Sitting of 20 March 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY (CONVERSION OF STOCK) BILLS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY,): It may be in the recollection of the House that last year I had to recommend the adoption of a Bill concerning the Taff Vale Railway, in which the question of dividing the ordinary Stock was considered. On that occasion the boon which it was proposed to confer on the stockholders was balanced by their consenting to the limitation of the profit on Stock, and to the insertion of a provision that if the profits on the Stock exceeded the dividend provided, the excess of profit should be devoted to the reduction of fares, or in making provision for better accommodation. I then mentioned that, in the ease of other Bills, coming forward, it might be desirable that they should be considered by a strong Committee of this House, or by a Joint Committee of both Houses. There are three Bills of this kind now before the House; and I intend to propose that they shall be referred to a Hybrid Committee, with power to hear evidence on both sides, and to consider what provision in the public interests ought to be inserted in them. I may mention that one of them is the Caledonian Bill, which, being technically an unopposed Bill, has been referred to me as Chairman of Ways and Means. Under the Standing Order I am empowered to mention the matter to the House, in order that they may decide whether it is one which is fit to be dealt with as an opposed measure—that is to say, that it should be considered by a Hybrid Committee. Considering the vast interests involved, I think it is not too much to ask the House to deal with the question. I beg now to move—
  "That the Caledonian Railway (Conversion of Stock) Bill, the Great Northern Railway (Capital). Bill, and the London and South-Western Railway (Conversion of Stock) Bill, he referred to-a Select Committee consisting of nine Members, five to he nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection.

  1237
  That, subject to the Rules, Orders, and Proceedings of this House, all Petitions against the said Bills be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the said Bills against such Petitions.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  That Five be the quorum."
  Question put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  ADMIRALTY—SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since the 20th of January last, a considerable number of the Lower or Second Division Clerks in the Seamen's Pay Branch of the Admiralty have been ordered to work eight hours daily instead of seven as heretofore; whether it was understood, on engagement prior to the date in question, that these clerks' daily office hours were from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; whether the extension of office hours has been necessitated in consequence of arrears; and, if so, whether such arrears were consequent upon a numerically insufficient staff; and whether, in view of his reply in this House on the 10th of December, 1888, to the hon. and learned Member for Preston, vide Hansard 331, 397, and 1576, any remuneration has been, or will be, given for the extra work; and, if so, at what rate?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): It is the fact that the Lower or Second Division Clerks in the Seamen's Pay Branch of the Admiralty have been required to give extra attendance at the office since January last. The necessity for this extra attendance is due to arrears of work having accumulated. The question as to the sufficiency of the present staff of this particular branch is under consideration; but, in the meanwhile, temporary assistance has been given from other branches of the Department. It is under consideration to give some additional pay to the clerks of the Second Division, from whom this extra attendance has been required.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the noble Lord whether, under the circumstances
  1238
  mentioned in the question, it is legally competent for the Admiralty to compel the attendance of Second Division Clerks beyond the recognised seven hours per day, and is he aware that the Treasury allow the Second Division Clerks 1s. 6d. an hour for overtime?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I think it is undesirable to raise any further question as to what extra services the Department are entitled to call for in times of emergency.
  DR. TANNER: I will put a further question on a future day, in order to afford the noble Lord the opportunity of giving me a proper answer.

  CHURCH PROPERTY.
  MR. CHANNING, who had on the Paper a question to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Return, ordered on the 20th of June, 1887, of the Property and Revenue of the Church of England and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, under the several heads specified in the Address moved on that day, will be presented, said: I believe that the question has been already substantially answered; but I would also like to know what the first portion of the Returns will cover, and when the Returns relating to the Metropolitan area are likely to be given to the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I must ask for notice of the question.

  IRELAND—THE CASE OF SERGEANT M'GUIRE.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case of Sergeant John M'Guire, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was stationed in Innismurray Island, off the coast of Sligo, in March 1889, and who received a wound on the head on the 17th March, 1889, from the effects of which he died shortly afterwards, if he can state under what circumstances Sergeant M'Guire received this wound; and whether Sergeant M'Guire at the time of his death left any money invested, or otherwise, in the hands of his superiors; and, if so, will it be handed over to his parents
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Constabulary authorities report that the sergeant's death was due to erysipelas, resulting from an accidental fall while engaged in separating two men who were quarrelling. The sergeant did not leave any money, invested or otherwise, in the hands of his superiors. The balance of his pay to the date of his decease was handed over to his mother.

  MONEY ORDER OFFICE AT BELCARRA.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will consent to open a Money Order Office at the Post Office of Belcarra, near Castlebar, in County Mayo, the population to be served being about 3,000, large numbers of whom visit England in the spring and autumn in search of work; and it is estimated that their remittances number nearly 100 per week in those seasons, to cash which their friends have to journey to Castlebar, five miles distant, while the letters are delivered to them at Belcarra?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): So far as I have been able to ascertain at present, the amount of business likely to be transactad at Belcarra would be hardly sufficient to cover the cost of conducting a money order office there. I will inquire, however, whether the special circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member would justify an office being opened, or whether it would be necessary to require a money guarantee, and will communicate the result to him.

  EXERCISE IN PRISONS.
  MR.JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the refusal of certain prisoners in gaols in Ireland to take exercise with certain other prisoners is allowable by and in accordance with Rules issued by the Irish Prisons Boards last year; whether such prisoners so refusing constitute a class in themselves; and whether, in prisons where there are more than one of such prisoners, they will be given their exercise at the same hours and in the same place, as in the case of other distinct classes of prisoners?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the new Rule issued last year in regard to the exercising of convicted prisoners does not allow any such prisoner to refuse to take exercise with other prisoners. It requires that the exercise shall be taken at such times and places and subject to such conditions as the Governor or surgeon may direct. The fact of a prisoner being convicted under a particular Statute, or refusing to exercise with other prisoners, does not constitute a recognised classification for purposes, of exercise under the Prison Rules.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether under the Rules issued last year, with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman and no doubt by his desire, prisoners were not to be allowed to take exercise in their own clothes or not as they please? Are those Rules consistent with his statement now, that prisoners are not allowed to wear their own clothes? In fact, are they not in direct contradiction with his statement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see nothing about prisoners wearing their own clothes in the question on the Paper. I have described the existing Rule to the hon. Member, and there is no connection between the wearing of clothes and the exercise of prisoners.
  MR. SEXTON: Did not the new Rule, following, as it did, upon a debate in this House as to the indignity inflicted upon prisoners convicted under the Act of 1887, in not being allowed to wear their own clothes at exercise, allow prisoners convicted under the summary clauses of that Act to exercise separately from others?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I have distinctly stated over and over again, in answer to questions and in debate across the floor of this House, that no distinction is drawn between the conviction of prisoners under the Statute of 1887 and under any other Statute whatever.
  MR. SEXTON: Then, what was the intention of the new Rules unless it was to allow separate exercise in some cases?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not intended to be a privilege confined exclusively to persons convicted under the Act of 1887, although no doubt the possibility of taking separate exercise is contemplated by the Rule.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it intended to disqualify a certain class of prisoners from the enjoyment of the privilege, to reduce their status, and to compel them to bear their imprisonment under what is known as the solitary system?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that I fully understand the question of the hon. Member. He had better give notice of it. There is no intention of degrading any one.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I will repeat the question by and bye.

  EVICTIONS AT TIPPERARY.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many houses of evicted tenants are now occupied by the police in the town of Tipperary; what is the rent of each house so occupied, and under what conditions of tenancy are they held; and will he state what is the necessity for taking houses of this kind whilst there is room enough in the ordinary barracks and the Town Hall now occupied by the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that the police occupy two houses from which tenants were evicted in the town of Tipperary. It is proposed to pay at the rate of £70 a year for one and at the rate of £6 a month for the other. No final decision has been as yet arrived at in regard to the conditions of the tenancy. The Constabulary authorities add that the permanent barracks and the Town Hall do not afford accommodation for the number of police now necessarily employed on duty in the town.

  GOVERNMENT BUILDING SURVEYORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if Messrs. Patterson and Kempster, Building Surveyors of Dublin, are permanently attached, in an official capacity, to the Board of Works and Board of Control of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland; what amounts, in the event of their not being so attached, have been paid to them as fees, &c, for professional services during the last five years; what sum is at present due to them; what proportion of the total sum for five years was paid in each of these years; whether in that
  1242
  time estimates were sought from other surveyors in Dublin for the work done; if so, what sums were paid to other building surveyors by these two Boards during those five years; and what are the names of these other surveyors?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): (1) Messrs. Patterson and Kempster are not permanently attached in an official capacity to the Board of Works and the Board of Control of Lunatic Asylums. (2) £2,298, (3) The amount due for work done or in hand has not yet been ascertained, but would probably amount to £500, (4) The amounts are: For 1885, £920; 1886, £80; 1887, £68; 1888, £783; and 1889, £447—total, £2,298. (5 and 6) Quantity surveyors are paid on an established scale of fees. The Board of Works have never invited estimates from quantity surveyors for their work. The practice formerly was for building contractors to select and employ their own surveyor to take out quantities, charging his fees as an item in the cost of the work. The Board had, under this arrangement, no control in the selection of the surveyor, though they had to pay his fees; and this led them to adopt the present system of employing a surveyor of their own selection. The following sums have been paid to other surveyors during the five years referred to:—T. C. Antisell, £47 15s. 3d.; E. Banks, £107 7s. 5d.; E. Bermingham, £71 14s. 11d.; Corbett, £5 5s.; W. H. Hill,£25; and F. Morley, £426 14s. 4d.—total, £683 16s. 11d.
  MR. CRILLY: Arising out of the answer of the hon. Gentleman, may I ask upon what principle a selection is made in the absence of open competition between the surveyors of Dublin; and how it is that these particular surveyors have practically enjoyed a monopoly of the work of these two Boards for the last five years? It would appear that they have received £5,000, while no other Dublin surveyor has obtained more than £800.
  MR. JACKSON: I suppose the reason is that they were surveyors in whom these Boards had confidence. I believe that the practice which has been adopted is the same as that adopted by private firms, namely, to employ men in whom they have confidence.

  IRISH SOCIETY AND CITY COMPANIES ESTATES COMMITTEE.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since the Select Committee appointed last year on the Motion of the Government to inquire into the Charters of the Estates in Ireland of the Irish Society and the City Companies, and as to their trusts and obligations, unanimously
  "Recommended that a Committee upon the same subject should be appointed the next Session of Parliament,"
  that Committee will, in accordance with usual practice, be appointed; and if the Government will move for its appointment at a sufficiently early date to allow time for the Committee to arrive at an effective Report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government quite recognise what was recommended by the Select Committee last Session, and are willing to enter into an obligation on the subject.

  THE CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government assent to the continuation Return of persons proceeded against under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, on to-day's Paper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am rather unwilling to grant the Return as it will cause trouble and expense, and as all the facts appear in the Criminal Statistics. If, however, the hon. Member can privately give me reasons, I will offer no serious objection to the Return.

  RICHARD PIGOTT.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now give the respective dates in August and September 1888 upon which the £10 note and the £5 note, which formed part of the remittance received from the late Richard Pigott by his housekeeper on the 23rd February, 1889, were drawn from the Bank by Mr. Soames, and the numbers of such notes; and whether he can ascertain and will state to whom
  1244
  MR. Soames paid such notes, and on what date or dates?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I communicated to the House on February 21 all the information I have on this subject. I have no better means than the hon. Member himself of ascertaining at what dates a solicitor draws money from his hankers or pays it to his witnesses.
  MR. COBB: May I ask whether any steps have been taken to trace the notes?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not traced the notes.
  MR. COBB: Have the police traced them?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Not that I am aware of.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiry?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think this is a matter which it is not right for me to inquire into.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the police whether, in their investigations, they have discovered when Mr. Soames drew the money?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Certainly not.

  INSTRUCTION OF IRISH MILITIA OFFICERS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether complaints have reached him that the result of not holding Schools of Instruction for Militia officers in Ireland for a long time has been injurious to the Service; and whether steps will he taken to have them revived, or to allow officers of the rank of Lieutenant and Captain to be attached to Line regiments, under the same rules laid down for schools as regards pay, &c., so that they may have an opportunity of qualifying for promotion, and be saved from the inconvenience and expense of attending schools outside of Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The minimum number for a class of instruction is 10 officers; and such a class would be organised at Dublin if there were sufficient applicants. At present, however, there are not. Under the Militia Regulations a subaltern may be

  1245
  attacked to a Line regiment or a regimental district anywhere in the United Kingdom, for which he received the same pay and allowance as if he attended a class of instruction; but this Regulation does not extend to Captains, who only receive these advantages on attending the class. I may, however, remark that the certificate for promotion to Major may be obtained by service with his own regiment without attending a class of instruction at all.

  CLONMEL GAOL.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the fjord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the number of baths now available for the use of prisoners in Cloumel Gaol; how long have they been in use; whether any recommendations have been made respecting the existing sanitary arrangements in the gaol in question, and if any improvement or alteration in the system will be carried out; and, if so, when; and if it is the intention of the Prisons Board to sanction the expenditure necessary to secure the improvements requisite and recommended for the repair and ventilation of cells in Clonmel Gaol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that Clonmel Prison when handed over to them in 1878 contained two baths. Since then two more have been constructed, and four additional ones are in course of construction. The Board have no knowledge of the recommendations referred to in the third paragraph. They state that the ventilation of the cells in this prison has lately been improved by them. They have also made provision in the estimate for next year for other sanitary improvements and alterations in the prison.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that during the whole of last year, when this prison was completely filled, there was only one bath in the main body of the prison, including the hospital, and that the bath in the hospital was seldom, if ever, used? May I also ask whether the defective sanitary arrangements of the prison have not been brought under the notice of the Visitors recently?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any further answer to the questions of the hon. Member without notice.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the spring of 1882 some 23 or 24 prisoners were removed from Naas and Kilmainham Prisons in consequence of the prevalence of typhoid fever, owing to defective sanitary arrangements?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware of it, and it has certainly a very distant connection with the question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner).
  DR. TANNER: May I ask which side of the prison has been improved; which wing?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must give notice of the question. He enjoys a knowledge of the Irish prisons which I do not possess.

  MR. GARDINER, R.M.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the action of Mr. Gardiner, R.M., at the Cork Police Office, in refusing, on Wednesday, the 12th instant, to dismiss a number of cases in which it was proved the defendants were illegally sued for rates, and granting decrees in the face of admitted irregularities, and in the absence of both defendants and plaintiffs; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am informed that a complainant appeared in each of the cases in which the Resident Magistrate granted a decree on Wednesday last. Some of the defendants did not appear. The Government do not see anything in the matter calling for action on their part.

  THE CASE OF JOHN DALY.
  MR. SEXTON: In compliance with the notification which I gave last week, I beg to ask whether the Home Secretary will now lay upon the Table a copy of the Report and evidence relating to the case of the prisoner John Daly?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not yet received the Report; but inconsequence of the question addressed to me last week I have inquired when I may expect to receive it, and have ascertained that the Prison Visitors desire that a certain analysis should be made by the officers of the authorities at Somerset House, and

  1247
  that the Visitors are awaiting the result of that analysis.
  MR. SEXTON: Considering the nature of the allegations, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to exert himself in securing a copy of this Report before the Report of the Vote on Account is taken?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have done my best to expedite the Report.
  MR. SEXTON: Unless the Report has been presented, I will revert to the question on the Report of the Vote on Account.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am afraid that unless the Report on the Vote on Account is taken to-morrow, many of Her Majesty's servants will have to go without their salaries.

  ST. MARTIN'S-LE-GRAND POST OFFICE.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any provision will be made in the contract for the new Post Office buildings in St. Martin's-le-Grand to ensure the observance on the part of the contractor of the rules and customs of the building trade as to working hours and rate of wages, and to prevent subletting and piece-work?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): It has never been the practice of the Office of Works to make provision in its contracts to insure the observance on the part of the contractors of the rules and customs of the building trade as to working hours and rate of wages, nor to interfere in any way between the contractor and those employed by him. We prohibit sub-letting, except with the consent of the Board, and we take care to restrict it within legitimate limits. I see no reason for departing from the usual practice in the case of the Post Office at St. Martin's-le-Grand.

  THE DUMDUM MURDER.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a telegram from Calcutta in the Daily News of the 17th inst, stating that
  "The discharge of the prisoner in the Dumdum murder ease is causing much popular
  1248
  indignation, and is called a miscarriage of justice;"
  whether the case alluded to is that of a British soldier named Thomas O'Hara, who was tried at the Criminal Sessions, of the High Court of Calcutta for the wilful murder of a native named Shaik Soleem, in the Cantonment of Dumdum, and who was sentenced to death on 21st February last; whether he is aware that the presiding Judge, the Hon. Mr. Justice Norris, in passing sentence, declared that "he entirely endorsed and accepted the verdict of the jury," and that the prisoner "had been guilty of about, as brutal a murder as ever was perpetrated;" and whether, if this is the case referred to in the Daily News telegram, he has any information which would explain the alleged discharge of the prisoner?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): On behalf of my right hon. Friend I have to say that the Secretary of State has seen the telegram in the Daily News referred to. The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject; but from the telegrams in the Times it seems that the case was brought before the High Court of Calcutta for revision in the ordinary way; that it was argued for four days before the Chief Justice and four other Judges; that the Court took time to consider their judgment, and subsequently held that there had been a misdirection of the jury and an improper admission of evidence; and that the conviction must be quashed and the prisoner discharged.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: Will the Secretary of State for India sand instructions to the Government of India to have this man put upon his trial again?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Well, Sir; I think that before that proceeding is considered it would be as well to be in possession of the Report.

  THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT AND THE BOMBAY DEFENCES.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the remarks made by His Royal High-

  1249
  ness the Duke of Connaught recently at Bombay, as reported in the Times of Monday last—
  "The recent naval manœuvres had proved exactly what he had expected, namely, that the Bombay defences with their present armament were absolutely useless and could not oppose a naval attack. In the absentce of Admiral Fremantle's fleet in Zanzibar waters, the naval element of defence was quite useless, because the ships were without crews, and had neither gunners nor firemen to enable them to supply the deficiencies of the land defences."
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Secretary of State has seen the telegram in the Times purporting to be a report of the remarks attributed to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. Arrangements have been made with the War Office for the supply of new armament, and with the Admiralty, subject to the approval of the Treasury, for manning the floating defences.

  THE WEST LONDON COMMERCIAL BANK.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether he is aware that 13 months have elapsed since the last dividend was paid by the liquidator of the West London Commercial Bank, and that the liquidator has now in his hands the sum of £13,000 available for distribution; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken to expedite a further payment to the creditors, and to bring the liquidation as quickly as may be possible to an end?
  THE SOLICITOR GEXERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): I understand that dividends have been paid to the amount of 14s. 6d. by the West London Commercial Bank. It is true that it is a long time since the last dividend was paid. The liquidator was advised to fake proceedings against some of the Directors and against the representatives of others, and it is believed those proceedings will result in a large gain to the estate. I am informed there has been no improper delay in the matter.

  THE FORTH FISHERMEN.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction prevails amongst the Forth fishermen because of the insufficiency of the safeguards afforded to them by the fishery cruiser Vigilant within the protected
  1250
  waters; that this vessel not only lies for many consecutive days in port, but is habitually there at night when she should be on the fishing grounds; that she has no practical fisherman on board who could indicate when the depredations of the trawlers can be watched, and is therefore on this account alone almost useless; and whether he will take steps, to secure the efficient discharge of the duties for which the Vigilant was supplied?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): Presumably the question of the hon. Member refers to the Jackal. It can have no application to the Vigilant, which is stationed on the West Coast of Scotland. The Fishery Board have not received any complaints this year of trawling within the prescribed waters in the Firth of Forth. The Jackal lay in Granton Harbour for some time when the crew were on leave for Christmas holidays; but since then she has been on regular duty on the East Coast. She is occasionally in port for a few days from necessary causes; but it is not the case that she is habitually in port at night. There is no fisherman on board; but this is not considered necessary, as the officers and crew are quite familiar with the places frequented by trawlers.

  THE LEGACY AND SUCCESSION DUTY OFFICE.
  SIR LEWIS PELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the fact that four clerks of the Lower Division of the Legacy and Succession Duty Office, who were specially nominated for promotion to the Upper Division, and whose promotion was approved of by the Lords of the Treasury and ordered to take effect as from 1st June, 1889, have subsequently had it notified to them that, in consequence of a Treasury Minute dated 31st October, 1889, they are to remain at their present Lower Division salaries without receiving any increment whatever for many years to come, and that the result of their promotion is not only that actual pecuniary loss will occur by reason of the cessation of the increments and other benefits which they would have received had they not been promoted, but that, in the case of three at least of these clerks, no pecuniary benefit whatever will accrue as a consequence of their promotion

  1251
  during their whole period of 40 years' service; and, if so, whether card will be taken to provide in the forthcoming Order in Council, or otherwise, against any injustice being committed with regard to these gentlemen?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The operation of the Regulation of October, 1889, in certain cases has been before the Treasury, and the matter is at present under consideration.

  IMPORTATION OF GRAIN INTO THE SOUDAN.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the importation of grain from the Red Sea ports into the Soudan has been till recently prohibited and blockaded; whether, even now, when famine has resulted, this prohibition has not been wholly removed, but only in regard to certain ports; and whether the Soudan, beyond the coast ports held by Egypt, has been really abandoned, or whether efforts have still been made to starve the Soudanese into submission; or, what has been the object of the blockade?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There has been no restriction on the grain trade at Suakin for over two years. Trade is allowed at all ports where there are Custom Houses. A special permit is, how over, required for Trinkitat. No efforts are being made to starve the Soudanese into submission. The object of the blockade, which no longer exists, was to prevent supplies being sent to the dervishes who are threatening Suakin.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Do I understand that there is now free trade in corn in regard to the Soudan?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes; grain can be imported freely.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is there any Customs duty upon it?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I believe there is no Customs duty upon it.

  COLOUR BLINDNESS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists among scientific men as to the sufficiency of the
  1252
  tests now used in the Mercantile Marine for the detection of colour blindness; and whether he will appoint a Committee of Experts to advise the Government on this important question?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am sensible of the importance of this matter, and have been in communication with the Royal Society upon this subject, and I am happy to say that the society has appointed a scientific Committee to consider the whole question of colour blindness.

  POSTMEN'S CHRISTMAS BOXES.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Postal Authorities have made any, and what, arrangements for compensating parcel post men for the loss incurred by them under the Rule prohibiting them from the solicitation of Christmas boxes; whether, in certain cases, 3s. a-week have been given with this object; and how many men in the Parcel Post Department are in receipt of such increased wages in lieu of Christmas boxes?
  MR. RAIKES: As parcel postmen are not, and never have been, allowed either to solicit or to receive Christmas boxes, the question of compensating them for the loss of what, if they should receive, they would receive in spite of prohibition, is one which certainly has not arisen, and which, indeed, I should not have expected to arise. No parcel postmen are in receipt of increased wages in lieu of Christmas boxes.

  NEW FOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. THORBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the modus vivendi arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government as to the establishment of lobster factories on the so-called Newfoundland French shore was concluded with the concurrence and approval of the Newfoundland Government?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Newfoundland Government was consulted as to the terms of the modus vivendi, which was modified to some extent in order to meet their views; but it was necessary to conclude it without referring it to them in its final shape. The arrangement is provisional, and for this season only, and

  1253
  does not involve any admission by either Government of the claims made by subjects of the other.

