Sitting of 17 July 1893

DUKE OF YORK'S MARRIAGE.
THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. E. SPENCER)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
It is with great satisfaction that I receive your loyal and dutiful Address.
The interest you express in the Marriage of My beloved Grandson the Duke of York with Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and the assurance of the loyal affection you entertain towards My Person and Family are most Gratifying to Me.

QUESTIONS.

  THE SALE OF COLONIAL STAMPS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that much inconvenience is caused by the want of some easy and cheap means of transmitting between the Mother Country and the Colonies small sums of money, not exceeding 1s., for the price of goods ordered; and whether he will re-consider his decision not to permit the sale of Colonial stamps at the post offices in this country, and permit at least the sale of such stamps, and of American stamps, at the General Post Office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I am not aware of any such inconvenience as is indicated by the first part of the question. As regards the second paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my Predecessor to a question asked by him on the 15th of February, 1892, and would say that I concur with the late Postmaster General in the opinion he then expressed against the sale of Colonial stamps by the British Post Office for the transmission of sums of money to the Colonies and to other countries.

  HIGHLAND CROFTERS IN CANADA.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take steps to inquire into the
  1684
  statements reported in The Scottish Highlander of the 6th instant, that the Highland crofter settlers at Saltcoats, Assa, Canada, are in a very critical position owing to the failure of their corps and the fact that they are not allowed to sell any of the natural increase of the cattle supplied to them by the Imperial Colonisation Board; that the Board's agents threaten them with imprisonment for larceny if they sell a beast to provide food for their starving families; and whether, if these statements be confirmed, prompt action will be taken to prevent any recurrence of these and similar acts of injustice, and to recompense the settlers for the losses which they have sustained thereby?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The history of the Salt-coats Crofters Settlement has not been a satisfactory one, but most of the complaints contained in the article alluded to by the hon. Member refer to 1889, and not to the present time. Unfortunately, during the earlier period of the Settlement the circumstances were such that, of the 49 original families, only 18 remain. Agricultural implements and cattle were supplied to them on which a lien was taken by the Agent for the Colonisation Board. A succession of bad seasons and an attack of farcy among their cattle followed. On the representation of the local Sub-Committee, the crofters were permitted last December to sell some of their young stock of cattle, and they have from time to time been assisted with grants of grain and potato seed. Recent complaints are now being looked into by the Sub-Committee at Winnipeg, and Sir Charles Tupper, Agent General for Canada, has promised personally to inquire into them during his visit to Canada next month. Under these circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to appoint any Special Commission to go into the matter.
  MR. DARLING: May I ask if the hon. Member was in Order in the manner in which he put this question? [The hon. Member in putting it had merely called out "Four," the number of the question on the Paper, instead of using the customary formula, "I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland Question No. 4."]
  MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing disorderly in putting the question thus.
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, instead of using public money to migrate these people to Canada, it would not be better to spend it in helping them to stock holdings in their native land, and thus contribute to the creation of a contented peasantry whose loyalty in time of need would be unquestioned?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think the money alluded to could not have been worse spent than on a migration conducted as the Saltcoats migration was conducted.

  INDUSTRIAL TRADE MARKS.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to convene next year the Conference of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and Trade Marks, and the repression of false trade descriptions, which met last at Madrid in 1890?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): At the Madrid Conference in 1890 it was decided that the next meeting of the Union should take place at Brussels. It will devolve upon the Belgian Government, in concert with the Central Office of the Union at Berne, to take the necessary steps to send out invitations to the Conference, when they are ready for the meeting to take place, but no such invitation has yet been received by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Will the initiative be left entirely to the Belgian Government?
  SIR E. GREY: Yes; I understand that that is the intention.

  THE CIVIL ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION OF INDIA.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State received in the month of February last a Memorandum forwarded by the Solicitor to the Civil Engineers' Association of India, complaining of errors of fact in India Despatch No. 69, P.W.D., of 1890 (published in Parliamentary Paper, No.
  1686
  193, 1892); and whether the allegations in the Memorandum have been replied to?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL, North Beds.): (1) The Memorandum referred to was sent to the Secretary of State last February, with a. request that it might be forwarded to the Government of India. (2) The Secretary of State, in his reply, stated that he was unable to permit the India Office to be the channel of communication between the Civil Engineers' Association—which consists of members of the Indian Public Works Department—and the authorities ïn India. He is not aware whether the Association, in consequence of this reply, has addressed the Government of India, nor, if so, whether their allegations have been answered by that Government.

