the administration of justice, and if the present number of Judges is not enough for the work, then the country is bound to add sufficiently to the number of Judges to enable this important work to be done, and ought not to refuse to have right and justice done because the present number of Judges is not sufficient to compass the work. For myself, I very much doubt, however, whether the objection is not to a large extent imaginary. I doubt whether there would be anything like the number of appeals which are alleged as a reason for inducing us to refrain from making this change. I arrive at that conclusion for several reasons, and partly from analogy to civil cases. In civil matters
  64
  where people might appeal there are numberless cases where they do not do so, but submit to the judgments against them, in a certain number of cases, no doubt, partly on account of the expense, but in many cases, because they feel that an appeal would be hopeless; and I believe that which operates as a deterrent from appeals in civil cases would be practically found to be sufficient in criminal cases too. I do not think, therefore, you would have, as has been said, appeals in every case. A vast number of those appeals certainly might be easily and rapidly disposed of. In another country, I have myself seen a Court of Criminal Appeal at work; and except for two or three serious appeals, where there was really a question to be argued and fought out, the majority of the cases were disposed of in a few minutes, it being seen at once that there was nothing in them at all. I believe this fear is greatly exaggerated, and it does not seem to me to be a sufficient ground for refusing to do that which I think has long been felt by many to be needed in, at all events, some cases. I feel certain that if where necessary you had the matter after the verdict of the jury again calmly argued out before a Court of Appeal, these public agitations would subside. It would be seen that the matter had been re-considered by persons who were entirely independent and unaffected by the passing influences of the moment, which may be sometimes attributed to the Judge who presided at the trial and to the jury who tried the prisoner; and you would consequently find an absence of that agitation which now is manifested in particular cases. I think, also, that you may gain these advantages without suffering the inconveniences which some apprehend and deprecate. One thing further only I would say in reference to what my noble and learned Friend has said. I agree that this Court must be a Court of Appeal; but, at the same time, I do not think there would be anything unreasonable or inconsistent with sound principle in permitting that Court of Appeal to lend its ears to any information which had been derived since the date of the trial—any further facts which could be brought to their attention—anything, in short, which might be properly con-

  65
  sidered for the purpose of showing that the judgment arrived at should not have been arrived at, or would not have been arrived at, if all the circumstances had been known. My Lords, I have thought it right, although of course it can have no practical effect, as this matter has been broached to trouble your Lordships with my views upon it; because I have long been strongly of opinion that this is one of the reforms which is most urgently needed in our administration of justice.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.