  THE LOSS OF THE QUETTA.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to hold an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the wreck of the Queensland mail steamer Quetta on the night of the 28th February, and also into the cause of the great loss of human life with which it was attended?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade are not in a position to institute an inquiry into the loss of the Quetta until they learn whether an inquiry will or will not be held by the Queensland Government, who generally hold inquiries with regard to all wrecks occurring within their jurisdiction. I may add that no official information has yet been received respecting the circumstances of the wreck.

  THE WEST AFRICAN SQUADRON.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of sick men lauded from the West African Squadron at Ascension, and treated in hospital there, in either of the two last years?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The number of sick from the West African Squadron and troopships admitted into the hospital at Ascension during the last two years, 1888 and 1889, was respectively 102 and 90.

  HOME OFFICE CONTRACTS—THE LEYTON POLICE STATION.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been called to the circumstance that the contractor for the new police station at Leyton sub-let that portion of the work known as lathing, and that the laths used by the sub-contractor were of an inferior quality to that stated in the specification; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I am informed by the Receiver of Police, who has personally inspected the premises, that the lathing, being a special
  1254
  description of work, has been sub-let and executed under the conditions usual in the building trade—that is, by special men skilled in this branch of work. The laths are in accordance with the specification and of good quality. I have no reason to believe that the contractors are acting otherwise than in a proper manner.

  ALLOWANCES OF ADJUTANTS OF VOLUNTEERS.
  COLONEL EYRE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary of the War Office whether it is a fact that an Army Order has lately been issued reducing the traveling allowances of Adjutants of Volunteers from 5s. to 3s. 6d. for half days beyond a 10 mile radius; and, in such case, what is the reason for the reduction, having' regard to the difficulty in obtaining Adjutants for Artillery Volunteers?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Such an Order has been issued, but it applies to all officers and not only to Volunteer Adjutants. The object of the change has been to make allowances equal to the average expenditure incurred, and while this allowance has been reduced others have been raised; but this is only one among a series of alterations (having a net effect of about £300 a year in favour of the troops) intended to reduce correspondence, simplify accounts, and bring about the abolition of petty stoppages. If my hon. Friend can prove to me that the allowance is not adequate to meet the extra expenditure incurred, I shall be glad to re-consider the matter.

  SEVERE SENTENCES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following passage in the Charge to the Grand Jury delivered by Mr. Justice Mathew at the Liverpool Assizes on Tuesday last:—
  "From the calendar before me I notice persons charged with small offences who have been sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for stealing a coat. Surely such sentences are barbarous and most cruel, and should be stopped. … The resources of the law, and its processes of imprisonment, seem to me abundant to deal with such cases, and there is no need for inflicting such terrible punishment;"

  1255
  whether he is aware that such sentences as the learned Judge condemned are frequently imposed at Quarter Sessions, and whether sentences which seem primâ facie unduly severe will be carefully considered by him, with a view to their mitigation?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not seen the Charge in question, and I cannot say whether the learned Judge is accurately reported. I have already stated in this House that I have no facts before me to justify the suggestion that sentences passed at Quarter Sessions are more severe or vary more than sentences passed at the Assizes. I have always considered on its merits any case in which there was reason to think that the sentence was unduly severe.

  VISITORS OF CONVICT PRISONS.
  MR. PIOKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the names of the Visitors of convict prisons; and, if not, upon what grounds he declines to do so?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no objection whatever to state the names of the Visitors of convict prisons; and I shall toe glad to supply a list of them to the hon. Member.

  CRETE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stats for Foreign Affairs whether any intelligence has been received by the Government relative to the attack by gendarmes upon Christians in the province of Messara, in the Island of Crete, on Saturday last; whether it is a fact, as reported in the Daily News of 19th instant, the gendarmes, without provocation, fired several times upon four Christians; if it is true, as given, that—
  "The next day 30 notables of the village complained to the Commandant of the troops. The Commandant, treating this complaint as seditious, arrested five of them, and imprisoned them in a stable, demanding at the same time large sums of money from four villages of the province. The sum is said to have been so great that had the inhabitants given up all they possessed it would have been insufficient;"
  and whether, in the event of the statements proving correct, any remonstrance will be addressed to the Porte with a view to the further continuance of such outrages on Christians?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such information has reached Her Majesty's Government.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph for information?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think it is to be expected that we should telegraph to ascertain the correctness of every statement which may appear in the newspapers.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me the information in the course of a week?
  SIR J. FFRGUSSON: That depends upon whether we receive the information the hon. Gentleman requires.

  THE CARDIFF TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. PRLTCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Alfred Humphries, one of the telegraph officials at Cardiff, was on Tuesday last suspended for acting as secretary of the Telegraph Clerks' Association at Cardiff; and, if not for that reason, will he state why he was suspended; whether the two previous secretaries of the same Associations have lately been removed from Cardiff; and whether it is his intention to remove or suspend all those telegraph officials whom he may discover to be members of similar Associations?
  MR. RAIKES: Mr. Alfred Humphries was on Tuesday last suspended for refusing to obey my orders, conveyed to him through the Postmaster at Cardiff. A more appropriate punishment for this act of insubordination would have been his summary dismissal; but, having regard to the youth and inexperience of the offender, and being anxious to maintain as long as I possibly am the forbearance which I have hitherto exercised in dealing with the Cardiff telegraphists, I have preferred to afford him an opportunity of re-considering his conduct. Mr. Humphries was not suspended for acting as secretary to the Body referred to by the hon. Member. I have no cognisance of any such Association, or its officers. Nor have I taken, nor do I propose to take, any steps against the members of such Associations on account of their membership, though I am compelled to take proper notice of any offences against discipline in the case of the individuals committing them.

  THE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government will be able to lay upon the Table the Amendments they propose to move in Committee on the Companies (Winding-up) Bill; and whether, if such Amendments are numerous, the Government will reprint the Bill, showing the Amendments proposed to be introduced?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not my intention to propose any Amendments to the Companies (Winding-up) Bill; but I do propose to circulate a Paper for the consideration of the Members of the Standing Committee on Trade, showing the alterations and repeals which are proposed to be effected in the existing law by the Bill, so that the Standing Committee may have the opportunity of clearly seeing the effect of the Bill and of adding to it any clauses they may deem necessary.

  METROPOLITAN VOLUNTEER REGIMENTS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that, in order to receive the necessary certificate to enable officers commanding Metropolitan Volunteer Regiments to obtain the sum allotted to them by the late Lord Mayor's Volunteer Patriotic Fund, they have to pay out of the funds of the regiment a fee to the Government viewer, without whose certificate the amount from the fund will not be paid to the regiment; and whether he can see his way to remit this fee?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The viewer in question is not a Government viewer. But I think it will be much the simplest way for the certificate to be given by a Government viewer, and in that case, of course, no fee will be charged. I have given directions for this to be done.

  THE SWEATING SYSTEM.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to form any opinion when it is probable the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords on the Sweating System will be presented to Parliament?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not in a position to give any pledge with regard to a Committee which, was appointed in another place; but I have reason to believe that the Committee have their Report under consideration, and that it will, undoubtedly, be presented within the present Session.

  THE BERLIN CONFERENCE.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state if the French Government, or any other Government represented at the Berlin Conference, has divided its Representatives into two classes, Plenipotentiaries and Delegates; why Her Majesty's Government has made such a distinction; and whether the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates possess equal power and authority at the Conference, and will be treated as equals in regard to their expenses?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will be seen from the official list of the members of the Labour Conference that the French and Italian Governments have divided their Representatives into two classes. They are styled délégués and délégués adjoints respectively. It would seem that the Plenipotentiaries and expert Delegates will not possess equal power and authority at the Conference. The expert Delegates attend to furnish information from their special knowledge. Both the Plenipotentiaries and the Delegates will be reimbursed for their necessary outlay.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that under Article 2 of the Convention of 1884 Her Majesty's Government has the right to place a British Commissioner in Swaziland "to maintain order and prevent encroachments"?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Her Majesty's Government have been careful to ascertain precisely their legal position under the Convention in regard to intervention in Swaziland, and have been advised that it would not be competent for Her Majesty, without a breach of Article 12 of the Convention, to take Swaziland under her protection in the recognised meaning of that expression; but Her

  1259
  Majesty's Government can, of course, exercise the powers of Article 2 of the Convention, which includes the appointing of Commissioners to maintain order. It will be seen that the establishment of a protectorate involves the assumption of administrative control, which could not be exercised by Commissioners appointed under Article 2 of the Convention.

  RIGHTS OF WAY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when Her Majesty's Government will announce what action they intend to take with a view to carry into effect the Resolution of the House of 18th March relating to Rights of Way in Scotland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The subject is one that will be again considered by Her Majesty's Government with a view of seeing whether it is possible for them to make any proposals to the House.

  WEDNESDAY SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the circumstances that have attended the meetings of the House on the last three Wednesdays, and to the delay and waste of time that have occurred before a House could be made, especially yesterday. I wish to know whether, having regard to the waste of time involved, the seeming disrespect to the Chair, and the inconvenience suffered by hon. Members who were detained in the House until a quorum was made, it is not in your power, Sir, to take some special action with the object of doing away with, or at any rate diminishing, the evil?
  MR. SPEAKER: I know that Members of the House have been put to great inconvenience on the three last Wednesdays. On two of the occasions referred to the House was not made technically until 1 o'clock. I have considered myself whetheF I might leave the Chair at the Table until a House can be made, but I have thought it unfair that I should have the opportunity of going out of the House whilst Members are detained. Possibly if I had gone out, and allowed the Members who were present to go out too, they might not have been willing to return, so that there would have been additional delay in making a House. On a
  1260
  Wednesday the House cannot be counted out until 4 o'clock. I believe that rule has arisen from the practice of allowing new Members to take their seats up to 4 o'clock. It is an old practice of the House, but if the House likes to alter the practice it can do so by Resolution. There are two alternative courses which I might take, subject to the approval of the House. I might not come into the House until I had been informed by the proper authority that there was a sufficient quorum in the Lobby, or, when a quorum is not formed by half-past 12 o'clock, I might leave the Chair for a quarter of an hour in the hope that a House might be made in that time. There is undoubtedly a certain amount of discredit attached to the spectacle of 20 or 30 Members being retained compulsorily in the House for so long a time as they were retained yesterday, when a quorum was not made until after 1 o'clock.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether, on Wednesdays, you, Sir, have not the authority to require the presence in the House itself of every Member who may be within the precincts—Members, for example, in attendance on Committees.
  MR. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly it was the ancient practice for the Serjeant-at-Arms to go into Westminster Hall and require the attendance of any Members who might be there. The hon. Member is probably aware that Committees do not often sit on Wednesdays. At the outside there might be 20 Members in the Committee Rooms upstairs on a Wednesday, but these might certainly assist in making a quorum.

  THE EASTER RECESS.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any understanding has been come to as to when the Easter Recess is to begin and end?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not in a position to say precisely. The hon. Member must know that there is a certain amount of business which must be disposed of first. The Government propose to introduce the Irish Land Bill on Monday, and the Tithe Bill will have to be read a second time before the Government, can decide on the date of the Easter Recess.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fourth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return ordered—
  "Arranged according to Counties, showing the number of accounts of Depositors in Post Office Savings Banks in the United Kingdom remaining open on the 31st day of December, 1889, together with the amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those accounts" (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 177, of Session 1889).—(Mr. Whitley.)

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  George Granville Leveson Gower, Esquire, for Stoke-upon-Trent.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend 'The Indian Councils Act, 1861.'" [Indian Councils Bill [Lords.]
  CROWN OFFICE BILL [LORDS]. (No. 173.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without amendment; road the third time, and passed, without amendment.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1889–90.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. £8,052 6s. 3d., Civil Service (Excesses).
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: As Supply is the second and not the first Order of the Day, I desire to know if I was not in order in endeavouring to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to certain irregularities on the part of the Government, and which I intended to bring before the House while Mr. Speaker was in the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That would not be regular now, in accordance with the Standing Order, although it was formerly the case.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is it not the fact that the Standing Order only requires Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair without question put when Supply is set down as the first Order? This is the second Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As I have said, that was formerly the practice; but the Standing Order was amended about three years ago, and that condition was left out.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1889–90.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,103, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, viz.:—

CIVIL SERVICES.
CLASS I.

£

Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

5,000

Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

12,000

Public Buildings, Great Britain

30,000

Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

4,000

Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

8,000

Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

6,000

Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

7,000

Revenue Department Buildings

56,000

Surveys of the United Kingdom

40,000

Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses abroad

3,000

Peterhead Harbour

5,000

Caledonian Canal

1,000

Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

83,000

Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

60,000

CLASS II.

United Kingdom and England:—

House of Lords, Offices

6,000

House of Commons, Offices

6,000

Treasury and Subordinates Departments

15,000

Home Office and Subordinate Departments

15,000

Foreign Office

10,000

Colonial Office

6,000

Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

2,500

Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

27,000

Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

3

Board of Agriculture

6,000

Charity Commission

6,000

Civil Service Commission

7,000

Exchequer and Audit Department

10,000

Friendly Societies, Registry

1,500

Local Government Board

27,000

Lunacy Commission

2,000

Mercantile Marine Funds Grant in Aid

Mint (including Coinage)

20,000

National Debt Office

2,500

Public Works Loan Commission

1,500

Record Office

4,000

Registrar General's Office

8,000

Stationery Office and Printing

70,000

Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

6,000

Works and Public Buildings, Office of

8,000

Secret Service

6,000

Scotland:—

Secretary for Scotland

2,000

Fishery Board

4,000

Lunacy Commission

1,200

Registrar General's Office

1,000

Board of Supervision

1,500

Ireland:—

Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary

8,000

Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

400

Local Government Board

15,000

Public Works Office

10,000

Record Office

1,000

Registrar General's Office

3,000

Valuation and Boundary Survey

6,000

CLASS III.

United Kingdom and England:—

Law Charges

12,000

Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

8,000

Supreme Court of Judicature and Land Registry

65,000

County Courts

20,000

Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

3,000

Police, England and Wales

10,000

Prisons, England and the Colonies

110,000

Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

80,000

Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

6,000

Scotland:—

Lord Advocate, and Law Charges and Courts of Law

10,000

Register House

6,000

Crofters' Commission

1,500

Prisons, Scotland

15,000

Ireland:—

Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

15,000

Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

20,000

Land Commission

20,000

County Court Officers, &c.

18,000

Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.

20,000

Constabulary

300,000

Prisons, Ireland

20,000

Reformatory and Industrial Schools

30,000

Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

1,500

CLASS IV.

United Kingdom and England:—

Public Education, England and Wales

800,000

Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

45,000

British Museum

27,000

National Gallery

3,000

National Portrait Gallery

600

Learned Societies, United Kingdom

7,000

Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

10,000

London University

3,000

Scotland:—

Public Education

160,000

National Gallery

400

Ireland:—

Public Education

200,000

Endowed Schools Commissioners

200

National Gallery

300

Queen's Colleges

500

CLASS V.

Diplomatic Services and Consular Services

100,000

Slave Trade Services

8,500

Colonial Services, including South Africa

28,000

Cyprus, Grant in Aid

Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c.

16,000

CLASS VI.

Superannuation and Retired Allowances

120,000

Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions &c

1,000

Friendly Societies Deficiency

Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

500

Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

70,000

Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

4,000

CLASS VII.

Temporary Commissions

9,000

Miscellaneous Expenses

4,000

Total for Civil Services

£3,055,103

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Customs

100,000

Inland Revenue

100,000

Post Office

100,000

Post Office Packet Service

20,000

Post Office Telegraphs

350,000

Total for Revenue Departments

£670,000

Grand Total

£3,725,103

HOLYHEAD BREAKWATER.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I desire to bring before the Committee the expenditure in connection with the repair of the breakwater at Holyhead Harbour. That breakwater has an elbow which points inwards towards the land instead of outwards. I believe that upwards of £2,000,000 have been spent in making a harbour of refuge at Holyhead, and in erecting Holyhead Breakwater. A railway was laid down ostensibly to supply stone for the edge of the breakwater, in order to prevent it from being washed away by gales of wind. For upwards of two years the constant repair of the breakwater has been given up, the rails have been removed and sold, and the breakwater has been left to the mercy of the wind and waves. Two years ago a deputation waited upon the President of the Board of Trade, and told him that, notwithstanding the manner in which the breakwater was suffering, no steps were being taken to repair the damage which

1265
was being done. Quite lately a large piece of the breakwater was swept away, and grievous damage has been done which might have been prevented if the usual repairs had been continued from year to year. Exactly at the point where the elbow of the breakwater is nearest the land are some rocks, called the Platters Rocks, and inside this point an area of something like 250 acres is not available for the harbour of refuge. The question of removing these rocks has been brought before the Government on various occasions, and has always met with a sympathetic reception. The President of the Board of Trade received a deputation on the subject in 1888, when he said that he would be glad to see the rocks removed if any arrangement could be made to bring about the desirable result. As the breakwater had been constructed at great expense, and the rocks still remained in the middle of the harbour, the right hon. Gentleman said it only stood to reason that it would be a great public benefit if the whole of the harbour could be utilised. This is in no sense a Party question, but is one in which a friendly interest has been expressed by both sides of the House. Nothing but the difficulty of finding the money has prevented these Platters rocks from being removed. With a south-west wind vessels entering are placed in a difficult position, as they cannot beat up past these rocks into the inner harbour. They anchor in the outer harbour, where they are sheltered from the S.W.; but when, as was often the case, the wind veered to W.N.W. and N. then there was a tremendous sea running into the harbour, and ships in the outer harbour were in circumstances of great danger. A few years ago there were as many as 20 ships stranded in Holyhead Harbour in the gale which had worked round to the northward, and there was a considerable less of life. The existence of the rocks also renders it difficult for the ordinary traffic to pass and repass. Steamers navigating between Ireland and Holyhead are constantly in danger from the large ships which are anchored there. It is said that something like £200,000 would be required to remove the Platters rocks; and, if ever they are to be removed, I think the present moment affords an excellent opportunity; first,
1266
because we are given to understand that there are large sums of money in the Treasury which nobody knows what to do with, and which might be readily devoted to a work of this kind. We are not likely soon to have such a surplus again; and there is this further reason, that if the rocks are blown up, they will be available for the much needed repair of the breakwater. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give some encouragement to the people of the Island of Anglesey, whose harbour has for so many years suffered from the existence of the Platters Rocks. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to give some encouragement to the great desire we have to see the rocks removed.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not give me notice that he intended to bring this subject forward, and I was not present when he commenced his speech, but I understand he complained that there was some neglect with regard to the repair of the breakwater at Holyhead for some years, and that owing to that neglect the storm had had serious effect upon the break-water. I cannot express an opinion which carries with it any real authority on the subject; but I think the Votes of this House will show during the past few years that considerable sums of money have constantly been expended in the repair of the breakwater, and from my own knowledge I can say that in the earlier part of last autumn, when I myself visited Holyhead, very considerable sums were being expended partly on the breakwater and partly also on the jetty. A good deal of money has also been expended in recent times in stretching chains along the breakwater for the purpose of protecting it from the sea. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that the storm of last year was a storm of exceptional severity. It did great damage to the breakwater, and it was followed by such a continuance of rough weather that it was not possible to repair the damage as rapidly as was desired. With regard to the Platters rocks, looking at the cost—amounting to no less than a quarter of a million—which a competent engineer

1267
has reported to be the sum necessary to remove the rocks, I was for a long time of opinion that it was oat of the question to remove them. I do not think the improvement in the harbour that would be effected by the removal of the rocks would be quite so great as the hon. Member supposes, because it is obvious that though their removal would enable ships to get into the inner part of the harbour, yet the area now occupied by the rocks could never be good holding ground as anchorage for ships. The estimate of a quarter of a million was made on the assumption that the rocks were to be removed to a depth of 25 feet. s When I was at Holyhead I noticed that the ships using the harbour appeared to be of a very much smaller character than I had previously supposed, and, on inquiry, I found that this was not only the case at that time, but was generally so. Under these circumstances it occurred to me that much good might be done by removing the rocks, say to a depth of 12 or 15 feet, and I directed the Admiral Superintendent at the port to take during the winter months records of the draughts of water of all vessels using the harbonr of refuge, so that after six months' experience we might know what good would be done by the removal of the rocks to a depth of 12 or 15 feet. I shall soon have the Return I asked for, and I shall be very glad if the result of the information thus obtained enables me to make some proposition to the Treasury that will render the harbour more useful to the Merchant Navy than it is at present.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Estimate to which he has referred was made some years ago, and that with the very improved machinery now in use it is believed the work could be done much more cheaply. The right hon. Gentleman knows that to remove the rocks to a depth of 20 feet, according to the original Estimate, would only cost £60,000, and it is believed it could now be done for less than that. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to do something for us.