  THE CASE OF MR. N. D. KALVADE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a Memorial, dated 1st October, 1892, addressed to the Secretary of State for India, from Mr. N. D. Kalvade, late Magistrate and Mamlutdar, was received by the Government of Bombay on the 2nd October, 1892, and 20th April, 1893, respectively, for the purpose of being transmitted to this country, and that His Excellency the Governor of Bombay, in the exercise of his discretion, refused to forward such Memorials, on the ground that Mr. Kalvade's salary was short by the fraction of a rupee of the amount fixed by certain rules; whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the early transmission of the said Memorial; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take proper steps to prevent for the future any restriction by the Indian Government of the right of petition?
  MR. G.RUSSELL: (1.) Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State is aware that Mr. Kalvade submitted to the Government of Bombay Memorials to the Secretary of State, dated respectively 1st October, 1892, and 3rd February, 1893; and that that Government, in the exercise of the discretion vested in it in the case of officers whose salary does not exceed Rs.250 per mensem, declined to forward the Memorials; (2) as my hon. Friend was informed, in reply to his question on the 6th April last, the Secretary of State

  1687
  cannot consent to re-open the matter; (3) nor does he consider that it would be advisable to limit the discretion which has been reserved to the Governments in India in regard to such matters. In view of the large number of officers serving in India, and of the difficulty of investigating such cases in this country by means of correspondence with India, it is absolutely necessary that the decision of the Government of India should, except in a few—the more important—cases, be regarded as final.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: On the Indian Budget I shall call attention to this matter.

  REIGATE POST OFFICE.
  MR. CUBITT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Post Office Buildings at Reigate are quite inadequate for the business of the neighbourhood; whether, having regard to the increase in the population of the locality, it is intended to provide a Crown Office there; and whether he can hold out any hopes that this course will be speedily adopted?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The need for a better Post Office at Reigate is fully recognised and the Postmaster, whose duty it is to provide the necessary accommodation, has for some time been on the look-out for a suitable opportunity of doing so at a reasonable cost, but without success. The amount of the Post Office business is not sufficient to warrant the Department in undertaking to provide a Crown Office; and the answers to paragraphs 2 and 3 are, consequently, in the negative.

  MRS. ELIZABETH GLADSTONE AND HER TENANTS.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a caretaker named Noonan, who had been evicted for nonpayment of six years' rent, amounting to nearly £400, owing to Mrs. Elizabeth Gladstone, of Doon County Limerick, carried away hay, to the value of £250, by the aid of a crowd of neighbours from the mountains; whether Mrs. Gladstone was only refused compensation on the technical ground that this removal was a larceny rather than a malicious
  1688
  injury; whether he is aware that Noonan's farm has since been boycotted, and that caretakers are maintained on it at great expense, and no one dare take the farm owing to the fact that a Land League hut has been erected close by; whether he is aware that Mrs. Gladstone has now 62 acres of grass land, producing over 100 tons of hay, which she cannot get cut and carried owing to the terrorism of the League; and what steps the Government propose to take in order to give protection to Mrs. Gladstone, so as to enable her to obtain her rights and realise the value of her property?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I am informed that Noonan was evicted in February last for nonpayment of six years' rent as stated, but that since that date he has not carried away any hay from the farm. As mentioned by me in reply to a previous question on the subject by the hon. Gentleman, Noonan, in August, 1892, being then in possession, cut and removed the hay from the holding; the value of this hay is represented to me as being less than £70, and not £250 as alleged. The Grand Jury did not refuse compensation on the technical ground stated in the question; on the contrary, that Body awarded Mrs. Gladstone a sum of £100; but the ratepayers traversed the presentment, which the Judge dismissed. Since the eviction the farm has been cared by two men at an expense of about 30s. a week; and, as already pointed out, there is no interference with these men, and they are not boycotted in any way. Noonan is, with Mrs. Gladstone's sanction, I understand, living in the house from which he was evicted, though, it is true, his son is living in a hut near the farm. There are about 54 acres of grass land on the evicted farm, producing about a ton of hay per acre, and the police have no reason to think that the cutting of this crop will be interfered with.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this man Noonan was evicted in February this year, and that when he removed the hay with the help of a mob of his neighbours, or of people from the neighbourhood, he was in possession as a caretaker only. Well, my information is—[Cries of "Order!"]