LONDON PAROCHIAL CHARITIES.
MR. BRYCE: I desire to call attention to the schemes which have lately been published, and are now passing through their regular
1268
statutory course for the better application of the Parochial Charities of the City of London. After three years of controversy an Act was passed in 1883 empowering the Charity Commissioners to inquire into the Parochial Charities of the City, and to prepare schemes for dealing with them in the future. The Commissioners were directed to divide the property into that which should appear to have been intended for ecclesiastical purposes, and that which was properly applicable to general charitable; purposes, and they were also to make some slightly different provisions with regard to the property in the inner parishes, of the city, where the population was then comparatively large, though it has since very largely declined. I believe it is within the knowledge of the Committee that the Commissioners have now practically concluded their work. They have issued their Reports and prepared a number of schemes—one of those schemes is now before the Education Department, and several others—I think at least 8 or 10—have been published and are ready to go before the Education Department in due course. It has been found that the total income available for charity purposes and ecclesiastical purposes under the Act is no less than £118,000, a sum which is susceptible of further increase, as leases fall in and property rises in value. Of this amount, at least £80,000 has been reported by the Commissioners to be applicable to general charity purposes, and about £37,000 to ecclesiastical purposes. There has been a little dissatisfaction in some quarters with regard to the schemes and the machinery by which they have been formulated. It has been thought that there was not sufficient knowledge among the inhabitants of London of the procedure of the Commissioners, and that there ought to be some further opportunity afforded of bringing these matters before the inhabitants of London, and enabling them to express an opinion on the application of this immense sum of money in which they are so deeply interested. I do not believe that the feeling of dissatisfaction which exists relates to the scheme as a whole; but there certainly are some matters with regard to which a little more information and discussion would be desirable. The Commissioners are clearly not to be blamed with

1269
regard to several points I shall presently mention, because they are undoubtedly matters respecting which the Commissioners were bound by the letter of the Act of 1883. I may say, in passing, that the Act of 1883 like many hotly-contested measures, embodied a compromise, and did not in all respects embody in its final form the views of those who brought it forward. The points on which complaint has been made are these:—In the first place the new governing body which is to have control of the central charity fund is to have upon it four representatives of the City Corporation. When the Act was passed the County Council did not exist, and it was considered that the Corporation was the only body which practically represented London, and which could be entrusted with the appointment of Members. I do not think, however, that the City ought in these days to have that large proportion of Members. In the next place, five parishes are to be treated on a somewhat different plan from the remaining City parishes. The funds belonging to those five parishes amount in the aggregate to about £25,000 a year, and are directed to be spent entirely within the parishes. It is worth considering whether the restriction thus provided for in 1883 can now be upheld, and whether it might not be advisable that the surplus funds of those parishes should be made applicable for the benefit of the whole Metropolis. In the third place the Act of 1883 gave the Commissioners directions with regard to the application of the Ecclesiastical Fund which have involved much heavier expenditure than I believe was then contemplated. The great bulk of the ecclesiastical property is proposed by the Commissioners to be left in the City of London for the carrying on of church services and the maintenance of churches. It is well known that the population of the City now is very greatly reduced and is constantly diminishing, that the services in most of the City churches are performed to empty pews, and nothing could be of more benefit to the Church of England in London than to devote a considerable portion of the funds now applicable to City churches to church purposes in different parts of the Metropolis. I will ask the Government whether, under these circumstances, they do not consider that a case has been made
1270
out for the reconsideration of the scheme on these three points. It has been suggested that there should be an amending Bill, no other method of dealing with the matter being possible. One does not like to ask the Government to promise any further legislation beyond* the somewhat ambitious programme which they laid down at the beginning of the Session, but if the Government would take the matter up they would find it easy to pass an amending' II5111 dealing with all or some of the matters to which I have referred. Such a measure, if backed up by their influence, would probably pass with little or no opposition. If any points of serious controversy arose upon it it could be sent to a Select Committee, where the questions in dispute could be adequately considered. So much for the points on which the Commissioners are powerless because bound by the words of the Act. Now let me pass on to the schemes the Commissioners have framed, which have given rise to discussion and complaint. The Commissioners originally allowed the County Council only two representatives on the new Governing Body, and left out the School Board altogether. I understand that it is now their intention to give the County Council four representatives and the School Board two, and probably that may be an adequate representation for the two bodies. But there are other details in the constitution of the new Governing Body, such as the members given to the University of London, in which the scheme might with advantage be re-considered. Out of a total income of £80,000, which turns out to be applicable to charitable purposes, only about £3,500 will at present come under the direction of the new Governing-Body, to be disposed of at their discretion. Now, that seems to be an extremely small sum out of these large funds with which to endow the new Governing Body, which is to be the Central Charity Authority for the whole Metropolis. If it is desired to induce men of mark, who enjoy the confidence of the citizens, to serve on the new body, something more than the control of a small sum of £3,500 a year should be given them. But even if it were doubled and £7,000 or £8,000 a year were given that would be a very small charitable fund to set apart to answer all the demands which

1271
the changing conditions of our life and time may bring to light. We have come into the possesion of what may be called an extraordinary charitable windfall. Is it fitting to use up all this income of £80,000 a year for the purposes which happen to recommend themselves to us at the moment, and not to leave any large sums to answer the needs of the future, and to expect that those who will come after us will find other friends to satisfy the various charitable purposes which have not arisen in our horizon, but which may seem to them of great utility? I therefore suggest whether the scheme might not be so far modified as to leave a somewhat larger sum at the disposal of the new Governing Body for the future. Then, with regard to polytechnics, I find it is proposed to devote large amounts to various institutions of the kind. Regent Street Polytechnic is to have £4,000 a year, the People's Palace at Mile End £3,500, the City Polytechnic £5,350, the Borough Road and Battersea Park Polytechnics £2,500 each, and the Chelsea Polytechnic £1,500. A polytechnic, I may explain, is an institution primarily for promoting technical education, and secondly for providing a library and lecture rooms and certain kinds of recreation. The Regent Street Polytechnic is an excellent institution and does a great deal of good, and so also does the People's Palace at Mile End. There is no one but feels that this has been a new departure of the utmost possible interest in our London life, and that it deserves all the support that the House can give it. But we are asked, in addition to the large grants made to the two existing institutions, to sanction grants of money for polytechnics in the City, in the Borough Road, at Battersea, and at Chelsea, and be it remembered that none of these institutions have yet been called into being. They will be experiments. I do not say that such experiments are not worth trying, but experiments they are, and we should be going upon sounder data if we had enjoyed longer experience of such institutions as the People's Palace at Mile End. I would, therefore, suggest that some of the money should be reserved for a time, and should revert to other purposes if it is found that the polytechnic experiment does not succeed. It may be said that
1272
considerable sums have been promised on the faith that these institutions will be established, and valuable pieces of land given on which to erect the buildings.. No doubt public-spirited men, and quasi-public bodies such as the City Companies, have offered money, and in these cases it may be well to go on; but then we ought to take care in framing the schemes-to provide for diverting the money should the polytechnics not be found to answer the expectations formed of them. It would be a great pity if these funds were to be tied up to this particular application. It may, perhaps, also be remarked that technical education is not one of those purposes to which it is so important to devote charitable money as some others, for there is another source from which we may hope to find the means of promoting technical education—I mean the funds of the City Companies. It can hardly be doubted that the process which these companies has begun as volunteers will be followed up, and that, before many years are past, we shall see many of the City Companies' funds devoted to technical education. I beg hon. Members to remember how important it is that we should take this opportunity of doing what we can to help the very poor. The difficulty is to prevent that which has been intended for the poor from falling into the hands of the better-off classes. Libraries, reading-rooms, lectures are chiefly serviceable to what are called the lower middle class, but there are many objects for which it is difficult to raise money by voluntary contributions which are very important to the poor—such as recreation grounds, public baths and washhouses, and convalescent homes. Institutions of that kind are more calculated to help the poor than institutions for technical and secondary education; and whatever the application may be, I hope we shall remember that we have now an opportunity without precedent in the past, and which may never occur again, of applying some of the funds to the brightening and sweetening of the lives of those who have the greatest claim upon our sympathy. And now it only remains for me to bring my remarks to a practical conclusion by making a suggestion to the Government as to the course they should follow. I have suggested that if it is thought that the

1273
points on which the Commissioners are bound by the Act of 1883 deserve to be re-considered in 1890, the only way would be to pass an amending Act, so that the points dealt with by the Commissioners in their scheme are matters that may or may not come before us. Under tin; provisions of the Act, a scheme can only be brought before the House after a Petition has been presented calling attention to it, and no one can tell whether or not such a Petition will be presented. Anyone who has followed the discussions in the public Press and in the County Council is aware that there is a considerable amount of latent discontent with regard to the method in which schemes are passed. It is felt that they ought to receive more discussion and more publicity than are customary; and it is therefore, perhaps, to be regretted that the Act does not provide for bringing all the schemes before the notice of the House. I therefore desire to suggest to the Government that they should present to the House, in the form of a Parliamentary Paper, any information in addition to that contained in the Report of the Charity Commissioners last year, and in addition to that which we may expect in the forthcoming Report, so as to help the House to arrive at a due comprehension of their data and the motives underlying their propositions. Then, as to existing Polytechnics, information should be forthcoming in order to enable us to judge how far they are in a solvent condition, and how far the experiments which have been tried encourage the hope that the much larger experiment now proposed to be tried will be successful. Further, I would suggest to the Government whether it might not be desirable to appoint a Select Committee to consider these schemes and take evidence on the matter, to examine the Commissioners and other persons, and to give an opportunity for any complaint which may exist being brought out and fairly dealt with by the Commissioners and by the Committee. The public would then recognise that a large step is taken only under due safeguards in the wisest way and with the best results. I have brought forward this subject in no spirit of hostility to the Commissioners. It is, I trust, generally felt that those gentlemen have discharged their duties with great assiduity, with great ability,
1274
and with great regard to the public interest. This is only what we should have expected from such persons as Sir Henry Longley and Mr. Anstie, but it is a pleasure to one who remembers the opposition made to the entrusting these duties to them, to perceive how well they have justified the trust. The people of London owe no small debt of gratitude to them for the manner in which they have fulfilled their functions.
MR. O. V. MORGAN: The House is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in connection with these matters in the past, but I am not quite certain that any representative of the poorer divisions of London would have made such a speech decrying Polytechnics. I wish to say a few words on behalf of Battersea, where it is proposed to establish a Polytechnic for the united parishes of Battersea, Wandsworth, and Clapham, containing a population of a quarter of a, million, most of whom belong to the comparatively poor class. Now, Battersea has been promised an annual endowment of £2,500 for a Polytechnic if a sum of £60,000 is collected. Great efforts have been made, and £48,000 has already been collected. Certain moneys have been paid on account of land in the Battersea Park Road, and no scheme of improvement has been brought before the people in this district which has evoked so much interest as the Polytechnic Institute. It will be situated close to the railway stations and tram terminals; and although we have at the present time in Battersea a Free Library, we hope to found, in connection with the Polytechnic, a library containing a valuable collection of books bearing upon technical matters. Then I attach also very great importance to the recreative side of these institutions. At Battersea there are very few places of public amusement; there is no theatre, but there are one or two music halls, and I believe that if recreation is provided at the Institute, it will largely draw people from the public houses. I shall protest as long as I can against Battersea being deprived of a single shilling which has been promised to it.
MR. WHITMORE: I certainly have not had the privilege of taking part in any movement in which I have found a more genuine sympathy among all classes than that for establishing

1275
Polytechnics in London. Remember that enormous difficulties have to be overcome. Take the case of the Polytechnic proposed for the South-West of London. In that case £50,000 is to be subscribed in order to get a grant from the I Commission. Already £32,000 has been collected, and at the present time a house-to-house canvass is being organised in order to raise the balance. The leaders of the local Trades Unions in Chelsea have come forward with the greatest alacrity and zeal in order to help us. I hope that the House will stand by the proposal of the Commissioners, who have drawn out a comprehensive scheme for the whole of London, and although no doubt the experiment is a very large one, we must remember that the institutions established in the East of London and in Regent Street have proved successful. I trust that when the Polytechnics are started care will be taken to see that the Local Managing Body is a thoroughly representative one. An effort must also be made to connect with the Polytechnics men who have made up their minds to see such institutions successful. I hope the House will unite in enabling the scheme of the Commissioners to be carried to a successful issue.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: My hon. Friend in bringing this matter forward spoke in no sense of hostility to Polytechnics; on the contrary, his speech took a favourable view in that direction. I understood him to say that we were embarking on behalf of London in a scheme of great magnitude, involving many points of considerable doubt; and that, assuming that it was desirable to establish these Polytechnics, it was essential that in the scheme clauses should be specially inserted directing that they shall be made available for the working classes of the Metropolis. What many of us are afraid of is that they will drift into the use of persons for whom they are not mainly intended. But the schemes of the Commissioners are not confined to Polytechnics. It is proposed to establish two Public Libraries in the City of London, but I think it is a matter of doubtful expediency whether so great an outlay should be undertaken for the benefit of so small a section of the people of London. I think that the money proposed to be devoted to that
1276
purpose should be left in the hands of the Trustees of the City of London Parochial Charities, and be devoted for the benefit generally of the people of London. I was the Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill dealing with these matters was referred a few days ago, and I was under the impression that the intention of the Committee and of those who were interested in the Bill was that a large proportion of the money was to be left at the disposal of the Trustees. The schemes of the Commissioners, however, practically dispose of almost the whole of it; the sum left to be used at the discretion of the Trustees is hardly worth considering, and I should be glad to see a large amount placed at their disposal. I am also not satisfied that it was not the intention of the Committee that a larger sum should be appropriated to recreational purposes. There is nothing in which the public of the Metropolis are more interested than open spaces, and if money were expended in providing such spaces in the poorest parts of London the people would unquestionably derive great advantage from the outlay. Therefore, I am sorry a larger proportion of the money is not to be devoted to that purpose. Surely, whatever may be the value of the scheme as a whole, it may be revised in the direction I have suggested. We might get rid of the part referring to the establishment of Public Libraries in the City, and thus place a larger amount at the discretion of the Trustees, who would be able then to devote an increased sum for the purposes of recreation. We do not feel any hostility to the scheme of Polytechnics; all we desire is that the use of those institutions shall be secured to the working classes of the Metropolis. I hope the Vice President of the Council will adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and agree to lay before the public more detailed information which is probably in the possession of the Charity Commissioners as to existing schemes. I also hope that he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider and take evidence upon the whole scheme.
MR. W. R. CREMER: Within the last year or two it has been my

1277
privilege more than once to accompany deputations which have waited upon the Charity Commissioners, and I desire to express my sense of the uniform courtesy and patience which the Commissioners have displayed on those occasions. I believe that those gentlemen discharge their duties with what they conceive to be a due regard to the interests of the people and in a high-minded and conscientious manner. But, at the same time, I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen that more consideration ought to have been shown in these schemes for the physical recreation of the people; and, if it had been possible, to have referred the matter to a Hybrid Committee consisting of some of the Charity Commissioners, some practical Members of the House of Commons, and certain members of the County Council, a scheme could, I believe, have been drawn up that would have met with the almost universal approval of the people of London. I think the Commissioners should have devoted more of the money at their disposal to the provision of playgrounds and gymnasiums in the poorer parts of London. Funds might also have been appropriated for providing free baths and washhouses, which would be a great boon to enormous and poor districts like Haggerston and Hoxton, where there is not a single public bath or washhouse. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to the valuable proposals of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I think it is not too late now to vary the schemes; and I am sure, from what I have seen of the general desire of the Charity Commissioners to do that which is most beneficial for the people of London, they will only be too glad to have associated with them a few practical men from this House to assist in the revision of the scheme. Although the appointment of a Hybrid Committee would be without precedent, I feel confident that if the experiment were tried the results would be perfectly satisfactory to the majority of the people.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am quite certain that no member of the Committee will be disposed to quarrel either with the manner or matter of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and although I may not be able to accede to the requests of the hon. Member, I do hope to be able to satisfy him upon the important point that those
1278
upon whom is cast the duty of preparing these schemes feel very deeply the responsibility under which they labour and desire to take advantage of every suggestion that could enable them arrive at a satisfactory and a useful result. The hon. Member naturally takes a paternal interest in the result of the legislation in which ho took so prominent a part, for he was the author of the Act of 1883, and it is perfectly natural that he should be anxious with regard to the success of it. He, therefore, has every excuse for alluding to the question. As to the hon. Member's first suggestion, I shall be glad to take every opportunity of making the details of these schemes known to the public and of publishing all information I possess in connection with them. But may I also venture to throw out this consideration: that the very fact of this discussion having taken place in this House will be of much service in making the circumstances connected with these schemes known to the public? I must, however, remind the hon. Member that these schemes are drawn up upon lines that render the whole proposal dependent upon voluntary contribution, and that, if the carrying out of the schemes is to be materially delayed, the voluntary contributions may drop off and the whole of the schemes might fall through. When hon. Members realise that danger I think they will agree that we ought not willingly to allow any element of delay to enter into the application of the money to these purposes. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Aberdeen further discussed the merits and demerits of the Polytechnics which this scheme proposes to set up. It is true he did not condemn the proposal; but he urged that some of the money might be applied to other purposes, and he threw out some hint of the danger of non-success. I admit that there is something in his suggestion that where such an enormous amount of money is involved, it would be a great pity if, by this central scheme of Polytechnics, the efficiency of the whole scheme were endangered. It must be admitted that in framing this scheme the Commissioners had before them a very good type of institution by which they might be guided I refer to the Polytechnic in Regent-street. I have before me the most accurate information as to the financial position of that institution. I hope that information will

1279
be placed on an early day in possession of the House. With regard to the criticism that it would be a pity to expend the money at once on different institutions, let me point out that it is from the very nature of things impossible that all these schemes are come into operation at once. The hon. Member has thrown out one or two suggestions, and he has suggested that Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to pass an amending Act. When I look at the state of business in the House, and consider the amount of legislation which we have to pass between this and the Prorogation, I do not think the most sanguine amongst us is prepared to give a promise that we will introduce an amending Act. Then the hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should refer the scheme to a Select Committee. We have had seven years of the Act, during which period the Commissioners have deliberated upon the schemes, and now, after seven years' work, it is proposed to refer the schemes to a Select Committee. If we agree to that, I submit we should be opposing not only the previous Select Committee, but tearing into fragments the Act dealing with these schemes. I assure the hon. Member that we are fully aware of the importance of the matter. We will take careful note of all the suggestions laid before us, and will do whatever we feel most conducive to the great educational advantage and general benefit of the Metropolis.
Sir LYON PLAYFAIR: My right hon. Friend has exhaustively treated the subject, but one point—and a very important one—he has omitted, and that is the apprehension which has been entertained that these schemes may drift away from the working classes and go to classes for which they are not intended. This danger has been completely avoided, for instance, in Regent Street. If any hon. Member will go and examine the Regent Street institution, of which I have the honour to be one of the Executive Body, he will find the working classes using that institution in the most remarkable way. There he will find brickmakers, tailors, watchmakers, masons, and others trying to get a better and more general knowledge of their industry, which is cut up into so many divisions that a man actually en-
1280
gaged as a workman in it may really know nothing of it as a whole. It is quite delightful to see how many working men increase their intelligence in this way. Unintelligent working men will never use these institutions, but intelligent working men go there and benefit by developing that intelligence which they are able to apply for the future improvement of their industries. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that great care must be taken in watching these institutions and seeing they are fitted for the localities, but the localities take care of that for themselves. It is found in the case of all these institutions that the working men of the localities insist upon having classes for the industries chiefly carried on in the districts. The difficulty is to provide for all the demands made. There is another point of great importance, and that is, that there should be a department for recreation and physical training. If you go to any of these institutions and see the excellent gymnasiums and methods that are provided for the physical benefit and recreation of the members, you will come to the conclusion that the matter is most important. I hope these institutions will not become merely educational institutions, but that men who desire physical improvement will be able to go there for that purpose, and that when they come in contact with the intelligent working men who are employing themselves in technical training, they will be tempted to take advantage of the more educational parts of the institution. In conclusion, I heartily join with other members in expressing my admiration for the manner in which the Charity Commissioners have given their attention to the schemes and laboriously endeavoured to fit each Polytechnic to the district in which it is placed.
MR. NORRIS: I rise to re-assure the minds of right hon. and hon. Members opposite with reference to the question of physical recreative education and athletic exercises. I have to do with another institution of equal importance, perhaps, to the Polytechnics, namely, the People's Palace, and I can bear witness to the excellent results being achieved there. The hon. Member for South Leeds need not fear that the bodily welfare of young

1281
men and women is being neglected by these institutions. Had the hon. Gentleman been able to be at the People's Palace on Monday last he would have seen from 100 to 200 young women engaging in calisthenics. The Charity Commissioners have given us, up to the present, £3,500 per annum—I hope it may become more—and the money has been well spent in improving mind and body. We have a very large swimming bath, the gift of Lord Rosebery, and we are looking to voluntary subscriptions for the completion of the work going on there. It seems to me that a Committee on this subject would be entirely unnecessary. All these institutions are managed by Boards of Trustees who are composed of capable business men, men who generally know the locality and who are devoting themselves to the interests of the working classes. I cordially join hon. Gentlemen in congratulating the Charity Commissioners upon the way in which they have spent the money placed in their hands, and I am able to state that our Technical Schools are doing good work in the instruction of that class for which they are intended, and to which class alone they have been, and are confined.
SIR B. SAMUELSON: I cannot altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Play-fair) in the unqualified praise which he has given to these Polytechnics as technical institutions. The Regent Street Polytechnic, no doubt, has been a successful one; but it has been so entirely through the energy of its founder, Mr. Quintin Hogg. The People's Palace, on the other hand, I consider to be entirely on its trial so far as regards its educational aspects; and I must confess that the work which is going on in the technical and purely educational classes does not seem to me to be such as will, in the long run, command the confidence of the working people. Because one of these institutions has been successful for a great many years and the other is still on its trial, the Charity Commissioners have rushed into the sanction of a multiplication of them, which may with great advantage, in my opinion, be deferred. The great fact on which my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council relied as to why we should be in a hurry about the promotion of
1282
these institutions, appears to me to be one which should cause us to be additionally cautious. He tells us that subscriptions to the amount of £500,000 depend upon the contributions from the Charity Commissioners; but, if it should turn out that a mistake has been made, it would not end here, and bearing in mind what has happened to Mechanics' Institutes in many places, I think that, even at the risk of sacrificing some of the subscriptions which have been promised, it is desirable not to hasten the matter, lest a failure hero should discourage the public from similar liberality throughout the country. We ought to take time—by examination before a Select Committee, or by starting only one or two Polytechnics at first—before we enter upon an enormous expenditure of money, whether charity money or the money of private subscribers.
MR. LAWSON: I think it would be difficult for a London Member to give a vote which might be construed as a condemnation of the action of the Commissioners. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) based his indictment upon the want of discussion of the schemes in the different localities where they are set up. I can hardly agree in that opinion. We took the matter up in all the parishes. There was a great deal of local consideration and discussion, and the opinion of the different districts was fully canvassed. It was not until we had arrived at a practically unanimous opinion that we went in deputation to the Charity Commissioners. The principle of the action of the Charity Commissioners has been that they will give £1 for every £1 subscribed by the public. On that condition money has been given by the public and sites promised, and I submit it would not be right at this time of day to suggest that the equivalent contribution should not be made out of the funds of the City Parochial Charities. It would almost be a breach of faith. It has been said we have not had a sufficient trial of these institutions. Reference has been made to two only; but in St. Pancras, to my own knowdledge, there is an institution which both in respect to industrial education and physical training has already achieved excellent results on a small scale. This scheme was very fully considered by the London County Council. It is true they presented a Report

1283
by a small majority against its adoption, but I think they were influenced mainly by a side issue. They objected to the constitution of the new Governing Body-That, I understand, the Charity Commissioners are prepared to re-consider. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Commissioners wish to give the fullest weight to all suggestions. I would particularly commend to him those made in respect, not of polytechnics, but of City parishes; those where, I am bound to say, a good deal of fault may be found with the large provision made for a very small resident population. As to physical training we thought something might have been done with a view of providing open spaces, especially in the east and south of London; but I think the population of London generally are well satisfied with the scheme. The scheme should be looked at as a whole, and, believing, as I do, that it is a symmetrical and thorough one, London Members are bound to give it their support.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: With regard to what precautions are taken in the schemes for preventing the character of the polytechnics being altered and used for classes for whom they are not intended, I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) to the 43rd clause of the Central Scheme. The effect of that clause is that if at any time it should appear to the Commissioners that the character of the polytechnics is altering, and that the classes who are attending the institutions are not of the poorer classes, such as the Act contemplated, and such as the House desires to benefit, they shall call the attention of the central Governing Body to the matter. And if it appears on inquiry that due regard is not had to the interest of the poorer classes the annual payments in support of the polytechnics are to be withheld. In the same way another safeguard is obtained by permitting the Central Body to take initiative action and to call the attention of the Charity Commissioners to the fact that the character of the polytechnics is altering. In that case inquiry would be made, and if it appeared that due regard was not had to the interests of the poorer classes the annual subvention could be
1284
withheld. That, I think, forms a sufficient guarantee against the character of these institutions being altered. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir B. Samuelson) said that the Charity Commissioners have been rushing into a sanction of polytechnics. I do not think that there has been any rushing at all on the part of the Commissioners. The fact is rather the other way. We have found so many applications from different parts of London, all pointing in the direction of polytechnics, that the Commissioners have really been rather forced into the adoption of this particular scheme for carrying out the Act. Let me also point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are six objects laid down in the Act which are to be held in view in the making of the schemes. The scheme of polytechnics meets directly four of these objects, and indirectly it meets one. The only alternative scheme that has ever been suggested is a scheme for open spaces in London, and that only meets one of the objects.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I would not have risen but for the remarks of the hon. Baronet, who seemed rather to discredit the advances that technical education has made in the Metropolis, and to consider that what has been done at the Regent Street Polytechnic and at the People's Palace represents all that has been done in London. I know that, among other very successful technical schools now now being conducted in London, there is the Finsbury School of the City Guilds Institution in the parish of St. Luke's, and from the Principal I learn that the classes are well attended, indicating the desire which I know generally exists among the rising generation to seize the opportunity for obtaining technical instruction. I do not think there is any fear whatever that, if facilities are afforded, technical education will fall through. I think the people are most willing to avail themselves of every opportunity offered in this direction. With regard to the schemes, I have to endorse the remark of my Colleagues that whether they are perfect or not they have been well ventilated. Many of us have had to act on Joint Commitees in our districts, have addressed public meetings in the largest halls available, and the whole thing has been brought prominently before the public. It is

1285
just the popularity of the movement that has led to the offer of such large sums of money for the purposes of technical education, and especially was this the case in reference to that magnificent site promised by the Marquess of Northampton. I am second to none in appreciating the importance of technical education, but it would be a great mistake to allow that desire to lead us astray from the requirements of other institutions. I am convinced from experience that many lads who eventually get into the technical schools are at first decoyed by the recreative element attached, and I say even if you do not decoy them so far as the technical school, the recreative element is good in itself. I will not enter into the question how far the use of a swimming bath will conduce to making a lad a good citizen. If he will allow me, I should like to correct the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford in his remarks upon the City of London Library. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not think two libraries were wanted for such a small portion of the City of London—that is the Cripplegate scheme. I am glad to say the Commissioners have seen that something better can be done, and they have made one of the libraries available for a population of 55,000 outside the City much in want of a free library, and in a very poor district indeed. In regard to open spaces, I suppose we are all at one in the desire to have more of them in London, and I do not think we need doubt that something will be done in this direction before long. Other monies will be available, though we spend this on technical education—other monies which belong to the City of London, and will have to be looked after, and that speedily.
MR. GILLIAT: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Aberdeen for his remarks, with many of which I heartily agree. I only, however, wish to say that the present is a very inopportune time for withdrawing our support to polytechnic institutions. Charitable funds are provided in proportion to the publicity and popularity of the movement, and if trade is sensitive I am sure that charitable contributions are more sensitive still. The subject has been, I think, most carefully ventilated in the House to-night, I hope, with
1286
very great profit. I entirely agree that most careful consideration should be given to polytechnic schemes; they should be modelled on the Regent Street form. I am most anxious that we should not do anything to divert those charitable funds now devoted to this object.
MR. BRYCE: There are but a few remarks I desire to make in reply to what has been said in this discussion. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the most serious objection to the present scheme, namely, the comparatively small sum of money allowed to the now Governing Body. Even assuming that they would have £3,500 or £4,000, and assuming that that sum is doubled, giving, at the very outside, £8,000, that is n very small sum out of the immense fund of £118,000 to be left to the future new Governing Body for London. Several speakers have remarked upon the delay that might be caused by the appointment of a Committee, but nothing could be further from my mind than to advocate any step on the part of the Government which might keep the schemes floating for more than a few months at the outside. My suggestion is that a Committee might investigate the few points on which complaint is made in the course of four or five sittings. The reason why the Bill took so long in passing in the years 1881, 1882, and 1883 was that it was persistently blocked by hon. Members on the other side, and especially by the representatives of the City of London. But for their hostility, we might have carried ft in one sitting through Second Reading, and in live or six sittings through the Committee. I believe that all the points I have now adverted to might be disposed of in, say, four sittings by a Committee upstairs. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to adopt this course, I do not desire to press it. I am not dissatisfied with the discussion we have had.
MR. BLANE: In a discussion which arises on a Vote of this kind reference is unavoidable to the action of a large military force in Ireland which appears in these Civil Estimates under the head of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to discuss that item I may remind him that there are Members who desire to refer to previous items.

THE COINAGE.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: Before we reach the Irish Votes I want to say a word or two upon item 18, relating to the Mint. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions: first as to the state of the gold coinage. As the Committee is aware the right hon. Gentleman has called in the pre-Victorian gold coinage, and I wish to ask him if he is satisfied with the steps he has taken under the Act of last Session, whether he himself believes we have practically got in the pre-Victorian gold coins? Assuming that is the case, and I hope it is, what does he propose to do with reference to the Victorian gold coinage? I think I am within the mark when I say that three-fifths of that coinage in circulation is light. This is a question the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised every year to deal with, and as he is now in possession of ample funds—I do not ask him to make any reference to his forthcoming financial policy—I ask him, does he propose to deal with the light Victorian coins? Another point upon which I wish to ask him a question has reference to the silver coinage. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the general inconvenience caused by the confusion created by the Jubilee coinage not having the value of the coin marked on the reverse. I consider the new double-florin piece or dollar a very valuable coin, and I am glad to see it put into circulation, but at the present time it is undistinguishable from the five shilling piece. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the other night, I understand, that the coins were distinguishable by the four shields on the reverse of the double-florin and "St. George and Dragon" on the crown piece, but I do not think that practical every-day people will remember this distinction. I do not see why we departed from the practice of putting the value upon the coin. The florin bears in a circle outside the shields the words, "one florin—one tenth of a pound." We ought not to regard a coin as a medal.
1288
The first consideration for a coin is its convenience, not its medallic beauty. I can quite understand that the authorities at the Mint have a preference for a beautiful coin—whether they succeed or not I will not say. I will not discuss the artistic beauty of the Jubilee coinage. A florin, shilling, sixpence, or threepenny piece, with its value marked upon it, is of far more use as a coin than a merely artistic medal. I can quite understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer relies on the opinion of the Mint Authorities, who may be unwilling to interfere with what they consider a fine work of art, but among the general public there is a good deal of dissatisfaction because of the inconvenience of not having the silver coins marked with their value, and I refer particularly to the double florin, which should have on its face the words, "one dollar—one fifth of a pound," just as the florin is marked "one tenth." Further, I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the great scarcity of shilling pieces in circulation in the manufacturing districts; there is an ample supply of the larger silver pieces, but not enough shillings; perhaps he will use means to have this inconvenience removed by increasing the coinage or issue of shillings?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. J. G. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): With regard to the last point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the dearth of the shilling piece in the manufacturing districts—I can only state that the supply of shillings, according to the Bank of England, is ample, but the great difficulty is in providing that the coin shall reach those who most want it. The Government have very little power in circulating the silver coinage, and I shall have something to say in the Budget on the manner in which we have been able to supply the demand of the public for more silver coins. But while we have done our best to supply silver coins there have been complaint from some quarters that we have supplied too much. Bankers do not like silver coins, and this is an illustration of the difficulty of inducing sufficient circulation of silver to meet the popular demand in all parts of the country at the same time. It would be a great mistake to flood the country with

1289
silver; yet I am the last person to wish to see a dearth of it, and the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I will do what I can to increase the number of shilling coins if necessary, or to facilitate the circulation. With regard to the pre-Victorian coinage, I am not entirely satisfied with the pace at which it has flowed into the Bank of England. As soon as it appeared to be known that a good full-weight sovereign could be obtained for a light sovereign there was no longer any desire to part with the light coin, and it became necessary to put pressure on the bankers to assist the Government in getting in the pre-Victorian coins. In some cases I regret to say that bankers have re-issued light coin rather than incur the slight expense of sending it to Loudon for exchange. Since notice was given that after a given day light coins would no longer be exchanged for full-weight ones, they have been flowing in with greater rapidity, but the amount is still far short of the amount estimated by the Mint to be in circulation. With regard to the future, I will make futher statement in the Budget, but I may say that I certainly intend to go forward, if the House encourages the Government to do so, with the rehabilitation of the Victorian gold coinage. But the public, who are mainly interested in the work, must assist the Government. Private bankers and others who have great influence in the matter should also assist, and if the Government are so encouraged, we will take steps to rehabilitate the gold coinage and make it the credit to the country that it ought to be. I observe from the applause on both sides of the House that greeted the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that there is a general desire that convenience rather than art should be consulted in the design of the coinage. Numismatists allege that it is barbarous to put the amount of the value on a coin; but, whether this is so or not, there appears to be a growing desire that something should be done in this respect, and I will consult with the proper authorities on the point. I think, however, that, as a rule, when a particular coin becomes thoroughly known people recognise it at once by its general appearance; for instance, there is a great difference in general appearance between the double florin and the five-
1290
shilling piece, as there is also between the florin and the half-crown, and few mistakes should be made in those coins. At the same time I am quite ready to consult public opinion on the matter; and I will do what I can to meet the wishes of the House and the country.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to light coinage, I am sure the Government will have the support of the House; in any well-considered measure for putting the coinage of the country upon a proper footing, a position it does not certainly occupy now. I was much surprised to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said of the conduct of bankers in not sending in the light coin. There is certainly a heavy responsibility resting on bankers in the matter, for they know perfectly well that the issue of light coin is contrary to law, and the fact that they should go on issuing it when they know they can exchange it for sterling coin of proper weight will not meet with the approbation of any one who is interested in the currency of the country.
MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman must not think it has been the general practice with bankers. It would be unfair if I said anything to convey that impression. What I said was that there had been instances of the re-issue of light coinage, but I do not desire that any exaggerated statement should go forth.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I was not contradicting the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for I believe there is too much foundation for it. It is quite enough that there should have been instances of such conduct; it is a course which no banker ought to follow, for it is an evil example to the community, and throws the light coinage on the public in an unjust and improper way. I hope that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on the point will serve as a warning, for it is a serious thing when persons who are placed in the fiduciary relation to the public which bankers occupy do not carry out the responsibilities placed on them. As to the question of art in regard to the coinage, and defacing it by any addition, I think that since the recent Jubilee coins were issued the artists might be left out of consideration altogether. It would be a considerable

1291
advantage to deface the work of the artists on those coins, for it is not possible to produce anything more hideous than the recent coinage, or to make it uglier by adding anything to it. At all events, lam very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to do something in the matter of the light coinage, and I hope that whatever is done will be done speedily and effectively.
MR. CAUSTON: Just a few words in regard to the 4s. pieces. I put a question the other day on the point, and the right hon. Gentleman will hardly be surprised if I take the opportunity to illustrate the inconvenience that arises from similarity in the currency. I have in my hand a letter from the chief cashier of a London Railway Company, and he says that frequent errors arise between the 4s. and 5s. pieces, and if these mistakes occur with experts in the handling of coins, how much more frequent they must be among those persons who have but an occasional acquaintance with the double florin. There is an instance brought under my notice in which a conductor of a London omnibus handed a passenger 4s. 11d. change for a double florin. I have another letter from a secretary to a club, and he says that members finding that the 4s. piece is not liked in ordinary circulation bring the coins to the club and so get rid of them, making the club a sort of shoot for coin they cannot readily get rid of elsewhere. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seriously consider the desirability of withdrawing either the 4s. or 5s. piece, or both.

WESTMINSTER HALL.
MR. CREMER: I want to bring under the notice of the First Commissioner of Works the circumstances under which Members of this House are excluded from the Buckingham Chamber and the Painted Chamber in the adjoining building. Until the last eight or ten months a Member was privileged to introduce a friend to view the paintings in the Buckingham Chamber simply by applying to the policeman on duty, but now we are rigidly excluded unless we have the sanction of Black Rod. Why should Members of this House be excluded from taking their friends into the Buckingham Chamber to see the two magnificent pictures it contains, and why
1292
should the room be locked against Members of this House? I can only say that if this practice be continued, when the Vote for the House of Lords is under consideration, I shall not only repeat my protest but will move a reduction of the Vote, and I shall persevere in that course until Members of this House are allowed every facility for entering that chamber. I do not grudge the amount of public money that has been expended on the production of these magnificent works of art; but I do strongly protest against Members of this House and their friends being prevented from viewing them by the intolerable restrictions that have been framed- by somebody, and which ought not to be allowed to exist for 24 hours. Then, again, there is a chamber called the "Painted Chamber" in the House of Lords, and there is still more difficulty in getting there than in the other case. I am, however, not quite sure that I accurately stated the difficulties in relation to the Buckingham Chamber. There are some new rules, which, I am told, have only come into existence during the last few months, so that no Member of this House can visit either Chamber unless he is escorted by a Peer. But Peers are not always in attendance, and it is not every Member of this House who has the privilege of being acquainted with one. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works will do his best to inquire into this matter, with a view, if possible, of enabling the Members of this House to visit the other House with their friends on convenient occasions. I also wish also to call attention to the fact that the Crypt is kept carefully locked against Members of this House, who bring friends here, or whose friends call to see them before 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and who would be glad to show them that portion of the building if they could do so. If you inquire in the Cloak Room they tell you that Mr. Coe has not arrived, and that until then you cannot get the keys to visit the Crypt. It certainly seems monstrous that Members of this House cannot visit the Crypt because the chief official has not arrived on the scene. I do not know why the keys should not be left with the attendants, in whom some confidence must be reposed, or they would not be retained in their positions. These

1293
are three grievances which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance he will do his best to put an end to as speedily as possible. I should like also to ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps the Government propose to take to carry out the semi-promise made last year in regard to the employés in this building and the Government Offices. The right hon. Gentleman gave a half promise to appoint a Committee to consider the grievances of the employés in the various Government Offices; and I should think he would be glad in that way to be relieved of a somewhat difficult duty which both be and the First Lord of the Treasury are doubtless anxious to see discharged in these and other Government Offices. Are the Government willing that a Committee should be appointed, or will they give a pledge that the system of contracting for workmen employed in the Government Offices shall be discontinued? I suppose I should be out of order if I referred to the British Museum at this moment; but I might ask whether the same system is not carried on there, some of the boys having 4s. or 5s. per week deducted from their wages by the contractor, whilst 6s. or 7s. per week are deducted from the other employé's. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Well, I may be wrong, but my information comes from the men themselves, and I state the figures from memory. I protest, and shall continue to protest, against such a system. If painters and carpenters are to be provided by the Government contractor in the interests of economy, it is equally in the interests of economy that the higher forms of labour should be provided in the same way. Until the same system prevails from top to bottom, I shall continue my protest. I will conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information as to the first point I have raised, namely, the exclusion of Members from the Lords' rooms, and what steps would be taken to put an end to this contract system?
CAPTAIN VERNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether Westminster Hall may not now be thrown open to the public as in former times?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: With regard to the admission of Members and their friends to the rooms referred to, and the question of the custody of the keys of the Crypt, the inquiries now made have come to me for the first time. I am not aware of the circumstances, but I will make inquiries into the matter, and when the Estimates are before the House I shall be prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. As to the employés of the contractors, that question was raised a few nights ago, and I then said that I was in communication with my Colleagues the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject. The question is one of extreme-difficulty, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have given a great deal of attention to it. In this particular case the problem is complicated by the existence of a contract that will not expire for another year. I think, however, that we have succeeded in hitting on a plan that will to some extent meet the views of the hon. Member; but, of course, it is impossible while the present contract lasts to give effect to any new system except with the consent of the contractor. I have placed myself in communication with the contractor, and am not without hope that even before the termination of the contract a new system will be adopted, which, and I say it with some confidence, I expect will be more satisfactory to the hon. Member than the present system. That is all I can say at present, because the negotiations have not yet come to a conclusion; but I may say that when the Estimates are before the House I shall be able to answer the question at greater length. I can assure the hon. Member I have been doing the best I can to devise some plan that will be more acceptable, both to the hon. Member and the employé's of the Government, and which, at the same time, will not be contrary to the interests of the country.
MR. CREMER: I gather from the courteous reply of the right hen. Gentleman that he is exerting himself to modify the terms of the contract, but that is not the object I have in view. I never contended for a modification of the

1295
terms. What I object to is not whether a contractor shall deduct 5, 10, or 20 per cent, from the workmens' wages, but against any deductions at all. The principle of engaging men through the agency of a contractor is a pernicious one, and I shall continue my protests unless the same rule is applied to the highly-paid officials. I shall, however, be content for the present if the right hon. Gentleman will give the House a guarantee that before a new contract is made he will state to the House clearly the nature and character of the contract into which he proposes to enter, so as to afford hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject. I know that the contract has another 12 months to run. I regret the fact, but I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for it.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to answer my question as to the throwing open of Westminster Hall.
MR. PLUNKET: That is a question in regard to which I can take no step without consulting the authorities of the Home Office and the police. I will, however, make inquiries at the Home Office, and see whether there is any objection to Westminster Hall being again thrown open. I may add that when the question was last put the Home Office authorities did not think it desirable to re-open Westminster Hall to the public.
MR. CREMER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my last question.
MR. PLUNKET: It is impossible for me to say more than I have already said until the hon. Member has seen the proposals I hope to bring forward. I cannot, however, give a distinct pledge that any contract will be submitted to the House before it is agreed to.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I desire to call attention to the Vote in Class III. for Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
MR. PICTON: I rise to order. I have something to say on Class II., which, I presume, would conic before Class III.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Admiral would not be strictly speaking out of order in referring to Class III., although the last discussion was on Class I., but no reduction of the Vote was proposed. At the same time, hon.
1296
Members would do well to follow the items in their regular order; and if the hon. Member for Leicester desires to discuss an item in Class II., it would be better for him to precede the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
MR. PICTON: I wish to draw attention to what I consider is a grievance under which Friendly Societies suffer. It came to my knowledge a short time ago that a Friendly Society, in my own district, when they sent up their fee for registration of their Rules received no acknowledgment. At the end of the year the auditor raises a difficulty, and very properly, and the result is that the accounts are not properly audited. I am sure that all Members of this House are most anxious that there should be a stringent audit. Surely it would not be very much trouble to send an acknowledgment of the fee. It is a matter of principle that these Societies should have their accounts properly audited. I am not suggesting that any blame attaches to the Office of the Registrar; but I think we may complain of a Rule which I think would be better honoured in the breach than the observance.
MR. CREMER: I should like to join my hon. Friend in complaining of the looseness of the manner in which the business of the Registrar of Friendly Societies is conducted. Last year a Committee sat upstairs, and we made some recommendations with regard to the business of the Registrar. Some few years ago I was connected with a Society who were desirous of altering their Rules. We sent our proposals to the Registrar, and they were returned to us in two or three weeks. We had no idea that two or three very important Rules had been expunged by the Registrar, and we went on working under them for three or four years. It then became necessary to prosecute one of our officers before a police magistrate, who would not, of course, hear the case until the copy of Rules certified by the Registrar was produced. Neither the solicitor who prosecuted, or Mr. Cooke, the magistrate at Marylebone, discovered that any Rules had been expunged, and it was only some two years after that case had been heard

1297
and determined, when some of our members had occasion to see the Registrar, that we discovered that we had for years been working under Rules that were absolutely illegal. Last year the Committee made certain recommendations as to the work of the Office of Registry; and I wish to know from the hon. Gentleman whether those recommendations have been adopted, especially the one which, proposed that the Registrar should use a stamp to obliterate any Rule which is not in accordance with the Trades' Unions or Friendly Societies' Acts. Is that recommendation now being acted upon by the Registrar, so as to avoid in the future that illegality and confusion which has been experienced in the past?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Of course, I am not able to say what form of acknowledgment should be made for the fee; but it seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Member for Leicester is a reasonable one, and I will inquire whether it can possibly be done. With reference to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Cremer), there has been, as he knows, a Committee of Inquiry into the working of Friendly Societies and the Office of Registry, and some considerable alterations have been suggested, and some have been promptly adopted. I am not able to say off-hand whether a stamp could be used or not; but I will take care to bring the question before the Registrar of Friendly Societies, with a view to preventing in some form or other a repetition of the circumstances to which the hon. Member has referred.

IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, I should like to see the Chief Secretary in his place. Some hon. Member will perhaps go for him, for I know he is ready to answer charges brought against the Irish Government, and that he does not at all shirk discussion. To-day I put a question to the Chief Secretary respecting the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland—political prisoners who are usually called criminals in Ireland. And a few days ago I put a similar question to him, and as I have reason to be very dissatisfied with the answers given to me by the Attorney General
1298
for Ireland for the Chief Secretary, and by the Chief Secretary himself, I feel constrained to bring the matter more formally under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The first subject I will bring under his notice is the treatment of political prisoners under the Coercion Act. That subject was introduced to the notice of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast last year. The Prison Rules were altered last year, under the inspiration, I believe, of the Chief Secretary, because he expressed the opinion that we were able to make some use of the treatment of political prisoners, and that we were able to make some impression on public opinion, which was reflected in the results of the bye-elections. Under the Rules as altered a man might object to have his hair shorn, or to wear prison clothes, unless the doctor considered it necessary for sanitary reasons. He might object to take his exercise in company with persons who were criminal and had been sentenced for disgraceful offences. A man might object to the performance of menial offices. These were the points that were conceded. According to the rules of the prison, it was discovered that prisoners need not perform these menial offices if they paid a certain amount per day. Now, Sir, these alterations in the rules were turned to the disadvantage of the prisoners. They were altered to meet public opinion, but they were used by the Prisons Board, I believe—I hope I am wrong—as inspired by the Chief Secretary. Why do I say that? Some of us were sent to prison last year—I am obliged to make reference to myself, as well as to several of my hon. Friends—and we gained experience of prison treatment. The reason why I say that the Chief Secretary was cognisant of this state of things is because, when we were first in prison, we were exercised in a separate and distinct class. I walked with my hon. Friend every day some seven or eight paces apart, so that we held no conversation, nor had we any desire to break the prison rules in this respect. In this manner we were exercised for a week in Clonmel Gaol, and then we were removed to Tullamore, my hon. friend above being removed to Galway, and for five days at Tullamore we were allowed to take exercise together in the

1299
yard, at the same hour. But then came I an order from the Prisons Board, which, I say, the Chief Secretary inspired, and we were put upon that system of confinement which is meted out to the most incorrigible ruffians in English prisons, who are not amenable to the ordinary prison rules and are cast into solitary confinement. This was the response to the expression of English public opinion. The Chief Secretary, by the aid of his Prisons Board, sent down an order that we were to lose the benefit public opinion created in our favour, and the rules, instead of operating in our favour, operated to our disadvantage. That is my grievance. My hon. Friend will bear me out. I charge the Chief Secretary with having, by the exercise of his authority, and by the mal-administration of the new rules, carried out a malignant and petty spite. I say that it was beneath the Prisons Board, and beneath any fair administration of the rules, to endeavour to take from us the benefit that public opinion demanded we should have, reducing us to a worse position than we occupied before. I shall be curious to know what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on this point when he replies to this and some other matters I wish to bring under his notice. At this moment there are in Tullamore Gaol a sufficient number of persons sentenced under the Coercion Act to constitute a class in themselves, who have declined to wear the prison dress and to take exercise with ordinary criminals, and who are, therefore, reduced to this condition of hardship of which I complain. One of these is a man to whom I have referred in a question, to which I got a very unsatisfactory reply. I mean Mr. O'Mahoney, the editor of the Tipperary Nationalist. I asked the Chief Secretary as to the state of this gentleman's health, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that the officials of the gaol and the Police Authorities had no information of the state of Mr. O'Mahoney's health. At the same time I knew that medical certificates from two practitioners in Clonmel were in the hands of the Police Authorities, and that the prison doctor and the prison officials very well knew the state of Mr. O'Mahoney's health. I offered to hand the Chief Secretary copies of these certificates, but he declined them, and I was obliged to say I would take another
1300
opportunity of bringing them to his notice. This I now do. Here is a certificate signed Philip O'Flynn, M.D., L.R.C.P.E., M.R.C.S.—
"I hereby certify that I have attended Mr. J. O'Mahoney during various illnesses and I consider him a man of delicate constitution. His recent attack of influenza has prostrated him much. I saw him on the day of his removal to prison, and, in my opinion, his condition was so weakly as to require very careful treatment and a nourishing regimen."
The other certificate is signed by Dr. Thomas J. Cree, of Clonmel, who says—
"Of Mr. O'Mahoney's ordinary condition of health I am not in a position to speak. The day on which I saw Mr. O'Mahoney, the date of which I now forget, he was certainly very low and suffering from extreme prostration, which generally follows a had attack of influenza."
These are the copies of two certificates which I offered to hand the Chief Secretary, and I assert they were in the hands of the police, and that they knew the state of Mr. O'Mahoney's health, and that the Governor of the prison and the doctor must have been aware of it when the right hon. Gentleman answered my question to the effect that ho had no information as to Mr. O'Mahoney's health when he was outside. Yet this gentleman, accustomed, as newspaper editors are, to night work, and to the treatment people engaged as they are require, was put into the prison at Clonmel, put upon a plank bed, and obliged to eat the meagre diet of a convict, although he was prostrated by illness; and although one of the doctors, evidently of eminence, from the letters to his name, stated the condition of the prisoner was weakly, so as to require careful treatment and a nourishing regimen. This is the man to whom you gave a plank bed, a meagre diet, and confinement in a narrow cell, 12 feet by six, for 22 hours out of the 24. And all this upon the word of the doctor of Clonmel prison, whose name has been often mentioned in this House, and whose character for sanity is not very well established.
DR. TANNER: Mad as a March hare.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: This is part and parcel of the manner in which Prison Authorities in Ireland conduct the administration of their prisons, and appl the rules to prisoners under the Coercion Act, an Act which I hope the Chief Secre-