  1689
  Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries to ascertain whether it is not a fact that Noonan was evicted on April 8, 1892, and was only holding the land as caretaker at the time he removed the crop? I would also ask whether it is not a fact that this lady was refused by the Court the compensation granted her by the Grand Jury on the technical ground that, as no actual violence was used, the case was one of theft, rather than of malicious injury?
  MR. J. MORLEY: So far as my information goes, the Grand Jury could not traverse the claim on the ground that the action was a theft.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I did not say the Grand Jury.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I mean the ratepayers could not. As for the other part of the question, I do not doubt the information supplied to me; but I will ask again if the hon. Gentleman likes.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then I wish to put the most important question of all. Is this lady now able to get her crop cut and removed? Is she not running a risk of losing her property owing to the terrorism of the League?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already answered the question definitely on the 11th of this month.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: But has the crop been cut and carried?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Why not?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Because it is not the point. I repeat that the police have no reason to think that Mrs. Gladstone will be prevented from saving her hay crop, or that there will be any interference with any persons she may engage.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to know whether it is not a fact that it has been found impossible to cut this crop owing to the terrorism in the neighbourhood? Then I give notice that, owing to the very serious inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's information, I shall bring the matter before the House on the Irish Estimates.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Whatever inaccuracy there may be is on the side of the right hon. Gentleman. I deny absolutely that there is any inaccuracy in what I have stated.

  THE CASE OF ROBERT RITCHIE.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a Petition from the inhabitants of Cellar-dyke and district, signed by upwards of 1,500 persons, praying for modification of the sentence of six months' imprisonment passed upon Robert Ritchie in the Sheriff Court at Cupar Fife, on the 12th of June, 1893; whether he has also received a Petition, signed by the whole of the jurymen in the case, to the same effect; and whether he can state if he is willing to give effect to the prayer of these Petitions?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I received the Petitions referred to by the hon. Member; but, after careful consideration and after full communication with the Judge who tried the case, I was unable to see any sufficient reason for interference with the sentence.

  THE HIGHLAND VOLUNTEER ARTIL LERY.
  MR. BEITH (Inverness, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any military reason exists for allotting the Highland Volunteer Artillery Field Battery, 16-pouuder guns, to Guildford with the Home and Western Counties (of England) Brigades, instead of to Boxhill with the Highland and Scotch Brigades, to which considerations of national affinity would assign it; and if, when opportunity occurs, it would be convenient to amend the Scheme of Mobilisation for Home Defence, Appendix L, by allotting the Highland Volunteer Battery to the same place of concentration as the Highland and Scotch Brigades?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): The reason for the Highland Volunteer Artillery being allotted to Guildford is that it is not required at Boxhill. If it was transferred to Boxhill it would cause the displacement of the Ayr and Galloway Volunteer Artillery, which forms part of the South of Scotland Brigade stationed at Boxhill.

  SAMOA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the

  1691
  causes which have led to the approaching conflict between Mataafa and Malietoa at Samoa; and whether the Commander of the English warship ordered to Apia has received instructions to support the latter in the event of an outbreak of hostilities between the two Chiefs?
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg also to ask the hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government have received definite information as to a threatened stoppage of trade and industry in the Samoan group Islands due to political troubles; and whether they have now come to any decision, in concert with the other Powers interested, to revise the existing arrangements, with a view to securing peace and good government for these Islands?
  SIR E. GREY: In a letter dated May 20 King Malietoa informed Her Majesty's Consul at Apia that the Samoan Government had decided to take steps against Mataafa and his followers, who were in open rebellion at Malié. It was at the same time explained that they had hitherto hesitated to do so for fear of boodshed, and in the hope of assistance from the Powers, but that Mataafa's example might be contagious, and that efficient government was impossible as long as he was allowed to maintain his present position undisturbed. As was stated on the 11th instant, a British man-of-war has been ordered to Samoa, and her Commanding Officer has been instructed to co-operate with the German and United States Naval Forces in such a demonstration against the rebel Chief Mataafa as will show the futility of resistance, and thus secure, without bloodshed, the benefits of peace and stable government to the Samoan people. I have to add, in reply to Question No. 31, that no understanding exists for a revision of the final Act of the Berlin Conference on Samoan affairs.