1301
tary has found, or that he will soon find, it is not to his advantage to put into operation. The next matter I must bring under his notice is the manner in which his magistrates in Ireland have of late begun to incite the police to commit outrages upon the people, even to the extent of taking life. Now, these are not old matters, old friends, as they have been called, that I am bringing under notice. The name of Mr. Cecil Roche is familiar, and the discussion of his conduct has often enlivened the proceedings in this House, but never in our charges against this gentleman have we yet accused him of inciting to violence and murder. We have shown how this Resident Magistrate has occasionally left the Bench to head a police charge, using his blackthorn on the heads of the people, and then, returning to his judicial position, has sentenced the unfortunate persons his men have assaulted, but this I am referring to is a different matter. Mr. Cecil Roche, on December 17 last, in referring to the shooting of a young man in a district of the County Cork, said that he agreed with the sentence of the Court, and if in any other civilised country in the world these men had attacked the ministers of the law, their lives might have been taken, and the police justified by the Government in taking their lives. This statement is important, when taken in connection with another utterance made a day afterwards by the Crown prosecutor of Tipperary, Mr. Bolton. A young man had been shot by the police, and Mr. Bolton said—
"Stones were deadly weapons, and it is well to let the public know if the constabulary are driven to it and their lives are in peril they were justified in using their weapons without reading the Riot Act and without the order of a superior officer."
This is the way in which the police are incited to baton and even to kill the people. The police have only to state that their lives were in danger in order to obtain justification for anything- they might do. Mr. Bolton has said that stones are deadly weapons, and that if they are thrown at the police the latter may load their rifles and fire without reading the Riot Act and without the command of a superior officer. It is strange language to use, for it justifies the police in firing down a crowded street if only a small boy has thrown a stone in a
1302
spirit of mischief. Such language used from the Bench, or by a man in the position of a Crown prosecutor, is, I unhesitatingly say, nothing less than an incitement to crime, violence, and murder. My next reference is to the case of the boy Heffernane, who was shot, and for whose murder a coroner's jury brought in a verdict against a district inspector and his subordinate. Mr. Bolton said that he hid nothing to say against the verdict, and that, in all his experience, he had never known an inquiry conducted with greater ability and impartiality than was shown by the coroner. Other counsel engaged in the case concurred in this opinion. Yet that verdict remains a dead letter, and the men under this serious imputation walk the streets uncharged and unpunished, and, perhaps, even they are marked for reward, as was the case with the Mitchelstown police, who also were engaged in taking the lives of people they ought to have protected. Now, I ask the Chief Secretary, I ask any sensible man among those on the other side of the House, how can it be expected the people will have any respect for the law when they see the misdeeds of officials backed up in this way, when verdicts of wilful murder arrived at after impartial inquiry are ignored? Why does not the Chief Secretary follow the example of Lord Castlereagh in 1798, and pass a Bill of Indemnity? He would then avoid our continual reference to these topics. Next, in reference to decisions of these Resident Magistrates I have to bring under notice the treatment of my Friend and constituent, Mr. John Cullinane. He is a man of great influence in the district where he lives. Time after time he has been before the magistrates and acquitted, and on more than one occasion the magistrates have been obliged to admit that Mr. Cullinane assisted in keeping the peace. Yet this very influence he exercised to a good end was an offence in the eyes of the magistrates, and they sent him to prison at last. A short time ago Mr. Cullinane was engaged in aiding the people to remove their furniture previously to eviction. He had brought carts and horses to carry out his meritorious purpose. For this he was tried by two Resident Magistrates, who said that though the meeting was not unlawful, yet there was an excessive

1303
gathering. The Removable, Mr. Irwin, delivered a decision after the trial in "which ho said—
"The terror resulting from an assemblage of this kind was not sufficiently great to justify them in coming to the conclusion that the meeting was unlawful, consequently they would dismiss the case, but as the gathering was excessive—"
Note this, first of all the meeting is "not unlawful," and is therefore lawful, but it is excessive. But I ask, how can there be an excess of what is lawful? For bringing together this lawful gathering Mr. Cullinane was ordered to find security, himself in £100 and two sureties in £50 each, or in default to go to prison for six weeks. Of course, Mr. Cullinane chose the latter alternative, as the magistrates well knew he would. In fact, the verdict amounted to this, "You are not guilty, but guilty or not you must go to prison." In Tipperary, again, 15 young men were tried by a Coercion Court for assisting in a riotous cheering of a prisoner. The charge was dismissed against one of the prisoners, but with regard to the 14, Mr. Meldon, R.M., said that he could not convict them of riot, but would order them to find bail for 12 months or go to gaol for two months. In this case, as in the case of John Cullinane, the magistrates were unable to find a conviction against the prisoners, but they bound them over to be of good behaviour, and so, as finding bail for good behaviour is in the opinion of a Tipperary man tantamount to an admission of bad behaviour, like every good Irishman in such circumstances they went to goal, though they were acquitted of the charges brought against them. That is a state of things which is sufficient to make a man's blood boil. What defence has the right hon. Gentleman to make of the conduct of these Resident Magistrates? There is another matter, to which I should like to draw attention and that is a case of obstructing a funeral in Tipperary The obstruction of which I complain took place at Cashel, and was at a funeral of a very respectable man named Minchin, who had died in Dublin, but whose body was removed to Cashel for interment. It was accompanied from the railway station at the latter place by relatives and friends, and the carriages of the
1304
local gentry, as well as a large concourse of townsmen, to the cemetery. But when the cortège reached the churchyard the head constable and some policemen rudely pushed back certain people and allowed only those whom they thought fit to enter. No explanation has yet been given of this extraordinary proceeding, nor do we know what principle guided the policemen in their selection of those who were to enter the churchyard. I want to know what justification there is for this continuous and continual interference with the function of burying the dead in Ireland? These are matters which the Irish people hold in a sacred light, and this interference is resented by them in the strongest possible manner. I condemn it as a petty act of tyranny, and as exasperating to a people who are already discontented with your rule. I know also it is disgusting your own friends in Ireland; it is destroying that moral support which you demand. I know very well that the Chief Secretary dispenses with the moral support of the law, and prefers to depend upon Resident Magistrates and upon policemen of the character I have described. I promise him that he will find that his batons and bayonets will not enable him to keep comfortably in power for a much further period of time.
DR. TANNER: Those who examine the items of this Vote cannot fail to be surprised that the two first which refer to Ireland show a very considerable increase. The people of Ireland have made up their mind upon one thing, and that is, that although they get a good deal of coercion, although they are put upon short commons in the Chief Secretary's, gaols and supplied with plenty of baton and bayonet outside, to say nothing of buckshot and bullets, although they obtain from his Removable Magistrates the injustice which those officials are encouraged by the Chief Secretary to administer to the people, yet they cannot consent that the Chief Secretary himself should be better paid than he already is, while the item for charitable donations is reduced. I admit that everybody should be paid for work done; but I do suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might spend a little more of his time in Ireland. He should go about the country and make himself perfectly acquainted with

1305
matters which he has to administer, because then he might adopt a different policy. It is truly lamentable that on the few occasions which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to visit the Irish provinces he has invariably followed the example of Nicodemus, and has gone by night. Of course, under such circumstances, we can expect nothing from the right hon. Gentleman but a benighted policy. Should the right hon. Gentleman hold Office much longer I hope he will visit the South and the South-West of Ireland, and I assure him that he need not be afraid. Now I wish to deal with the question of prison treatment. My hon. Friend who last spoke put it clearly before the Committee that in the matter of clothing and the exercise of prisoners, and the barbarous hair-cutting and beard and moustache clipping, in which the right hon. Gentleman once rejoiced, those things have been put to an end; and anyone who has any information at all as to the state of public opinion will know at once that that alteration of policy is due to nothing else than to the strong feeling which was created all over the country by the exposure of the practice. Now I have had some experience both of Clonmel Gaol and in Galway Gaol, in which bail prisoners and untried prisoners are allowed to retain their clothes. But a great deal of difficulty was experienced in connection with the prison administration there, because it was found impossible to give certain prisoners their full time of exercise as allowed by the Rules. During my sojourn in Clonmel Gaol I again and again asked the prison doctor for an extension of the two hours allowed for exercise, and at last I spoke to the Governor of the Gaol, who said it was practically impossible to grant the application in consequence of the creation of a new class of prisoners—men who were imprisoned under the Coercion Act, and who required a portion of the ground to exercise in, because they could not be exercised at the same time as prisoners convicted under the ordinary law. The right hon. Gentleman occasionally gets up and tells us that no new class of prisoners has been created. I say distinctly and deliberately that there has been a new class created, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can refute that assertion after the
1306
statements which I have made? Now, Sir, the hair-cutting business is done away with; but I believe that that change has not been due merely to the outcry which was raised by the treatment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork, and also of my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Kildare. The reason why the hair-cutting and the system of enforcing the use of prison clothing was changed was because certain men, who had been proved guilty of gross insurance forgeries in Belfast, had been committed to Derry Gaol, and it was thought that, as they had been Liberal Unionists and organisers of political movements friendly to the Government, it was well to reward them by relaxing the Prison Rules—allowing them to wear their clothes, and relieving them of the necessity of performing menial offices in the prison. The right hon. Gentleman once made a statement in this House that bail prisoners were better treated than first-class misdemeanants. I should like to ask him has any change been made in the Prison Rules with regard to bail prisoners since he made that statement? The right hon. Gentleman is always rash, and occasionally he speaks at haphazard; but I wish that before he made these statements he would take the trouble to verify the facts. While I was in prison I tried to get hold of the Rules bearing upon the treatment of first-class misdemeants, in order that I might compare them with those affecting bail prisoners. I was refused thorn again and again, but in spite of all that I was able to secure a, copy, and I found a very considerable difference in the method of treatment; first-class misdemeanants being undoubtedly the better off. For instance, they are not required when they are visited by friends to go into the "cage," but they are allowed to see their visitors in a room. They can also get an extension of the hours of visiting. I must say I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the rash statements he occasionally makes; because when I had at intervals an altercation with the Governor of the prison, I was able to quote the right hon. Gentleman's words, and as a result I invariably succeeded in gaining my point. There is another question relating to the sanitary condition of Clonmel Gaol to which I feel bound to refer, and

1307
that is in reference to the baths. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question recently, said that there were four baths there; but I am positive that during my detention there was only one bath in use, although there was another antediluvian apparatus which might have served for washing a racoon or any other dirty animal, but which could not well be used for cleansing human creatures even of the worst class. One day when I was taking exercise I saw two of the warders painting up an old bath in a scullery in the disused female hospital, and when I asked for information as to what they were doing, I was told that I was too inquisitive in matters of prison discipline. I venture to think that what was then being done was only being done in order to give some colour to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there were four baths in the prison. The arrangements in that gaol are certainly conducive to the spread of loathsome skin diseases, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne found, to his cost. But I am glad to hear that four new baths are now being erected. I know that the right hon. Gentleman smiles when we refer to these subjects, and that he meets our complaints with gibes; but I can venture to tell him that the statements which I have to-day made on this subject are statements which I am enabled to make from facts which came within my knowledge during my inc ulceration in the gaol. I would ask another question as to the treatment of certain unfortunates. Is it or is it not the case that a class of people known as epileptics suffering frem epileptic fits have been confined in ordinary cells; and, if so, why has such cruelty, injustice, and barbarity boon practiced? I remember one night when the chief warder was going the round of the gaol in which I was confined, about 10 o'clock, I heard a frightful row a few cells off. I got up and heard the warders outside making remarks in an undertone, one of them saying, "He is dead; certainly dead." I asked what was the matter, and discovered that a man had been found in an epileptic fit in one of the opposite cells. I told them if they would allow me I would give every assistance in my power. The answer was, "Oh, no, that cannot be done, we shall have to send for the doctor."
1308
Whether they sent for the doctor I cannot say; but I will say this—that the prisoner in question had been interned in that gaol on more occasions than one; it was well-known both by the doctor and the Governor of the gaol that that man was an epileptic; and we all know—at least I do, speaking as a medical man—that one of the dangers of epilepsy is that if a man in a fit turns on his face in bed he may easily be smothered. Hard-hearted and callous as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may be in other matters I certainly hope that in the interests of an afflicted class—afflicted not by man but by the Almighty—he would endeavour to do all that within him lies to prevent any untoward occurrence in connection with these afflicted creatures. I think he would be taking a step in the right direction if he would prevent epileptics from being confined in any cell without a companion. I know there are Prison Rules dealing with the matter; but I am pointing to a case which came under my own notice. These men, I say, are not shut up in cells with others, as they should be, and I sincerely hope some change will be made in this arrangement. At an inquest held within the last few days in connection with an occurrence in a Cork gaol, it was proved that the bells were not worked on the ordinary system. The prisoner has to pull a handle and let it go, and the thing is easily put out of order. Many of the poor prisoners coming from the country do not easily learn the way of ringing the bell in order to call the warder, and frequently have to remain in a state of torture through not being able to communicate with him. At an inquest held in the County Gaol yesterday on the death of John Conolly, of Skibbereen, it appeared that that man, when the police went to arrest him, could not be removed for three days, and the doctor attributed his death in the gaol to syncope, the chaplain stating that he and several of the prisoners confined in the gaol were unacquainted with the USJ of the bell. It is possible that had he been able to use the bell he might not have died. This is a type of the cases which the right hon. Gentleman would do well to investigate. With regard to the question of ventilation of cells in Galway and Clonmel Gaols, I have again and again

1309
when in gaol taken the opportunities afforded me of calling attention to the frightfully bad ventilation of all the cells on the ground floor. The right hon. Gentleman has said the ventilation was in perfect condition; but we have heard this evening that he is going to accept a few tips which I thought it my duty to offer in connection with this subject, and that a considerable sum of money is to be spent in improving the ventilation. I have had the opportunity of comparing the Clonmel Gaol with that of Galway, and the comparison is greatly to the advantage of Galway. Most of the cells are nearly twice as large, and in case I have to go to gaol again I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the system of ventilation in Galway Gaol is a great deal better than it is in Clonmel. In fact, the general sanitary arrangements in Clonmel are simply discredit able and disgusting. I never saw anything worse, not even in that badly-managed establishment, the Cork Union. I spoke to Dr. Hewitson about it again and again; he is an ardent supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, and, of course, he said the system was magnificent, and the poor gentleman, who has suffered from the hand of Providence the deprivation of his senses on several occasions—having been confined in the District Union Asylum at Clonmel not very long ago—saw nothing that appeared to him to be wrong. He asserted that there was nothing that anybody could be fed on that was better than "skilly;" and when I spoke to him of the plank bed he said nothing could be more wholesome, and remarked how often it happens that a medical man who was out late at night was glad to get a stretch on a kitchen table. In fact he made apologies for all these things in a manner that would commend itself strongly to the intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, so that I should not wonder to hear of his advancement to a, better position than he at present holds. I have considered it my duty to offer these remarks as to Clonmel Prison, not so much for my own sake as for that of all the prisoners interned there from time to time. I look at it merely from a humanitarian point of view, and I sincerely hope that the disgusting sanitary arrangements at
1310
that gaol will speedily be remedied. I had intended to have offered remarks in regard to the conduct of certain magistrates in Ireland, but perhaps some of my hon. Friends will address themselves to that point. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman will look into the conduct of one of the Resident Magistrates, namely, Mr. Butler, who was recently turned out of a lodging house in Cork, in consequence of his having—he, being one of the magistrates appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, an unmarried man—brought home disreputable people during the night. That a young man recently appointed to his important position in my own constituency should have been allowed to do what he has been doing, and doing it with impunity, because he is a Resident Magistrate, is disgraceful in the extreme. As to the young man Gardner, I take exception to his non-attendance to his duties in the City of Cork. I took exception to that the year before last, when in my place, after another arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman. These magistrates may well be termed irremovable. It was my pleasure, some years ago, to know many of those resident gentlemen who were Stipendiary Magistrates in the City of Cork, and I found that those gentlemen always attended assiduously to the duties of their office; but with regard to this irremovable magistrate, I find that again and again they have to send constables all over the City to try and find some other magistrate upon the roster to attend and perform the magisterial duty in consequence of the absence of Mr. Gardner. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the condition of these gaols, and that he will try and prevent the action of this man Butler, and that he will restrain, as far as possible, the action of the police in Ireland. I recollect the time when the Irish Constabulary were not known as the Royal Irish Constabulary, and when they were a respectable body of men. All that has been changed. As a medical man in Cork, I have had opportunity of becoming acquainted with all classes, and I have learnt that the constabulary have become debased beyond comprehension. Promotion is granted for illegal action, and you have District Inspector Milling promoted for breaking the head of an hon. Member of this

1311
House. Then you have the crime of murder passed over by Mr. Carter, whom I certainly rather liked, and about whom I do not wish to speak too strongly. It is possible that the crime was not murder, and was capable of being reduced. The right hon. Gentleman approves the action of all his subordinates, from the sub-constable to the head county inspector of the force, which is against the people. By such a policy the Royal Irish Constabulary, in having to inflict injustices and cruelties upon the people, are degraded and debased. I sincerely hope that this state of affairs will very soon come to an end. It has been my fortune to see the system initiated and completed, but even the police themselves, many of them, would be glad to throw down their uniforms and guns if they could rely, which they cannot, on getting employment in other ways. Those who have left have been compelled to emigrate, as many driven from their native land have done before them. Such is the extraordinary state into which Ireland has been plunged by the mal-administration of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the time may be soon reached when we will have no more of these cruelties inflicted upon the Irish people, and when the Chief Secretary will be sorry for all the trouble he has caused in Ireland.
MR. W. REDMOND: The other night, Mr. Courtney, in the absense of the right hon. Gentleman, I called attention to certain questions with regard to the Government of Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland at that time represented the Irish Government. On that occasion the First Lord of the Treasury, speaking of the debate, said some time had been wasted. I have no doubt an inclination may be felt to make the same remark to-night, but it must be remembered that these are the only opportunities of bringing our complaints under the notice of those who are responsible for the Government of Ireland. I do not know how it used to be in years gone by, but I know that now the representatives of Ireland are the last persons to be taken into the confidence of Ministers when they are dealing with Ireland. I do not know whether Irish Conservative Members have opportunities of bringing their grievances under the
1312
notice of the Chief Secretary, and getting them redressed, but I know that, as far as we are concerned, we have absolutely no opportunities of bringing complaints forward except such as we can secure in this House from time to time. It must be remembered that during the past few years some very extraordinary things have occurred with regard to Irish prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork cited the case of a prisoner who was found dead in his cell when the warder unlocked the door. A very short time ago two men, who were confined for a considerable period in Galway Prison, died shortly after their release. One man died within 24 hours—certainly 48 hours—of his release from prison. The right hon. Gentleman cannot forget that another case occurred in Kilkenny Prison, where an unfortunate man who came from the county Galway, and who went into prison as a strong and healthy peasant, was found dead in his prison cell in the morning when the warder went to call him to come to exercise. At the present time an inquest is being held in the County Cork into the death of a man who had been in prison for two months, in Clonmel, and who died within a very short time of his release. Then we had the case of Mr. Mandeville, who undoubtedly died from the effects of the treatment he received in prison. However you may deny the facts, the Irish representatives are justified in occupying not only hours, but days of the time of this House in demanding inquiry into these matters. I will say no more about the sanitary condition of these prisons, but will simply point to the fact of the two deaths in prison, and several deaths of prisoners soon after their release, and say that you are bound to make some inquiry, and pay every possible attention to the representations of Irish Members in this House in regard to the matters complained of. The Chief Secretary was not present the other night when I called attention to the unwarrantable and mean interference of the Government with the public Press of Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland was present, but he could not very well reply on matters which related to the Chief Secretary himself. I cited cases in which newspaper editors, to the number of 15 or 18,

1313
were sent to prison for publishing in their papers matters which have always been regarded as items of public intelligence. The Chief Secretary considered the matter of sufficient importance to write a letter of some length to a daily newspaper in this City. The right hon. Gentleman in that letter denied my statement that editors were sent to prison for publishing in their newspapers items of intelligence. He said—
"I will take the case of one newspaper editor in Ireland who was sent to prison; and, by dealing with this one case, I will be able to illustrate the action of the Government in all the other newspaper prosecutions of which Mr. Redmond complained."
The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the case to which he called attention does not illustrate the case of the other newspaper editors. This particular editor had published two articles, in which two men were particularly named and hold up to public reprobation. These men so mentioned were not visited with outrage of any kind. No result whatever followed the mention of their names in these articles. What I find fault with is this, that the right hon. Gentleman led the public of this country to believe as distinctly as he could that this case which he quoted was representative of the other newspaper cases. I gave in my reply the date of the charges and the sentences imposed, and out of those 14 cases there were only three, including that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, which could be said to be even remotely like that case. In every other instance these newspaper editors were sent to prison for publishing items of public news. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to my second letter, and I think I am entitled, and the public are entitled, to get from him some explanation of the fact. I selected one case as representative of the others, and was able to prove it—whereas the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to prove his case. I have no doubt that to-morrow it will be charged against me that I am obstructive in making these observations—indeed, I expect that before long some one will get up on the Government Bench and complain of waste of time. But I would remind right hon. Gentlemen that I am speaking of the cases of from 15 to 18 proprietors and editors of Irish news-
1314
papers who have been sent to prison, and who in prison have been treated like the commonest criminals of the land—who have been in many cases put on bread and water because they refused to walk side by side with the worst ruffians in our gaols. I would ask the House to form some idea of what public opinion in England would be if the editors of 18 influential British papers were put in gaol. Why, if such a thing happened here, instead of a few hours' debate you would have an agitation from one end of the country to the other, which would compel the Government in a very short space of time to reconsider their policy of attacking the Press in a wholesale manner. There can be no doubt that the majority of these Irish editors were imprisoned for publishing resolutions of branches of the National League—resolutions that were said to be of an intimidatory character. As to that I completely deny that the resolutions were of an intimidatory character. I challenge investigation. I assert that no crime followed in the track of the publication of the resolutions, the counties in which the newspapers containing them were circulated being amongst the most peaceful in Ireland. In counties like Wexford and Waterford—where the Judge of Assize has been presented with white gloves because there was absolutely not a single criminal to try—newspaper editors have been arrested and imprisoned by two Resident Magistrates without such an appeal to a jury as was allowed an English editor a short time ago for a libel upon a nobleman. I maintain that if the Government regarded the resolutions published of these Irish editors as of an intimidatory character, their business was not to attack the journalists who only discharged a public duty, but to prosecute the proposers and seconders of the resolutions, the chairmen of the meetings at which they were passed, and the people on the platforms. The Government, however, prefer to attack the newspapers, and I maintain that if the Government attempted to do such a thing in England, their action would not be tolerated by public opinion for a moment. And are Irish Members to be accused of obstruction because they refer to cases like this? Such accusations are enough to disgust Irish Members with coming to this place. As to the case

1315
of Mr. Walsh, who happens to have been appointed Mayor of Wexford for the second or third time, I would point out that that gentleman, who represents nine-tenths of the people of the whole county, was imprisoned for publishing, without a word of comment, a resolution passed by a branch of the National League. In prison this gentleman was treated like the commonest criminal in the country—and I should like to ask the Chief Secretary how he expects to conciliate the people of Ireland and make them satisfied with the present system of Government, when he treats in this way a man like the Mayor of Wexford? What did the Lord Lieutenant do after Mr. Walsh was discharged from prison? [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR at this period—9.15—left the House.] I see the Chief Secretary going away. I will not make complaint of that, further than to say that the matters I am dealing with relate to the personal action of the right hon. Gentleman, and that I deem it necessary to say what I have to say in his presence. The Irish Attorney General gave me an answer on these matters the other day—a very straightforward answer from his point of view—but I was not satisfied with it, and I desire to have a reply from the Chief Secretary. I will take an opportunity of continuing my observations when the right hon. Gentleman comes back—and I hope the Committee will acquit me of blame in having to make a second speech. If I speak again, it will simply be because the Chief Secretary did not do me the courtesy of remaining in his place to hear what I had to say in regard to him.
(9.16.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. BLANE: The details of this Vote ought to be publicly stated for the instruction of the people. It seems that £300,000 are now required for the police in Ireland as a Supplementary Estimate, plus £20,000 for the Dublin police. The Irish Constabulary is an armed force maintained in defiance of the Mutiny Act. In England you will not allow any armed force to exist unless it comes under the provisions of that Act; but in Ireland this enormous armed force does
1316
exist, and does not come tinder the Mutiny Act. The taxpayers of this kingdom are compelled to pay actually 32 times the amount for the Irish police that they pay as a Supplementary Vote for the English police, £10,000 being sufficient for the English Supplementary Estimate. The large constabulary army in Ireland is not a police force, and never has been, for it is impossible to say that men armed with breechloaders and bayonets are police. I find also that whilst £320,000 is required for the policing of the people, only £250,000 is required as a Supplementary Vote for the education of the people. To turn to another item, whilst prisons in Scotland cost £15,000, the Irish prisons cost just double that amount, although there is less crime in Ireland than in Scotland. What crime there is in Ireland arises out of the riots which the constabulary get up themselves. Another significant item in the Vote is that relating to law charges for criminal prosecutions. These charges, together with miscellaneous expenses, in England amount to only £20,000, whilst in Ireland they reach £35,000. These charges would not be half as large but for the fact that the police force is wielded by a class which absolutely refuses to pay one penny towards its maintainance. In every pipe of tobacco, in every cup of coffee, tea, or cocoa, the working classes pay for the maintainance of that force, whilst the ground landlords completely escape their share of the charge.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
MR. BLANE: I will not pursue that subject further because I am sure I am treading on delicate ground.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order altogether. The only question to be considered is the amount of pay.
MR. BLANE: If any value were obtained for the money I would not raise any objection to this Vote, but we get no value for the money. There is a class in Ireland which does not care how much is spent upon the constabulary, because having their sons in the constabulary they have an interest in drawing largely upon this Vote. I suppose there was no greater scandal than occurred the other evening in the House of Commons, when I saw a lot of wooden-headed barristers rushing into

1317
the House because they heard a judge was dead, and they wanted either to supplant him or to get subordinate places. I met one of them who was hurrying so fast in St. Stephen's Hall that he struck me in the stomach. Let me draw attention to the use to which the constabulary is put in criminal prosecutions. I have drawn attention two or three times to the case in which two or three police fired upon a number of men upon Lough Neagh, and put a bullet through their boat. When the men remonstrated with them one of them raised his rifle and said he would shoot him to hell if he gave him any insult. The police robbed the poor fishermen of their fish, and, when the aggrieved persons went before the magistrates, they were invited to make affidavits, and the police were arrested by being simply touched on the shoulder by a superior officer, and were then allowed to have a day's holiday. That is not how the Irish Members are arrested. I myself was dragged out of bed in the middle of the night when I was arrested. Well, the Attorney General did not direct Mr. Munro to prosecute the police who had been guilty of the outrage on Lough Neagh, and the case fell through. The Attorney General, however, directed these poor men to be prosecuted for perjury. When the men were fired at the Crown Solicitor was absent, but when they were to be prosecuted for perjury he was not absent. The men were dragged about from one place to another by the police, but notwithstanding the way they were treated they were unable to get any redress whatever. The only thing I can attribute this to is that I happened to put a question here on the subject, and immediately a prosecution was proceeded with. Now, I happened to go down to that prosecution. One witness for the police was a civilian and he was in charge of the constabulary, and this very man I saw the police bring out of a public-house drunk. The police made him drunk so that the magistrates would not examine him, and I say this was intentional so that at the Assizes he should not be cross-examined upon his depositions. It must have been so, for he had no means of getting drunk but by the connivance of the police. We can get no redress
1318
for these things; we raise our voices here, and we are met with the charge of obstruction to business. It is a charge that does not annoy me very much, but far graver is the charge of obstruction we make against the Government in Ireland, that they use all the forces at their command to obstruct the course of justice. Hero we vote large sums for the pay of Crown prosecutors, but no assistance do the poor people get against the tyranny to which they are subjected; on the contrary, the power of administration is used against them. Conceive how different would have been the proceedings had these poor men been in a boat on the Thames. I may say this is no question of Party feeling; I did not even know, when I interested myself in the case, if these men were Nationalists or not. Whatever they were they should not have been fired at. Unfortunately we cannot prevent these things in Ireland; all we can do is to protest in this feeble sort of way against such misconduct on the part of officials.
MR. WEBB: Though I had no intention of speaking, after what has been said by my hon. Friends, I feel I ought not to let the Motion pass without a few words. Familiar as we may be with these occurrences in Ireland, they acquire a greater importance when urged as they have been by my hon. Friends in this House. We are often twitted in Ireland with a desire to go back upon the past; but bad and sad as the past has been, I find enough to concern myself with in the condition of Ireland in my own time. Certainly in the mode in which we are governed and the exasperating things that are said by those who govern us and in the action of the police, there is enough to account for any wild and exaggerated talk that may prevail. One illustration I may give as a sample of what is done to embitter national feeling, and that was the reference to Father M'Fadden having occupied a prison cell as a suggestion to account for the state in which the next prisoner soon found himself. Such utterances inflame passion, and I certainly think when the Chief Secretary permits himself to make such observations in reference to a man loved and respected by the many who knew him it shows how little the right hon. Gentleman is sensible of the

1319
responsibility of his position. Really he, perhaps, has little responsibility, for when the change of Government comes he has but to take his hat and leave the country, clear of the effects of his eon-duct: but for us who have to stand by our country, it is a grave prospect to contemplate when we shall have administration put into our hands. As a Nationalist I often feel the future to be serious when I see the terrible difficulties being created under the present system. When I was younger I looked forward with joy and hope to that change that must come sooner or later, but now I look forward with a feeling of the deepest responsibility and something of dread to the task laid upon us of bringing back things to a normal condition. Meanwhile, we can only talk here; that is our only means of influence. When I look round this beautiful chamber and think of the perfect arrangements of this stately building, I feel it was never built for the discussion of the subjects Irish Members are often obliged to bring for. ward; and I trust the time will come before very long when such minor matters will be relegated to another Assembly, leaving this House free to discuss the Imperial affairs of this great Empire. The position and the conduct of the police in Ireland inevitably come before us on this Vote. I must say I pity more than I blame the police because of the terrible position in which they have been placed. Nothing strikes an Irishman more than the difference in the position of the police here and at home. Though in Ireland I endeavour to do my duty as a citizen, I am regarded as a suspected person; here the police are the friends of the people, and together they assist in keeping good order. In Ireland the police are exposed to temptations such as no men should be subjected to. I mean the temptation of having promotion dependent upon the success with which they carry out certain prosecutions. This was forcibly brought before me in relation to a case I had occasion to take up some years ago—the Crossma-glen case, in which a number of persons were condemned to long terms of imprisonment on utterly insufficient evidence before packed juries. The evidence was almost entirely police evidence, and the police were pro
1320
moted after the conviction of the prisoners. In this connection there are two matters I wish to refer to: and, first, to the character of the men who are opposing the policy of the Chief Secretary in Tipperary. I was there a few days ago, and I brought away a strong impression of these men. They are not light-hearted, ardent young men; they are grave, responsible men, who, in a proper state of society, would be at the head of local government and in command of the police rather than in opposition to them. The Chief Secretary is in a most unfortunate position. In Ireland the official classes are so numerous and extensive that they completely shut out the Viceroy and the Chief Secretary from ascertaining the just wishes of the Irish people. Their interest being to sustain the present state of things, they imbue the Chief Secretary with false notions of government. I was particularly struck by this fact while recently looking over the Memoirs of the Earl of Carlisle. He was a man influenced by the best desires, his name honourably connected with many a good work; but as I read the book I see how he was surrounded by, and entirely surrendered himself to, the official classes. Then, as now, there were great leaders of public opinion in the country; but the Earl of Carlisle was completely shut off from these as the Chief Secretary is now. It is with great diffidence I make these remarks. We are blamed for taking up time; but we must do it, out of the fulness of our hearts we speak. It is impressed into our very being, and sure I am that were an attempt made to govern England as Ireland is governed no other business would be done here until a change were effected.
MR. W. REDMOND: I really do not know what to say, for we Irish Members are in an extremely difficult position owing to the action of the Chief Secretary. He certainly rose to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, and I asked him to allow me to speak first in order that he might be saved the trouble of making two speeches, and that he might reply to me at the same time. I pointed out that I wished to refer to matters personal to himself, and I am certain he does not wish to evade giving me a reply.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Hear, hear.
MR. W. REDMOND: I have no doubt he will offer some explanation, but it is an. aggravating thing that when we are making a statement to which we have a right to expect a reply, you should get up and walk out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
MR. W. REDMOND: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that I commenced my speech by saying that I wished to refer to matters personal to himself. The Attorney General, it is true, remained here, but he could not reply for the action of the Chief Secretary in reference to the matter of Press prosecutions. I do not wish to go over what I said while the Chief Secretary had left the House, but I must remind him that the first point to which I should like an answer is with regard to the Press prosecutions in Ireland. The cases given by the Chief Secretary in illustration do not represent the ordinary ones that occurred, because there was editorial matter in the one case and not in the others. The second point has reference to the condition of prisons, and I pointed out that the number of deaths were sufficient to justify me—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but I had the honour of listening to ail this part of his statement.
MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman should not have gone out in the middle of my speech. The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, and I will proceed no further, leaving the Committee to say whether in this matter the right hon. Gentleman treated me with the consideration a Minister ought to show towards a Member trying to do his duty. The portion of my speech to which the right hon. Gentleman did not do me the honour to listen had reference to what I must unquestionably call the murder of the boy Heffernan in Tipperary brought under notice by my hon. Friend (Mr. J. O'Connor), whose personal concern it was as Member for the division. My hon. Friend pointed out that a verdict of wilful murder was returned by a Coroner's jury against two police officers, but that they have not been brought to trial. This is not a singular case, for time after verdicts of wilful murder have been
1322
given against the police, and they have been allowed to go free. In Heffernan's case not a single policeman received the slightest injury, and there was no excuse for men who were in no danger or peril of their lives wildly firing into a crowd. I am not here to say whether stones were thrown or not; but this I say, without fear of contradiction, that no policeman received the slightest injury, and there was no justification for firing rifle shots down the street with the result that a poor boy was brought dying to his mother, saying with his dying breath forgive these men. While policemen are allowed to shoot people in the streets and are not rebuked and brought to trial, the Irish people will ever be in a condition of discontent. Then there was the occasion when the hon. Member for North-East Cork went to Tipperary for the purpose of attending the funeral of the brave young man who had taken a good part in public affairs. The funeral was also attended out of respect for the deceased by large numbers of people, but the Resident Magistrate professed to believe that the hon. Member for North-Fast Cork was going to hold a meeting and cause a disturbance. A large force of police was sent to attend the funeral. Now, the people of Tipperary are a hot-blooded people, easily roused and excited by acts of injustice; and if there is one thing more sacred than another in Ireland, and especially in that county, it is the last rites paid by relatives and friends to the dead whom they have respected and loved in life. In the professed belief that the hon. Member for North-East Cork was about to hold a political meeting, a strong force of armed police attended and hustled the funeral procession oven to the brink of the grave. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork is not the man to shrink from the responsibility of saying what he has to say, but the authorities believed, or pretended to believe, that he was going to deliver a political harangue over the coffin and by the open grave of his friend. He boasts that there is peace and tranquillity in Ireland; but if he refers to the fact that men are not being set upon by the police in thousands and killed, then let me tell him that the peace is not in anyway due to his policy, for he does not hesitate to exasperate and insult the people even at the very grave side. The

1323
avoidance of disturbance at that funeral in Tipperary, to which reference has been made, was due not to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman or of the police, but to the action of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork, who begged and implored the people to remain calm. No explanation has been given of the conduct of the police on that occasion. The Chief Secretary might, at least, express his disapproval of the desecration of the grave by those men; but he prefers to get up here and say it was necessary the police should be at the grave side in order to watch the hon. Member for North-East Cork, for fear he was about to make furious attacks on the Government and on the landlords. But that explanation will not satisfy hon. Members on these Benches or the people of Ireland, for they know only too well that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is a policy of exasperation. And now I have to refer to another case on which we desire to have explanations. It is that of Mr. O'Connor, a young man on the staff of the Leinster Leader, who, for publishing resolutions passed at a public meeting in the County of Kildare, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment as an ordinary felon by two Resident Magistrates, who refused to state a case for a superior Court. O'Connor was at once sent to prison, and because he refused to conform to those indignities which are heaped on the lowest class of criminals, he was put for 24 hours on bread and water. The hon. and learned Member for Longford at once went to Dublin and obtained a mandamus in the Court of Queen's Bench, and that Superior Court held that Mr. O'Connor had been wrongfully convicted, and directed that he should at once be set at liberty. But the Government will not rebuke the magistrates nor afford any redress to Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Redmond, of the Waterford News, has been sentenced to seven months' hard labour, and the County Court Judge has decided that the Magistrates were wrong; but the same Magistrates at the same time, and for another alleged offence, sentenced Mr. Redmond to imprisonment for a fortnight, and against that sentence there was no appeal. If the Chief Secretary disapproves of the publication of these resolutions, why docs he not prosecute the proposers and seconders of them and the people on the
1324
platform at the meeting at which they are passed? These are the people who are really responsible; but the Chief Secretary cannot prosecute all these people to conviction, because if he did there would not be room for them in the prisons. The truth is, in spite of the declarations of the Chief Secretary to the contrary, there are not in prison more than one in 5,000 of those who daily break the Coercion Law in the face of the police. And now I come to the case of the Mayor of Wexford, who has been deprived of an office held by right by Mayors of Wexford. The excuse made by the Government for not allowing Mr. Walsh, as Mayor of Wexford, to serve on the Governing Body of the lunatic asylum was that he was disqualified by having been imprisoned; but surely it is monstrous to say that the Mayor of Wexford is disqualified in that way for such an office, while Members of Parliament who have been similarly imprisoned are not disqualified from sitting-in the House of Commons. The Corporation of Wexford is justly offended at the conduct of the Government, and has asked me to bring it before the House. If the Chief Secretary had not walked out of the House whilst I was stating my case the discussion might have been over earlier, and if there has been waste of time the First Lord of the Treasury must attribute it to the Chief Secretary's leaving the House. We are here for the purpose of stating the views of our constituents on these matters. Of course, it must be very stupid and almost intolerable to English Members to have to listen to so much about the affairs of Ireland; but if it is intolerable to them it is only one proof of the necessity for allowing the Irish people to manage their local affairs at hoMR.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I observe that the hon. Member who has just sat down is deeply incensed with me for having departed towards the end of his speech, in order to obtain that necessary sustenance which even a Minister of the Crown begins to require towards a quarter to 9 o'clock in the evening. The hon. Member accuses me of having ignored his first speech—[Mr. W. REDMOND: No]—and I therefore listened with attention to the second speech of the hon. Member; but to my intense surprise about three-fourths of

1325
that speech was a repetition of the one to which I had already had the pleasure of listening, and the other quarter was peroration. The hon. Member has also told us tint these discussions are naturally wearying to English Members. They would, no doubt, be wearying to English Members, if English Members stayed to listen to them; but during the whole of the discussion which has been going on since a quarter-past 7 I have noticed that the whole space above the Gangway opposite has boon almost absolutely unoccupied. There has been, indeed, a small sprinkling on the Ministerial side of the House; but among the hon. Gentleman's own friends the number of admirers his oratory could find has been limited to four or five. I have three speeches to which to reply. The first speech is that of one of the Members for Cork, which has been specially devoted to prison treatment in Ireland. The hon. Member has given us to understand that special instructions were sent by the Chief Secretary to the Prisons Board in Ireland in order that what the hon. Member called political prisoners might he subjected to a specially severe administration of the Rules.
DR TANNER: I was the only Member for Cork who spoke, and I said nothing of the kind.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was wrong-[Dr. TANNER: As usual.] I meant the hon. Member for Tipperary. [Sir W. HAECOUBT here made an observation across the Table.] I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman himself knows the constituencies of all the Irish Members.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not Chief Secretary for Ireland.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman might know his chief supporters. The hon. Member for Tipperary has given us to understand that such instructions were issued. For my own part, I assure hon. Members that while I take an interest in general prison administration in Ireland, I take no interest whatever in the lot of individual prisoners.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he would not wilfully misrepresent what I said. What I did say
1326
was that, considering the fact that we had been treated as a separate and distinct class of prisoners and allowed to exercise in each other's company, after the lapse of a week some instructions must have been sent, perhaps by the Chief Secretary, and possibly by the Prisons Board. I did not state it positively, and I expressed a hope that the Chief Secretary would be able to deny it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about express instructions, nor have they been sent; but I repeat that the idea of constituting a special separate class of prisoners, convicted under one particular Act, has never entered into my head. I absolutely repudiate it, and I would never consent, directly or indirectly, to a policy of treating those convicted under the Act of 1887 differently from those convicted under any other Act.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Are you not a member of the Prisons Board and responsible for their action?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not a member of the Prisons Board; but in so far as I am responsible for the action of the Board, there shall be no difference made between a prisoner convicted under one Act of Parliament and a prisoner convicted under another Act of Parliament. That is an explicit statement of policy which I trust will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. [Mr. J. O'CONNOR: It is shirking the question.] The hon. Member has stated that the alteration which has been made in the Prison Rules has been entirely due to what he called the strong case which he and his friends made out to the country with regard to the treatment of the hon. Member for North-East Cork and other Members of Parliament who have been imprisoned, and about whom a great agitation has been made. Among the other demerits of this statement, it is entirely inconsistent with the account of the same transaction given in the speech of the Member for Cork, who immediately followed. The hon. Member for Cork told us that the whole of the alteration that had been made was in order to give some relief to the Belfast forgers who had been convicted about that period, and who, of course, had the same

1327
privileges as those given to other prisoners.
DR. TANNER: I regret exceedingly at having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I wish to explain he has misconstrued my meaning. What I stated was that it was really to give relief to the right hon. Gentleman's political friends, these men in Belfast, who had grossly behaved in swindling there, and that this notion had been conceived by the Prisons Board, but that effect was given to it by the way en which this country regarded the villainous behaviour towards the hon. Member for North-East Cork. It was both.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I had the slightest conception of what the interruption of the hon. Member means I would gladly withdraw any misrepresentation that I have made; but I think that the Committee will agree with me that the apparent meaning of the hon. Member's speech was that the intention of the Government had been to give some kind of relief to the Belfast forgers. The account given by the hon. Member who has just interrupted me and that given by the hon. Member for Tipperary are obviously inconsistent, and I will leave the Committee to decide which is the least improbable of the two. I have not gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary what the special grievance was of those persons of whom he has spoken. They were given under the relaxation of the Prison Rules made last year some kind if privilege, subject to the discretion of the prison officials. They had the privilege of wearing their own clothes, and it the result of that was that they had to take their exercise with greater solitude than they would otherwise have done it was obvious that the fault lay with them. If they desire company let them take exercise with the ordinary prisoners. I draw no distinction between prisoners convicted under fine Act and prisoners convicted under another. The officials have a certain discretion, and have used it, to give these persons a certain
1328
privilege; if the prisoners do not wish the privilege let them renounce it themselves. Then the hon. Member referred to the case of Mr. O'Mahoney, whose health he said required special treatment in prison, and this he has based upon the certificates of two doctors. For my own part, I have not the least doubt that Mr. O'Mahoney will receive what every prisoner in Ireland and in this country receives, namely, competent medical attention from the medical officer on the spot. The health of prisoners in Ireland compares favourably not only with the health of the similar classes of the community not in prison, but also with the health of prisoners in English prisons.
MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether recently two prisoners have been found dead in their cells in England?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not inquired whether two prisoners in England have been found dead in their cells or not; but the hon. Member is perfectly aware that the best medical attendance is not sufficient to guard a prisoner against the result of heart disease, and' among a number of prisoners a certain proportion of them must necessarily suffer from that disease and other diseases ending in sudden death. But the conclusion gathered from the statistics is perfectly clear and explicit that the health of Irish prisoners compares favourably with the health of English prisoners, and with that of persons drawn from the same class in Ireland who are not in prison, but who are carrying on the ordinary avocations of life. The hon. Member who opened the debate went on to speak of Mr. Roche and other magistrates, who, he said, had incited to violence on the part of the police. I have listened to the proofs which the hon. Member endeavoured to give, but I have wholly failed to see that the hon. Member has made out the slightest case. No doubt it might have been true that Mr. Roche or other magistrates stated that the police were justified, under certain circumstances, in using their weapons without the Riot Act being read and without the command of their