  THE OPIUM COMMISSION.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, in appointing the Indian Members of the Opium Commission, what means will be taken to secure the services of men who will truly represent Indian public opinion; and whether the Government will consult Public Bodies and Associations in India with a view to selecting Representatives
  1692
  who enjoy the confidence of the Indian community?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: It will be a part of the duty of the Commission to ascertain the feeling of the people of India with regard to the subjects specified in the recent Resolution of the House of Commons; and this will necessarily be done by the taking of evidence, rather than by attempting to represent on the Commission the numerous races and sects into which the population of India is divided. Every effort will be made to carry out thoroughly the Resolution of the House of Commons; but the Secretary of State is not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to the composition of the Commission.

  THE LOSS OF H.M.S. "VICTORIA."
  SIR E. HARLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will advise those at present conducting the inquiry into the causes of the loss of H.M.S. Victoria, and the serious injury to H.M.S. Camperdown, to take the evidence of such hands below as were either responsible for or cognisant of the condition of any watertight doors in bulkheads near the injured parts, so as to ascertain if open or closed at the time of the collision, as invaluable information for the future, and in view of the extreme difficulty of retaining such witnesses for any later inquiry, they being subject to entry on foreign service?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, Lancashire, Clitheroe): The Court Martial will, in accordance with Clause 92 of the Naval Discipline Act, under which the charge is technically made, inquire into all the circumstances attending the loss of the Victoria or contributory to it; and the Admiralty consider that it would be inexpedient to give any particular orders to guide the Court in any one direction. The plans of the bulkheads and watertight doors have been sent out for the use of the Court. The evidence of all those responsible for or cognisant of the condition of these doors will be taken in the usual course.

  POLLUTION OF THE NILE.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement made

  1693
  in The British Medical Journal of 8th July, that the Nile has been and is habitually poisoned with human and other filth, and the labours of the Irrigation Department have unhappily tended towards augmenting the concentration of the poisonous masses; whether this statement referred to the Barrage, and the possible construction of further dams in the bed of the river in order to have water for summer irrigation, which, even if they serve for raising crops, are poisonous to human beings; and whether, in view of the British interests at stake, both in life and money, in the traffic passing through the Suez Canal, representations will be made to the Egyptian Government against any further pollution of the Ismailia Canal, on which the entire water supply of Port Said and Suez depends?
  SIR E. GREY: I had not seen the statement in The British Medical Journal; but, according to the information at our disposal, it is not borne out by the facts. The operations of the Irrigation Department have not added to the amount of pollution, but they have increased the volume of water in the Ismailia Canal. If it can be shown that any subsequent operations will seriously alter the present state of the water supply, the matter will, no doubt, receive attention.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why Lord Kimberley's Despatch to the Government of India, inclosing the Resolution of this House passed on the 2nd June, with reference to examinations for the Civil Service, has not yet been distributed to Members, though laid upon the Table a week ago, and who is responsible for the delay?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): The delay is due to the printers, who misunderstood the wishes of the India Office. I am informed that the Paper will be delivered to Members to-morrow morning.

  VACCINATION AT WALHAM GREEN.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has instructed the police at Walham
  1694
  Green to distrain for fines imposed by the Magistrate at the West London Police Court, for non-compliance with the Vaccination Acts; and whether such fines should be collected by the Local Authorities who are the prosecutors?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I regret to say I have not yet received the necessary information to enable me to answer this question.

  A SOMERSETSHIRE BURIAL DISPUTE.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on Sunday, the 9th instant, at the burial of a child in the churchyard of Whitchurch, in Somerset, the Vicar, who had received due notice that the burial would be conducted under the Act of 1880, prevented for a time the entrance into the churchyard of the officiating Nonconformist minister and of the funeral party, and demanded the Registrar's certificate of death, which was refused, and that the Vicar thereupon proceeded to the grave reading the Burial Service concurrently with the Nonconformist Service which was being read by the officiating minister, but presently desisted and walked away; and whether he will inquire into the facts, and will take measures to prevent the recurrence of such an incident?
  MR. ASQUITH: It appears from the information supplied to me by the Vicar of Whitchurch, in Somerset, that it had been arranged in the first instance between him and the mother that he should conduct the funeral; and Saturday, July 8, was fixed as the date. On the morning of the 7th, however, the Vicar received a notice from the undertaker that the funeral would take place on Sunday, the 9th, at 4 o'clock—
  "Without the performance in manner prescribed by law of the service of the burial of the dead according to the rites of the Church of England."
  This notice was, no doubt, given under the 1st section of the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880. The Act authorises the person who receives such a notice to object to the Service taking place on a Sunday if he assigns in writing a reason for such objection. In

  1695
  reply to the notice the Vicar wrote word that he would be at the grave at the time appointed, and would not permit any other Service in the churchyard on that day. The undertaker repeated this notice that the Service would be performed independently of the Vicar, and the Vicar repeated his refusal to allow any Service but his own to be performed on that day. The Vicar met the funeral procession at the entrance to the churchyard, and accompanied it to the grave reading the opening sentences of the Church of England Service. He says that he had no intention of obstructing the Service, or of reading concurrently with Mr. Jameson (the Nonconformist minister), and that when he arrived at the grave and Mr. Jameson began reading, he (the Vicar) retired. It appears to me that the Vicar failed to observe that his notice objecting to the Service on Sunday ought to have stated his reasons, and ought also to have fixed a time on the following day, and he will be so informed. But I need not point out to my hon. Friend that I have no authority in the matter.

  THE BALLYCLOUGH TENANCY DISPUTE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have any information as to the evictions threatened to be proceeded with by Mr. Richard Fuge, of County Cork, against some tenants residing near Bally-clough; is he aware that these tenants are not to be evicted for non-payment of rent from their holdings, of which they have been in possession for over 40 years, but on a technical legal point; and, as these tenants have offered to allow a judicial rent to be fixed and are willing to pay all arrears of rent due, will the Forces of the Crown be placed at the disposal of the landlord for the purpose of evicting them and their families from their homes? I beg, also, to ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal in the case of Fuge against Nugent; whether he is aware that a jury had found for the tenant Nugent, and decided that he was a tenant from year to year within the meaning of the Act, and that the Court of Appeal reversed this finding of the
  1696
  jury, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon expressing the hope that both parties would be in a position to resume negotiations with a view of coming to an understanding, and that Lord Justice Barry considered that if the agreements had been produced in an English Court they would have been held to confer a tenancy upon the tenant; and, if so, will the Government intervene with a view to prevent the eviction of Nugent and other tenants similarly circumstanced?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As regards these questions, the police, with whom I have been in communication, have no information of any threatened evictions on the property referred to. The case against Nugent appears to have turned upon the point whether he was a regular tenant in title, or only the holder of a dairy farm with a tenure from year to year. A jury found there was a tenancy, but the Court of Exchequer unanimously held that there was no evidence of a tenancy, and that the case ought not to have been submitted to a jury. This view was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Government have no authority to intervene as suggested.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that these tenants have held the farms 40 years, that they have always been looked upon as tenants from year to year, and that their sole desire is to have a judicial rent fixed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say that; but, so far as my information goes, there is nothing in it contrary to the statement of the hon. Member.

  CAPTURING THE UNION JACK AT CASTLEBLAYNEY.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Constabulary have any information as to the persons who, either on Saturday night or Sunday morning last, pulled down and carried off a Union Jack hoisted at Anngart, Castleblayney; is he aware that the flag was afterwards found in a Roman Catholic quarter in Castleblayney; and, whether any steps will be taken to discover and prosecute the guilty persons?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The police are doing their best to trace the persons who were concerned in this matter, the facts

  1697
  of which are correctly stated in the question. At present there is not sufficient evidence on which to take proceedings.