1329
superior officer. Does the hon. Gentle-man doubt the accuracy of the statement made by Mr. Roche on that occasion? Is it not obvious to every man of common sense that if the police are attacked with murderous intent they have the right and even the duty to use their weapons in self defence? Of course, I admit I have, indeed frequently, stated in this House that the use of weapons by the police should be only resorted to in extreme cases; but, unfortunately, under the teaching of hon. Gentlemen opposite extreme cases will occur. Then the police, in my opinion, are only doing their duty in using the weapons intrusted to them for the purpose of defending their lives.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Sir, I rise to a point of order. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in attributing to me and my hon. Friends such teaching as results in occasion for violent proceedings by the police, and as end possibly in murder?
THE CHAIRMAN: I did not catch anything which was an infringement of order.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In discussing the case of Tipperary the Committee must recollect that, also under the teaching of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, Tipperary has been the scene of most disgraceful riots in connection with the Plan of Campaign, which has prevailed in' that town for the last six months.
MR. W. REDMOND: That is absolutely untrue.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In one of these riots a boy was killed. ["No"] I simply state that the boy was killed. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that?
MR. J. O'CONNOR: The magistrate stated that there was no riot.
THE CHAIRMAN: These interruptions are most irregular. If hon. Members desire to make any reply they will have other opportunities for doing so.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In one of these riots a boy was killed. There was a coroner's inquest, and a verdict of wilful
1330
murder was returned against one officer and one sergeant, or one officer and constable, I forget which. I do not understand in that, transaction what accusation there can be against the Government. Hon. Members ask what has happened to these constables, and the answer was—"Just what would naturally happen." They have given bail to appear at the Spring Assizes to meet the charges.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is it usual to give bail in charges of murder?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Bail was given after application to a superior Court, and that is usual, much as it may surprise the hon. Member, This is the substance of the solemn accusation brought against the Government by the hon. Member for Tipperary. The next point brought forward was the case of a man named Cullinane, Who, it is said, was a sort of peacemaker between landlord and tenant. Cullinane was a paid organiser of the Plan of Campaign, and in that capacity he traversed Ireland doing his best to stir up illegal conspiracies here and there, and in doing so he did his very best, not to make peace between landlord and tenant, but to make the war between the two classes irreconcilable. This man was brought before the police magistrates for having taken part in an illegal assembly. The magistrates carefully considered the case, and decided that there was not sufficient evidence to prove illegal assembly, but they said that there had been a disorderly crowd menacing to the public peace. Having so decided, it appears to me that they only did their duty in binding the man over to keep the peace. If the man chose to go to prison instead of finding- bail he has only himself to blame. The last point of the hon. Member for Tipperary was the case of interference with a funeral in Tipperary by the police. On that subject the hon. Member thought fit to make an eloquent address to the Committee upon the peculiar sensitiveness of the Irish people to any interference with funerals, or to anything in the nature of hard or rough treatment of

1331
those concerned in burying their relatives. I should have thought that it would have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that some of the most flagrant cases of boycotting in Ireland, some of the cases which have most deeply stirred the minds of the English people, have been those in which burial has been refused to persons who happened to disobey the mandates of the Irish League.
MR. W. REDMOND: There has been no such case. It is purely imagination.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Case after case has occurred, and the hon. Member will find some even in the Report of the Special Commission. There are cases in which burial has been refused, in which the coffin has been refused, and in which it has been found impossible for the unhappy relatives to take the remains of the deceased person to the grave with the ordinary decencies which accompany burials in civilised society. Even in Tipperary itself, the town in which took place these alleged interferences by the police with a political funeral, and by that I mean a funeral which is made the occasion for a, political demonstration—even in that town there were two cases of recent occurrence in which policemen quartered in the town lost relatives. In one of these cases the wife of the constable died; and as the constable was walking up the street, it being universally known what was the nature of his bereavement, a stone was thrown at him; and when he went to the coffin-maker he was told that the coffin could not be provided unless permission were first obtained. In another case in the same town a policeman lost a child, and when he was burying the child, and he and his wife were near the grave, the funeral party was pelted by a mob of the supporters of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. W. REDMOND: I rise to order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he makes these statements to be good enough to give us the names, and dates.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that that is no question of order at all.
MR. W. REDMOND: I gave him the names. Why does not he give the names to us? ["Order!"]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The name of the constable whose wife died was Connors, I believe; and if the hon. Member will ask a question, I shall have the name of the other constable, as there is no difficulty in obtaining it.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Were they, the constables, engaged in desecrating Hurley's grave?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will deaf with the speech of the hon. Member for Cork summarily. The hon. Member has raised a variety of minute points of detail in regard to Irish prison accommodation. Of course, I cannot answer such questions on the spot; but if the hon. Member will give notice of a question he shall receive his answer. But on the general question of prison accommodation in Ireland, I can only say that since the prisons have been handed over to the Prisons Board in 1878 there has been an enormous improvement in Irish prisons, an improvement which has steadily gone on, and which I am doing, my best to promote. Indeed, I shall have soon to ask the House for assistance in carrying out the work to a completion. The sanitary condition of prisons in Ireland when they were handed over to the Government left much to be desired, as was, under similar conditions, the case with the English prisons. Everything cannot be done at once; but a gradual process has been going on by which I hope that Irish prisons will be brought to the highest state demanded by modern requirements, and by which they will be made to compare not unfavourably with the prisons in England, or on the Continent. A. larger question was raised by the hon. Member for North Fermanagh. The hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to make twice during the evening the same speech that he made on Friday last; and. now the case having been rehearsed no less than three times in the course of four days, the Committee may be regarded as being in a position to perfectly understand the contention of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. W. REDMOND: It is quite true that I brought the matter dealt with in my

1333
speech of this evening before the House last Friday. My reason for bringing the case forward again is, that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place on Friday, while he is in his place this evening.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to give any reason which would deprive the Committee or the House of any of the eloquence which the hon. Member is always ready to bestow upon it. At the same time, I am bound to say that I do not think the reason which he has given is a sufficient excuse for three times repeating the same speech to a too patient Committee. The hon. Gentleman desires to carry on a controversy, began in either a speech or a letter which he made early in the year or at the end of last year, with regard to the Press prosecutions in Ireland. That speech was the occasion of a reply written by my direction, but entirely by the hon. Member for Dover. That letter I absolutely endorse from start to finish. Now, what was the original contention of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh? He told the public that in every one of these Press prosecutions the man prosecuted had done nothing but supply the public with simple ordinary news. Replying to that statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out in a letter, which I fully concur in, that in M'Enery's case a leading article of a most flagrant nature had been written by an editor, intimidating an individual. If the case had rested there it would have been quite sufficient to have shown the fallacy of the original position of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh, that all these persons were prosecuted for nothing more than inserting in their newspapers ordinary news. Well, how does the hon. Member for North Fermanagh attempt to reply to this? He says that M'Enery's case was exceptional, and that contention was taken up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, the Leader of the Nationalist Party, who made a speech in the debate on the Address, in which he seated that there was only one case in which the prosecution was not for the publication of ordinary news, and he was replied to by the hon. Member for Dover,
1334
who conclusively showed that M'Enery's case was by no means exceptional. In 1889 there were 13 cases of Press prosecutions. Five of these were prosecutions for the publication of imaginary meetings of suppressed branches of the League, seven were for leading articles and one for a leaderette, making eight cases in which an editor had used intimidatory language in his own newspaper.
MR. W. REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey that the editors invented the resolutions of the suppressed branches of the League?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said that of 13 cases of Press prosecutions in 1889 five were for the publication of imaginary meetings of suppressed branches of the League, and eight were cases in which the editor appeared in his own person as publishing leaders or leaderettes of an intimidatory character. And yet in face of these facts, all of which had been stated in the debate on the Address, the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Fermanagh thought fit to make a speech of an hour's duration on Friday, in which he absolutely ignored all that has been publicly stated in the House, and now he has made another speech also of an hour's duration containing the same stale and exploded allegations. Now, Sir, what is the use of debates in this House? A complete answer has been given to the hon. Member already, but that does not prevent him from repeating his speech; and he has now been answered again, and that, doubtless, will not prevent him from repeating his speech next week. The Committee are threatened with the indefinite repetition of these stale calumnies, which no amount of repetition of fact from this side of the House is adequate to dislodge from the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Every case but one of the 13 Press cases to which I have referred was a case of personal intimidation, and in every case but one an individual was actually named. In one case an individual was not named,

1335
and that was the case which was made a stalking-horse by the hon. Member for Cork City in the debate on the Address, and which has now again been brought forward by the persevering Member for North Fermanagh. That was the case of a man named Walsh.
MR. W. REDMOND: That is not the way to speak1 of a man who is Mayor of the town in which he resides.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What appeared in his newspaper was this—
"That we look on the form in question as an evicted farm, and therefore as a derelict, and that the man who takes it is a grabber and shall be treated as such."
It is quite true that no individual was named in that article; but will any man say that this was not gross intimidation against any individual who might be desirous of taking that farm? We all know, and we all know better since the Report of the Royal Commission, what may be the fate of a man who is named in a newspaper as a grabber, and who is to be "treated as such." This is the favourite instance of hon. Members opposite when they discuss the abuse of Press prosecutions. Are the Government to be blamed for not tolerating the publication of a notice like that in a newspaper circulating in the district in which was situated the farm of which the future tenant was thus denounced? The right hon. Member for Derby loudly cheered when Walsh's case was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Fermanagh. It' may be interesting to the right hon. Gentleman to know that this man was, on November 25, 1882, imprisoned by the right hon. Gentleman himself. And for what? For publishing in his newspaper this notice—"That we are sorry to say that John Murphy still holds the grabbed farm from which M'Enery was. evicted eight years ago." Thus, in 1882 the right hon. Gentleman put this man, this respectable gentleman, in prison for precisely the same offence for which he was put in prison in 1889 by the present Government. I have now gone through, seriatim, all the more important counts of the indictment brought by hon.
1336
Gentlemen opposite against the Government; and I will conclude by again entering my protest against this eternal repetition indulged in by hon. Members opposite, which can have no other result but to waste the time of the House, and which excites no interest whatever even upon the other side of the House, I think we may well be spared further criticism on the conduct of the Irish Government until some new question shall arise which may afford some solid foundation for the attacks of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite.
MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has stated that the charges I have made are stale and exploded charges, and has referred to the speech made by the hon. Member for Dover, who, no doubt is a distinguished authority upon many things, but whose authority on Irish affairs I refuse to accept. The right hon. Gentleman has said that eight out of the 13 Press prosecutions were instituted in regard to editorial matter, and to that statement, whether it comes from the right hon. Gentleman or from the equally distinguished Member for Dover, I must give a most emphatic denial. The right hon. Gentleman will find an explanation of my repeating these charges in the fact that we refuse to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because we know that in this matter he has been misled. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the Mayor of Wexford as I should be sorry to speak of any person in this country. He has; referred to him as "that man Walsh." I utterly repudiate that mode of expression, and I say it is hopeless to expect the Irish people to rest contented and satisfied as long as representative men whom they respect are spoken of in that manner. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the case I brought forward of his police interfering with my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, and has said that the funeral was boycotted, and I must say that in the case where a funeral was boycotted I utterly and completely disapprove of such action and always shall. The right hon. Gentleman,

1337
instead of defending the conduct of the police, attempts to defend them by referring to some other cases which he implies are equally bad. But two wrongs do not make one right, and if the people have behaved with brutality in the casa of a funeral, I condemn that conduct, just as I condemn the action of the police. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a political funeral. It is monstrous to use such language. If the people respect the memory of one who has died, and attend his funeral in large numbers, the right hon. Gentleman says that is a political funeral. I say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is most unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman has twitted me with being "patient" in bringing forward these cases two or three times. For his advantage, I say I shall continue to be patient, and to bring up the eases as long as I get no better reply than that which the right hon. Gentleman has made to-night.
SIR W. HABCOURT: The Chief Secretary was good enough to invite me to intervene in this debate. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I did not.] I do not know then why the right hon. Gentleman introduced my name and challenged an explanation. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman did this from an exemplary desire to protract the debate, I, of course, do not know. But as the right hon. Gentleman wishes mo to speak, I will endeavour to gratify him. I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with interest. The right hon. Gentleman talks of repetition of the same speeches by Irish Members in this House as an impertinence. But what did the right hon. Gentleman begin by saying? He said nobody cares about Ireland, and these Irish questions are constantly being raised. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR here rose as if to make an explanation.] I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who objects so much to being interrupted himself, will not interrupt MR. [Mr. BALFOUR again rose.] I am in possession of the House.
1338
It is well to read to the right hon. Gentleman a lesson in courtesy. When the right hon. Gentleman shows courtesy to his opponents he will receive it himself. It is strange that the Minister responsible for Ireland should hold such language as that of the right hon. Gentleman about the discussion of Irish affairs. It is quite true that the discussion of Irish affairs takes up a great deal of the time of the House, and it is extremely burdensome to Members on all sides of the House. I will not allude to means whereby that burden might be removed. But it cannot be remedied by the Minister of the Crown saying that no attention ought to be paid to Irish questions. The right hon. Gentleman: says that time so occupied constitutes an obstruction to business. I am astonished to hear those complaints of obstruction from a Government which has obtained a greater amount of Supply more easily and at an earlier period than I ever recollect to have been the case before. Certain questions have been brought-before the House by Members who have a right to be interested in them. How does the right hon. Gentleman deal with these questions? Why, with an air of lofty indignation that he should be called in question with respect to these matters at all. The right hon. Gentleman talks of having a complete answer to these stale calumnies, as he called them. Well, his complete answer seems to be the letters which his private secretary writes to the newspapers. According to the right hon. Gentleman, Irish Members are bound to take whatever the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wynd ham) may write to the newspapers. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That was not my answer.] It is the tone and manner of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with Irish affairs which are the ground for the exasperation felt in Ireland, an exasperation which was never greater than under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman takes every opportunity of convincing the Irish people of the contempt in which he holds their complaints. If they are not content with what his private secretary writes, the Irish Members are guilty of impertinence and

1339
obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman was asked about Irish prisons. His reply was, "What do I know or care about prisons? If you ask me a question about it, perhaps I will answer." But the right hon. Gentleman did not happen to be accurate. He is not very accurate, I have observed. It is not the right hon. Gentleman's forte. It is not so very long since the right hon. Gentleman told us that he knew nothing about the classes of prisoners; that he never interfered. But the right hon. Gentleman has a short memory. A short memory is an evil, even in a Chief Secretary. This is the very Minister who told us he interfered to save priests from being put in prison dress. How, then, can he say that he never interferes, and has no power to interfere? He can interfere when he chooses. Thus the right hon. Gentleman's statement is absolutely inconsistent with what he stated on former occasions. I will give another illustration of the right hon. Gentleman's inaccuracy—the alteration of the prison rules. A year or two ago we were told that the rules were perfect; that they were better than the prison rules of England. We challenged that statement, and were told it was impertinent to challenge it; that it was presumption to challenge it. But we shamed the Government; we even shamed the right hon. Gentleman, and we got the prison rules of Ireland altered, but it was only done by constant and prolonged discussion in this House. There is a great deal besides prison rules in prison management, and I have no hesitation in saying there has been a harshness in the spirit of administration of Irish prisons which does not exist in the administration of the prisons in England. That is due, I am bound to say, not to any default on the part of the prison officials in Ireland, but I do believe it is mainly due to the spirit with which they are inspired by the language which is held by the right hon. Gentleman in tins House, and elsewhere, and in which it is left perfectly apparent to the officials of Ireland that the more harsh and the more severe they are in their treatment the better the Government will be pleased with their conduct. I should say exactly the same thing with reference to the use by the police of their weapons.
1340
No one denies in self-defence it is right and justifiable that the police should use force. But there are two ways of handling the police. One way is to encourage them to take every opportunity of using extreme force, and there is another spirit which warns them not to use it unless there is an absolute necessity. Now, I am bound to say that the language of the right hon. Gentleman to-night may be taken as an indication to the police that they should find opportunities of exercising violence. That is the spirit of the administration in which the right hon. Gentleman indulges. Some observations have been made by the Member for Wexford as to the needless and improper interference of the police with funerals, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. What defence has the Chief Secretary offered for that tonight? None whatever. He has not explained the circumstances nor endeavoured to justify the police. He has not condemned the police as he ought to do, unless he justifies them. The right hon. gentleman falls back upon his usual instrument of tu quoque, and gives a list of offences by the Nationalists in reference to boycotting funerals. But what justification is that for police interference? The right hon. Gentleman describes the outrageous conduct of the Nationalists with all the vigour of his rhetoric, but he has not a word of condemnation for the police, who, according to him, did exactly the same thing. This is the right hon. Gentleman's answer to what he calls a "stale calumny." As to the Press prosecutions, the right hon. Gentleman thought they had been disposed of by the Member for Dover in his letters to the Times. Although the Government may identify themselves completely with the Times newspaper we cannot recognise the Times as the sole organ of the Irish administration. Why the letters of the hon. Member for Dover are to be regarded as complete answers of the Government to charges of a serious character I cannot understand, and yet the foundation of the reply of the Chief Secretary is that complaints of the people of Ireland have been answered by the letters of his private secretary in the Times.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not said so.
SIR W. HARCOURT: Then my ears must have deceived me. I was mistaken It appears that the Chief Secretary never referred to the Member for Dover and his letters to the Times. Now that I have been assured by the right hon. Gentleman that he did not refer to those letters, I beg to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman fir having supposed that he had referred to them. The House will, however, judge with me as to the accuracy of that denial. Now, with reference to the Press prosecutions, I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that I was not Lord Lieutenant nor Secretary for Ireland in 1882, and that I imprisoned nobody at that time. I forgive the right hon. Gentleman for not being aware of that circumstance, and perhaps he will accept that as an explanation of his not being familiar with this particular imprisonment which he said was my work. The reason I cheered the hon. Member who called attention to this matter was that the hon. Member said he thought that when a gentleman had been imprisoned under a Press prosecution, that ought to be regarded as no disability after his sentence had expired for his fulfilling' public offices. The particular gentleman alluded to was the Mayor of Wexford, and the hon. Member contended that the penalty for the offence having been paid, the imprisonment ought not to be treated by the Government as a disqualification for ever hereafter. That is a principle which has always been observed in this country. There arc many Gentlemen below the Gangway who have been imprisoned. Are you going to apply to them the same rule? Dare you apply it to them? Dare you refuse to put them on Committees of this House? You know you dare not. You know that if you did public opinion would rise against you. There are questions which the Members from Ireland have a right to ask. They have a right to ask why you apply to their constituents principles you dare not
1342
apply to themselves, and to that the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer at all. I have listened attentively to the speech of the Chief Secretary, and upon the main point on which explanation has been asked it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer at all. If what the right hon. Gentleman says is the sort of answer which a responsible Government has to give in reference to Irish matters, I am not surprised that Irishmen should wish that their affairs should be managed in a different manner from that in which they are managed now.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no wish to prolong this debate unnecessarily, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to give me the ordinary courtesy of interrupting him when he misrepresented me, I hope not deliberately, and therefore I am obliged to make a. reply which otherwise I should have spared the House. No man in the House is more habitually interrupted by hon. Members opposite than myself, and I appeal to them if, when an interruption is upon a question of misrepresentation of what they have said, I have not only always given way, but given way gladly. [Dr. TANNER: No, no.] Though he knew I rose to correct a misrepresentation, the right hon. Gentleman used his privilege of being in possession of the House to the utmost, and not only refused to give way but continued to repeat the misrepresentation. The right hon. Gentleman has been pleased to say that my tone and manner are unfortunate, and tends to the prolongation of debates. I regret if that is the case, and I will endeavour to catch the tone and manner of the right hon. Gentleman. If I can only succeed, if only a small corner of the mantle of the right hon. Gentleman will but fall upon me, upon my shoulders, who can doubt lint that I shall succeed in conciliating every section in the House, and in making every one believe I have only one object in view, which is to interpret in the most charitable manner the opinions, sentiments, and arguments of

1343
my political opponents. The right hon. Gentleman has told me that I have omitted to discuss with seriousness the question of the alleged ill-treatment of prisoners; but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is only since I have been in office, and not whilst the right hon. Gentleman was in office, that there has been any relaxation of the prison rules in Ireland, and that it was the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, and not I, who have been accused on every plat-form of Ireland by Mr. Davitt and his friends of torturing Mr. Davitt while he was a political prisoner. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that I have not dealt with the action of the police in Tipperary on the occasion of the funeral that has been referred to. It is perfectly true that I omitted to state that which is the fact—namely, that the police who did not interfere with the funeral they were nevertheless bound to be present because they had been informed that the funeral would probably be made the occasion of an inflamnatory demonstration. What parallel is there between the conduct of the police on that occasion and the conduct of those who, in that very town, stoned a policeman when he was burying his child, and refused a man a coffin in which to bury his wife?
MR. J. O'CONNOR: The statements of the right hon. Gentleman have been categorically denied in the public Press.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to Press prosecutions, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the contention I made was that my hon. Friend (Mr. Wyndham) had written a letter—not to the Times but to the Press generally— which fully answered the complaints. I never said anything of the kind, and if the right hon. Gentleman had given me the slighest attention, he would have known that what I did say was that the controversy was begun in the public Press by the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond)—the right hon. Gentleman called him the Member for Wexford—and continued by my hon. Friend. It was then carried on in this House by the hon. Member for Cork, whose arguments were replied to without the slightest allusion to the
1344
reply given to the hon. Member for Fermanagh. The matter, I said, was introduced a third time by the hon. Member for Fermanagh, again without reference to previous refutations. I said, and I still think, this is an expenditure of public time against which I have a perfect right to protest. I could go on to deal in detail with the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I will forbear. I will follow the conciliatory example which the right hon. Gentleman has set. I will throw oil on these troubled waters, and will deprive myself of the pleasure of dealing with the other innumerable misrepresentations and fallacies in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to indulge.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of two deaths in prison cells as deaths that occurred from heart disease, I want to know whether the prisoners were known to have heart disease, and whether, in spite of that knowledge, they were kept in their prison cells. If so, the treatment was barbarous. If the right hon. Gentleman's officials in Ireland did not know the men were suffering from heart disease, they were inefficient in the performance of their duty, and I want to know which horn of this dilemma the right hon. Gentleman chooses to avail himself of. We hold him, as Chief Secretary, responsible for the health of every person whom he sends to a prison cell, and unless he gives us a proper account of these deaths I must regard him as not having exercised a. proper supervision over the prisons.
DR. TANNER: I wish to refer again to the death which has occurred in connection with the treatment of prisoners in Clonmel Gaol. The right hon. Gentleman thought fit to pass over the remarks I made earlier in the evening about the sanitation of the gaol. I did not at that time try to bring under his notice a case which at the present time commands public attention in Ireland. It is a case in which Mr. Morrison opened an inquest at Tipperary yesterday upon the death of Mr. Cleary. This poor young man has met with his death in prison. The right hon. Gentleman talks about heart disease, and he talks about the

1345
medical gentleman upon whom he relies —as he relied upon Dr. Barr. I have here an account of what Dr. Connelly said about this man. He states that no competent man could have examined him without discovering that there was a chest affection which required treatment. He examined him previous to his death and found him suffering from that chest affection, and after the poor young man's death he had an opportunity, by means of a post mortem examination, of verifying his diagnosis. I must say I pity Mr. Morrison, but I ask whether a man who was previously the inmate of a lunatic asylum is a fit person to act as medical officer of a gaol and to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's commands? Dr. Connelly says there were three large cavities discovered in the upper lobe of the left lung of the deceased, as well as a large abscess; that there were morbid adhesions on the lobes of both lungs; and that there were also pleuritic adhesions. Well, this poor man, with a disease which was evidently of longstanding, was treated to the inhumanity of being confined in a prison cell by the medical man whom the right hon. Gentleman has stood up again and again in this House to defend in connection with the treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien). That medical man has condemned this poor fellow to death. I should like to have some explanation of this case, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not turn his back upon us again, but will try as a gentleman to answer our complaints, although we happen to be mere Irish Members.