  "ROSSMORE v. DONNELLY."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Land Commission intend to accept the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal, reversing the Queen's Bench and granting mandamus against them, in "Rossmore v. Donnelly"; is he aware that the Lord Chief Baron laid down that there was no primâ facie presumption that any holding is a holding to which the Land Acts apply; and, in view of the importance of the case to all Irish tenants, why is an appeal not taken to the House of Lords?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commission report that the operation of the Order of the Court of Appeal is stayed until the first day of the Michaelmas Sittings, and that the course to he taken in respect to the Order is now under their consideration.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a communication at variance with the statement officially made to him as to what has occurred in this case, and will he be good enough to enable the tenants to take the case to the House of Lords?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The newspaper report I have received is slightly at variance with the answer I have given on the Report of the Land Commission. I will make further inquiry of the learned Judge as to how the case actually stands, and answer the hon. Member when I get that information.

  GUN LICENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Ballymahon, found Robert Nash, of Castlecor, County Longford, illegally carrying a double-barrelled gun on 15th February last, being a person unlicensed under the Peace Preservation Act or the Gun Licence Act; was Nash prosecuted under those Acts; and, if not, why; is he aware that Mr. Bond, J.P., intervened in the case; and has the matter been investigated?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. Nash was summoned before the Magistrates under the Gun Licence Act, but the hearing had to be postponed as only one Magistrate was present. Subsequently, and before the next hearing, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were satisfied by Mr. Bond, Nash's employer, that although a technical offence against the Gun Licence Law had been committed, it was committed through ignorance, and without any intention to defraud the Revenue. In these circumstances, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, acting under their statutory powers, consented to withdraw proceedings on condition that Nash took out a gun licence, which he has done. As regards the offence against the Peace Preservation Act, it appears that Nash had a licence which had belonged to his father, and that it had been irregularly transferred to him by verbal arrangement with the late Resident Magistrate of the District. In these circumstances, the Police Authorities decided not to take up the case. Nash has since obtained a proper licence under this Act also.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not a fact that when this man was arrested he had no licence at all? And have not other people, who are not Orangemen received three months' hard labour for similar offences under the Act?
  MR. J. MORLEY: So far as I can probe the matter, the fact of his being an Orangeman is not to the point. Nash thought the transfer of his father's licence was sufficient and entitled him to carry a gun. There was no wilful evasion of the Act.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if the man had not been an Orangeman he would have paid any licence at all.

  SOUTH LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY FARES.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the City and South London (Electric) Railway Company charges fares exceeding 1d. per mile for the distance actually travelled by the passenger; that on these fares exceeding 1d. per mile no Passenger

  1699
  Duty has been paid; on what grounds this privilege has been permitted to the City and South London Railway; and on what terms other railways may obtain a participation in this privilege?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT(who replied) said: The facts are not accurately stated in the question. The Company are held liable to pay duty on fares charged at a rate exceeding 1d. per mile for the distance actually travelled. It is, however, a matter of great difficulty to determine the extent of the liability, owing to the special method adopted by the Company for the payment of fares. An arrangement has been arrived at between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Company, under which the Commissioners are satisfied that the liability of the Company is fully discharged.
  MR. BYLES: What is the special arrangement referred to in the answer?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I believe they charge a certain sum over the whole distance.

  INCOME TAX CHARGES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in arriving at the assessable balance of trading profits liable to Income Tax, it is the practice of surveyors of taxes to disallow the deduction from trade expenses of the amount paid as Income Tax, or, in other words, that the assessors insist upon adding to the amount of net profits the amount paid as Income Tax, thus taxing taxes as if they were profits instead of a trade loss like all other outgoings incident to the carrying on of trade; whether this practice is in contravention of the Act of Parliament and the Rules made thereunder; if not, under what clause or section of which Act the practice is justified; and whether he is aware that, in any case, the decision of the House of Lords last year in the case of "Styles v. the Gresham Life Assurance Company" authoritatively decided the question in a sense adverse to the practice in question?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT(who replied) said: I am advised that there is no authority in the Income Tax Acts for the deduction of the amount paid as Income Tax as if it were a trade loss or a trade expense. The practice is not in contravention of the Acts. The Act of 1842 expressly
  1700
  states that only such deductions shall be made as the law expressly enumerates, and there is no provision that I am aware of for making the deduction in question. The case of "Styles v. the Gresham Life Assurance Society" has no bearing on this particular matter.
  MR. HANBURY: Then it is the practice of the Treasury to charge Income Tax on Income Tax?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that some surveyors of taxes have allowed the deduction, and that, consequently, the practice is not universal?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: If the head office found that any subordinate official was allowing the deduction, I imagine a stop would soon be put to the practice.