THE CROFTER COMMISSION.
DR. CLARK: I want to say a word or two on a question outside of Ireland. I am compelled to do so because we have been unable during the last two years to get the question brought before the House—I refer to the proceedings of the Crofter Commission. I am much dissatisfied, first with the increasing cost of the Commission. Last year we voted over £9,000, and we have voted a supplementary £1,000. This year the Estimate has increased to £9,600 for extraordinary
1346
payments to Sheriff's officials. During-the three and a half years the Commission has been in operation it has had about 7,000 cases before it, and it has reduced rents from £40,000 to £28,000. This is being done at a cost of over £10,000 a year. The fact is that if yon had voted the money to the people in the first instance they would have been richer than under the present system, because the Commission has cost more than the people have got in rebate of rent. I brought in a Bill by which the Crofters' Commission could sub-divide itself into three portions. Since that sub-division very curious things have occurred, Two and a half years ago the reductions of rent were 50 per cent., and of arrears about 75 per cent. Last year a change occurred. In the old Court there were three Commissioners, the chairman being a Sheriff, who, I believe, tried to act as fairly as he could, and his assessors being, one an old factor, and the other a large farmer. Under that Court the reductions were what I have stated. The old factor is now chairman and his assessors are two large farmers; the result being that the reductions in rent are not more than 30 per cent., whilst, with regard to arrears, instead of adopting a fair system, the Commissioners are taking a course which will land all the small farmers in the Bankruptcy Court. They are required to pay a sum equal to three years' rent. But they cannot do it. It is a physical impossibility. They have been rack-rented, and, having been rendered poor in that way, they find it impossible to pay three years' rent in one year; the consequence being that the landlord sues them. Unless something is done the result of this will be rioting and disturbance in Caithness and some other places. The people are not going to lose the rights they possess under the Act quietly. I would point out—although I do not dwell upon it now—that it is hardly a usual thing for a gentleman who is going to be a Judge in these cases to go and dine with the landlords and their factors. I am sorry that we have held our tongues so long. There is no doubt that grave

1347
dissatisfaction exists at the attempts which are being made by legal process to turn these men out of their holdings; and I tell the Lord Advocate and the Government that the probability is that if an attempt is made to carry out this unjust eviction it will be resisted. Something must be done to put a stop to this endeavour to collect impossible arrears at an impossible time; at any rate, the people should have the right of appeal to the three Commissioners sitting together—though how the appeal could be heard I do not know, if one of the Commissioners goes to Mull, another to Sutherlandshire, and another somewhere else. If the Commissioners meet to hear appeals before the evictions are attempted, much trouble will be saved.
MR. W.H. SMITH: The observations of the hon. Member will receive the early attention of Her Majesty's Government. And now I wish to appeal to hon. Members to allow this Vote to be taken at once. It is necessary to the convenience of the House that the Vote should be taken to-night. There are also two Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means which must be agreed to, and which, if not taken to-night, will necessitate the House sitting on Saturday.

IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I do not wish to stand between the House and the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like, for a few moments, to protest against the charge made by the Chief Secretary against hon. Members ou this side of the House. He stated—and I repudiate the accusation— that we brought forward these charges this evening for the purpose of obstruction. The subjects touched upon were not stale, but new, and some of them are subjects of the greatest interest to my constituents in Tipperary. I should have been wanting in my duty to the people who returned me to Parliament if I had not dealt with them. The right hon. Gentleman complained of interruptions whilst he was speaking, but if there
1348
were interruptions, they were evoked by the right hon. Gentleman's inaccuracies, which were only equalled by the insolence of his manner towards the Irish Members. His conduct here to-night was anything but what the conduct of anyone occupying his position ought to be. The assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that punishments were inflicted because offences were committed in time of riot was absolutely inaccurate, the magistrates having declared that there had been no rioting. As to the case of Cullinane, he was described as a "paid organiser of the League," but such is not the fact. He was only a Poor Law Guardian, and the proceedings in respect of which he was sentenced were not, as were declared by the right hon. Gentleman, riotous and disorderly, but perfectly orderly, as the magistrate had admitted. Then in the case of the 16 young men sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the right hon. Gentleman, when he declares that they were prosecuted for having taken part in riots, was absolutely and entirely inaccurate. It was the making of such statements as these which compelled us to interrupt him, and which compels me to occupy the time of the Committee for a second time to-night against my wish. With regard to the policemen against whom a Tipperary jury have returned a verdict of wilful murder the right hon. Gentleman says that the law will take its course and that the policemen will be brought up at the Spring Assizes. But I should like to know why they could not be brought up at the Winter Assizes? Why should they be allowed to remain under the stigma fixed upon them by the verdict of the coroner's jury any longer than is necessary? With regard to the boycotting of the funeral, the Chief Secretary did not deny that the grave was desecrated by the police, and his only reply to our charge was to bring forward two other cases of boycotting at funerals. The answer to him is, as has been pointed out by some of my hon. Friends, that two wrongs do not make a right. I do not, however, take my stand upon that, but I say that the truth of the allegations brought forward by the

1349
right hon. Gentleman has been categorically denied in the Irish Press. Then the right hon. Gentleman has made no answer to the complaints we have made as to the treatment of prisoners in the Irish gaols. He has not disproved the accusation that the rules made for the benefit of political prisoners have been turned to their disadvantage through the operations of the Irish Prisons Board. The right hon. Gentleman has not met my case, and I still contend, and shall continue to do so, both in and out of the House, that Irish political prisoners have been deprived of the privileges which the English people intended them to enjoy. Neither has the right hon. Gentleman met my case as to the Resident Magistrate Roche and Crown Prosecutor Bolton, the conduct of whom has been nothing more nor less than an incitement to murder. The inaccuracies of the Chief Secretary have been wilful, and they, together with his insolence and discourtesy, provoked the interruptions of which he complained. The right hon. Gentleman in his attitude towards Members of this House is sowing the storm, and one of these days he will reap the whirlwind.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: I desire to deal with one statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as it bears upon a subject of which I have knowledge, but of which he has none. He said that coffins for the burial of a policeman and a policeman's child were ordered from a local undertaker, who stated that he must get leave from the League before he supplied them. The right hon. Gentleman wished to convey the impression that the coffins were refused, but that is absolutely untrue, as I can vouch on the authority of the most respectable people in Tipperary. He also said that Tipperary had been in a state of riot; that I deny. It is not the fact that Tipperary is in a state of riot, or that there is any disposition on the part of the people to riot; and if riot occurs it will be the minions of the Government who will bring it about, backed by Members of the Government, who have formed a syndicate to help an evictor, which syndicate they support by the forces of the Crown. On the syndicate are the Duke of Devon-
1350
shire, the Duke of Westminster, and the Earl of Lathom. There are also on it Cabinet Ministers—Lord Cranbrook and Mr. W. H. Smith. Yes, the leader of the House has contributed money to back up an evicter, and now he lends his influence in the Government to get the syndicate to which he has subscribed supported by the forces of the Crown. These are the people who are responsible for all the troubles taking place in Tipperary. But their efforts are useless. Old Tipperary stands where she has always been, but empty and desolate; whilst new Tipperary is rising up like a flower, and Smith-Barry, with all his syndicate and Crown forces, cannot get tenants for the premises and farms, from which he has evicted the people, nor will he succeed in letting them until they are back in possession of their old homes. I desire here to give the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) notice that on a future occasion I shall have something to say of him in his capacity of emergency man in chief at evictions. If he goes over to Ireland again on the same errand I warn him that I shall be on his track, and I hope the Government will not do as they did on the last occasion when he superintended the evictions on the Olphert Estate in Donegal on the last Queen's Birthday: that is to say, allow the hon. Member who has no connection with Ireland within the cordon whilst keeping me—the Representative of an Ulster Division—outside.
DR. TANNER: I should like to ask the leader of the House to give us an opportunity of debating the question of the dissolution of the Cork Board of Guardians.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
Committee to sit again to-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
DR. TANNER: I object.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I must appeal again to the hon. Member. The effect of his insisting upon his objection will

1351
be to throw this formal business over for another day; and as the time before us is limited wherein we must conclude our financial business, it may be necessary to ask the House to submit to the inconvenience of a Saturday sitting. I shall further consider it my duty to put down a Motion asking the House to give precedence to Ways and Means tomorrow over the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton.
DR. TANNER: I am not dismayed by the prospect held out by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not afflicted with the "blue" craze; my only desire is that business should be conducted with decency.
MR. SEXTON: I trust my hon. Friend will have regard to what appears to be the general opinion.
DR. TANNER: Of course, after that appeal from my hon. Friend, I will not persist in my objection. Personally I have no objection to attend here on Saturday, but after the remonstrance addressed to me I yield, and hon. Gentlemen will be free to follow sport on Saturday.
Question put, and agreed to.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1889 and 1890, the sum of £548,181 6s. 3d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1891, the sum of £16,395,203 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
DR. TANNER: There are several points I should like to raise on this very large Vote of 16 millions, but at this late hour I will not do so. I trust right hon. Gentlemen themselves see the inconvenience to Members of passing a Reso-
1352
lution involving 16 millions at this time of night.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
Committee to sit again to-morrow

LUNACY CONSOLIDATION BILL [LORDS.]—(No. 191.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow the Bill to be read a second time. It will go before a Select Committee and be considered carefully. The hon. Member is aware it is a Consolidation Bill Only, and it is to the interest of the entire community that the consolidation of Statutes should be effected as speedily as possible.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to insist upon his objection. This consolidation is part of the scheme arranged last year. We then amended the Lunacy-Acts and left the Consolidation until this year.
  DR. TANNER: I simply think that this is not a favourable time for considering such a measure. There are many points in connection with the Lunacy Laws to which I should like to call attention. Standing No. 12 on the list, no one ever supposed the Bill would be taken to-night.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): No doubt there were points in the Bill of the Session 1888 in which we were not in entire accord with the hon. Member, but I think he will see this is a purely Consolidating Bill, not an amending Bill.
  DR. TANNER: Do I understand that it is to go before a Select Committee?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.
  DR. TANNER: On that understanding I have no objection to the Second Reading.
  Bill read a second time, and committer to a Select Committee.

ARMY ANNUAL BILL. (No. 194.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Has the Bill been printed and circulated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Yes, I understand it has been printed, and that copies can be obtained at the Vote Office.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Very often a Bill of this kind contains important Amendments.
  MB. STANHOPE: They may be considered in Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: Objection to taking the Bill after 12 o'clock does not apply, as the Bill is brought in in pursuance of the provisions of a Statute.
  MR. CAUSTON: As a matter of order, Sir, can a Bill be read a second time before being printed and circulated?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a matter of order; it is a. matter for the House to decide.
  MR. SEXTON: If we bring forward a Bill that does not happen to be printed, objection on that ground is considered conclusive; my memory recalls several such instances. If this is binding against a private Member who has not complete command of facilities for printing, surely it ought to be binding against the Government. It would be a culpable breach of duty, I think, to allow the practice without protest; and I would request, Sir, that the Bill should not be read a second time to-night.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is for the House to judge.
  MR. SEXTON: If the Government persist, I shall move that it be set down for to-morrow.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is really a point not worth setting up now. I have the printed Bill in my hand, and copies of it can be had in the Vote Office. But if hon. Members prefer that the Bill should be taken to-morrow let it be so.
  Second Reading referred to to-morrow.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE PREVENTION BILL—(No. 80.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Knowles.)
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I would appeal to my hon. Friend who takes, I know, a deep interest in sanitary matters, to allow us to proceed with this Bill, which will be a, most useful measure.
  DR. TANNER: I should be most happy to do so, but again and again I have expressed my opinion against proceeding with legislation after 12 o'clock, and, as a matter of principle, I must maintain my objection.
  MR. SEXTON: I think, on reflection, my hon. Friend will be disposed to agree with mo that it is better to have a useful measure passed after 12 o'clock than not to get it at all. There are several provisions in this Bill which have undergone consideration year after year by the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations.
  DR. TANNER: I cannot understand the appeal of my hon. Friend.
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.
  Clause 6.
  Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 103).

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  MR. HOWELL: The hon. Member in charge of this Bill desires me to say that he has arranged with the officials of the Board of Trade as to certain Amendments to this Bill, and if the Bill is permitted a Second Beading those Amendments shall be placed upon the Paper. I do not suppose the House will desire me to go through the Amendments; I may say, however, that every one of the suggestion made by the Shipping Companies have been carried out in these Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I would second the appeal of the hon. Member that the Bill should be read a second time. Great care has been taken in drafting the proposed Amendments to the Bill, which include reference to the recommendations of the Load Line Committee, and which have the approval of the Board of Trade and the shipping interest.
  COLONEL HILL: I may perhaps say that the Amendments which have been adopted by the Board of Trade and accepted by the promoters of the Bill have the approval of several of my shipping friends and myself.
  MR. CALDWELL: The shipowners of Glasgow have asked me to object to this Bill. I am sorry to oppose it now, for I never like blocking a Bill. Will the hon. Member be satisfied to allow the Bill to stand over until Monday?
  MR. HOWELL: If the hon. Member knows that the shipowners to whom he refers had the opportunity of urging their views on the Board of Trade and did not do so, it may alter his view. Every opportunity will arise for discussing Amendments in Committee.
  MR. CALDWELL: I understand that a deputation was to wait upon the Board of Trade, and has not yet done so.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the shipowners requested me to give them an interview, and last Tuesday was fixed for the purpose, but subsequently they sent word that they were unable to come.
  MR. CALDWELL: Leave it until Monday.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: As my name is on the back of the Bill, I may join in the appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his objection. The Bill deals with matters of great importance for the interest of our seamen. Future stages will allow full opportunity for discussion.
  MR. CALDWELL: I withdraw my objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Anstruther, Bill to amend "The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Munro Ferguson, and Mr. Vernon.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 196.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill and the Urban Sanitary Authorities (Further Powers) Bill that they have power to consolidate the two Bills into one Bill.—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the Infant Life Protection Bill that they have power to insert Clauses dealing with the insurance of Infants' Lives.— (Mr. Henry H. Power.)
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

VISCOUNT FRANKFORT DE MONTMORENCY.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Raymond Harvey Viscount Frankfort de Montmorency to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; road, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I have to present a Bill for First Reading for the abatement of smoke nuisance in the Metropolis. I need only say that the measure is identical with that which was proposed to your Lordships last Session except in one particular, that it provides for giving power to the County Councils to exercise their influence in regard to the heating apparatus of houses to be constructed. I shall not move for a day for Second Reading until the various bodies and associations interested in the matter have had an opportunity of scrutinising its provisions.
A Bill to amend the Acts for abating the nuisance arising from the smoke of furnaces and fireplaces within the Metropo is—Was presented by the Lord Stratheden and Campbell; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 45.)

TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 42.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I feel bound to postpone the Report stage of this Bill until Monday next, inasmuch as the Bill has not been furnished in its revised form in print. It passed through Committee on Monday last, when there were only two or three small Amendments made, and I think there is some reason to complain when, the Bill having been put down for Thursday, one is obliged to postpone it on account of its not having yet been received from the printers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help feeling that attention must be directed to this subject. This has
1230
happened several times recently. On occasions, in my own case, Bills which have been passed have not been returned to your Lordships, as they should have been. I do not mean to say that in the case to which my noble Friend refers much mischief will be done in the present condition of the business of this House; but I must say that this unexpected and unlooked for delay at other periods of the Session might occasion considerable public inconvenience.
Report of Amendments (on Re-commitment) (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.

COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY (No. 44.)
Amendments (on Re-commitment) reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
TRANSPORT OF CIVILIAN SICK AND INJURED.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in possession of information regarding the most recent means adopted in our colonies and foreign countries for the transport by ambulance of civilian sick and injured; and, if not, whether they will cause instructions to be issued to the representatives of Her Majesty, directing them to furnish Reports on the subject, to be laid before Parliament. My object in asking this question is to draw your Lordships' attention in this House, and the attention of the public generally, to the fact that in this country we have no organised system of transport for civilian sick, wounded, and injured. Having lately visited the United States of America I found in even third and fourth-rate towns that arrangements for that purpose are made which should put to the blush the authorities of some of our largest towns. I may mention, as an illustration, that the other day a friend of mine had a servant who met with a serious accident, and it was found impossible to obtain an ambulance to take the servant to an hospital. This occurred in Paddington, and we were told that the nearest place where an ambulance could be got was Clerkenwell, and that even

  1231
  then it would be necesssary to pay for the transport of the individual. Now, I do not think anyone can say that is a satisfactory state of things in regard to the transport of injured, persons in a Metropolis of this size, containing very nearly 5,000,000 inhabitants. Some 10 years ago H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge made a most laudable effort to establish some kind of system of ambulance work in the Metropolis, similar to that which I saw in operation in America; and although no actual result can be shown for that work, I still think that that effort was not entirely lost, inasmuch as if, turned public attention to the want of transport in London, and it perhaps led in no small measure to the formation of the ambulance branch of the St. John's Society, of which H.R.H. the Prince of Wales is the active President. Colonel Duncan, MP., has been a great loss for many reasons to this Metropolis, but more especially perhaps in regard to the work which he carried on during his lifetime in the establishment of ambulances. We owe it to him in a great measure that we have anything at all in the shape of ambulances in London; and both before and since his death we have owed a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Furley, who is the acting director of the Ambulance Department of the St. John's Society. I have taken the trouble to investigate what are our resources in this Metropolis, and I find that, apparently, the only public body which has ambulances at all are the Asylums Board Authorities, and I cannot make out that they are very numerous, or, indeed, very effective. Besides these, the only horse ambulances in the Metropolis are three that are supplied by the St. John's Ambulance Society. It is true there are three hospitals which have nominally horse-ambulances, but that is somewhat of a misnomer, inasmuch as they have no horses, and if horses are required the patients have to provide the horses to put to the ambulance. There is another institution, Charing Cross Hospital, which has a hand-ambulance. Four, if not more, of our largest hospitals have no system of ambulance whatever. I do not like to mention names, but they are some of our very largest hospitals. We now come to the police. The police have stretchers which they use principally for the convenience of drunkards; and if
  1232
  any of your Lordships were to meet with an accident in the streets, it is probable yon would be carried away upon a stretcher, and, unless your character were known by the public, you might bethought to be in a very peculiar state. On the other side of the Atlantic, in Boston, they have, to my mind, a very perfect system. That system is under the direction of the police, and is applicable to all cases of illness and accident—that is to say, of illness that is not infectious. Throughout the city—and this system I may say is in operation also in the towns of New Haven and Norwich, Connecticut, and may be in force in other cities for aught I know—at certain distances in the streets there are boxes, generally placed at corner lamp posts. Every policeman has a key with which he can open the boxes. On opening them a telephone is discovered inside and a means of communicating by electricity with the central office. If a person desires to have a patient removed from his house to the hospital, or if an accident occurs in the street, it is only necessary to communicate with the nearest policeman; that policeman opens the nearest box; he instantaneously communicates with the central office; they, in turn, communicate with the nearest district office; in that district office there are horse-ambulances ready with attendants; the horse is ready harnessed, the doors are instantaneously thrown open, the whole arrangements being carried out by electricity, and away gallops the ambulance, with two men in attendance, and, probably, within two or three minutes after an accident in the street has occurred, the ambulance may be seen galloping down to the assistance of the injured individual. This system is made available not only for accidents but for other purposes, that is to say, for the assistance of the police. Consequently they consider it is no extra expense, inasmuch as no policeman in those cities is called upon to leave his beat. If he arrests an individual upon his beat he either himself opens, or gets somebody else to open, his box and communicates with the central office. He is not allowed to take the prisoner to the police-station. The ambulances are, therefore, used also for the purpose of taking prisoners to the police-station. That avoids the necessity of the policeman having to

  1233
  leave his beat for, perhaps, half-an-hour or an hour; it also prevents the necessity for other policemen leaving their beats to go to his assistance, because with the ambulances assistance always comes. To my mind it is a perfect system, enabling assistance to be given to the police; in fact, doubling and even trebling the numbers of the police, and, at the same time furnishing a very satisfactory system of ambulance, extending over the whole city. At the present time, in this country, we are trusting almost entirely to voluntary effort. Voluntary effort is a very magnificent thing, no doubt, but it cannot be expected to do everything—"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre" was said of a certain cavalry charge; and I certainly think that some of our voluntary work cannot be considered the most effective, especially when we have to deal with enormous masses of population in our great cities and in our crowded Metropolis. I do think that, in the case of ambulance work, some organisation is required. My object, therefore, in asking this question is not so much in the expectation of receiving a reply from Her Majesty's Government as to ascertain the extent of information which may be obtainable in this respect. I shall be exceedingly astonished if they are able to afford us any, but I hope they will take steps to obtain information for the purpose of ascertaining what is the best system now adopted in our colonies or in any country in the world, with regard to establishing ambulances, so that if we find a good system, we may adopt it or improve upon it. At all events, the question will be brought under the consideration of the public, and I hope that, by means of the Reports which may be sent in, some definite result may be obtained. Our provincial towns are better off than we are in the Metropolis. I find that in Liverpool there are throe hospitals which are provided with horse-ambulances; there is also one in Leeds and another in Nottingham. I am not going to detain your Lordships with further remarks, but I hope Her Majesty's Government if they have not the information will kindly consent to obtain it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I have in reply to state that we have no
  1234
  information at all from any of the colonies upon this subject, but I see no reason why we should not ask the Governors to give us some information. I should not propose to get this from every colony, but with reference to some of the leading towns in Canada and Australia. It would not, I think, answer the noble Earl's purpose to have Returns from Crown Colonies.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I can only say with regard to foreign countries that this is not the kind of information which would naturally be furnished to us by our representatives unless it were specially asked for. I may add that I have no knowledge as to the existence of such a system as the noble Lord describes anywhere in the whole world.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Do I understand that the noble Marquess will consent to ask Her Majesty's Ministers and Ambassadors abroad to draw up Reports on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would rather take it in the usual form that the noble Lord should move for a Return, stating where he thinks it probable such a system exists. I do not think it reasonable that we should write to representatives in all the cities throughout the world on the subject, without any ground for believing that such system is in existence there.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Would the noble Marquess state whether he would be willing to take any steps in the matter?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would rather leave it to the noble Lord.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I may, perhaps' say that I propose to follow the same course with regard to, the colonies.

METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS' INQUIRY.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SANDHURST: It may be within the knowledge of some of your Lordships that I moved for an inquiry last Session as to the various methods adopted for the relief of the sick poor, both by means of charity and by means of payments

  1235
  from the rates. The noble Viscount, then, in the course of a very sympathetic reply, admitted that there was some reason for such an inquiry being instituted, and suggested that he should be allowed some time to consider the matter and see what was the best method of inquiry to be undertaken. I then withdrew the Motion. Some time has now elapsed, and I now beg to ask the noble Viscount whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to an inquiry by a Select Committee with regard to all hospitals, provident and other public dispensaries, and charitable institutions within the Metropolitan area for the care or treatment of the sick poor, which possess real property or invested personal property in the nature of endowment of a permanent or temporary nature, the Committee to receive, if they think fit, evidence tendered by the authorities of voluntary institutions for like purposes, or, with their consent, in relation to such institutions; and further to inquire and report what amount of accommodation for the sick is provided by rate, and the management thereof?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CHANBROOK): In answer to the noble Lord I should state that, in accordance with my promise, I consulted my Colleagues upon this subject, and I may inform him that the proposal which he has put on the Paper is one which we should heartily assent to. If, therefore, the noble Lord will move at any time that may be convenient to him for a Committee on this subject I can only say that he will receive the hearty support of the Government.
  LORD SANDHURST: That is a very satisfactory reply on the part of the noble Viscount, and I beg, therefore, to give notice that upon an early day I will move for the appointment of a Committee, and for the appointment on that Committee of such noble Lords as may be willing to serve upon it.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.