  IMPROVED BARRACK ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to carry out proposals made to the Wantage Committee as to the provision of boxes or lockers in the barrack rooms, of good light, of dining rooms separate from the sleeping apartments, and of hot water for ablution rooms in winter, all of which the Committee declared to be highly desirable, especially the first and third proposals?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With the exception of hot water for ablution rooms, these improvements are being carried out in new barracks, and in any old barracks which may be reconstructed.
  MR. HANBURY: And why not in existing barracks?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I imagine that that would involve a very considerable expense.
  MR. HANBURY: I shall press this matter on the Army Vote.

  THE PENHRYN TITHE DISTURBANCES.
  MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the trial of John Thomas, at the Cardiganshire Assizes, on 11th July, when the prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for assaulting Robert Lewis, the County Court Bailiff, in the tithe riots at Penrhyn, on 5th May; whether he is aware that

  1701
  it was stated in evidence that the crowd on that occasion numbered 100 people, armed with sticks, while the force protecting the bailiff consisted of only three policemen and one County Councillor, and that the bailiff, in consequence of the resolute look of the crowd, refrained from attempting to execute the order; whether any attempt has since been made to execute this order; whether there are many other orders not executed; and if steps have been taken to provide an adequate protecting force in future?
  MR. ASQUITH: This is the case in which I stated the other day that I had directed the Public Prosecutor to bring the charge, which had been dismissed by the Magistrates, before the Grand Jury. Two men—John Thomas and Watkin Griffiths—wore accordingly indicted, and charged with assaulting the bailiff so as to cause him actual bodily harm and with a common assault. Thomas was acquitted of the graver charge, and convicted of a common assault. Griffiths was acquitted altogether. The facts proved appear to be substantially as stated in the second paragraph, except that, according to the bailiff's evidence, the demeanour of the crowd was (as he described it) "not particularly threatening." I am not aware whether this order has since been executed. As I stated the other day, there are, I believe, a number of orders unexecuted. But. so far as my information goes, it would not be fair to attribute this state of things wholly or mainly to the bailiff's fears of violence; it is, as I explained the other day, more probably due to the inconvenient and imperfect remedy given by the Act of 1891. I have directed that the special attention of the Chief Constable should be called to this case, with an expression of my opinion that the bailiff on the occasion in question was inadequately protected, and that such a failure to prevent violence should not be permitted to recur.
  MR. REES DAVIES: Is it not a fact that the Chief Constables of both Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire have deprecated the use of a large police force as the least likely method of collecting the tithe?
  MR. ASQUITH: I believe they have; but then, it is the duty of Chief Constables to protect bailiffs in the execution of legal process.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what length of time the orders of the County Court have remained unexecuted in consequence of this resistance?
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot answer that without notice. I will make inquiry.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: In view of the fact that the Constabulary is subsidised out of money voted by Parliament on the assurance that it performs its duty efficiently, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary shall report on the manner in which the Chief Constable of Cardigan has performed his duty before the Constabulary Vote is presented?
  MR. ASQUITH: There is no sufficient ground for any such inquiry.

  OPIUM SALES IN COLOMBO.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the sale and consumption of opium and bhang in Colombo (Ceylon) has doubled in the last four years, as proved by the receipts of the Colombo Municipality; and whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies will take measures to prevent either licences for the use or the importation of these drugs into Ceylon, except for strictly medicinal purposes?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Since 1889 licences for the retail sale of opium and bhang in Colombo have been annually sold by auction, instead of being given, as previously, for a fixed fee; but the number of licences has not been increased. It is true that the receipts from these licences have increased from Rs. 14,000 in 1881 to Rs.26,600 in 1892; but the consumption of opium, as shown by the imports, has only increased about 10 per cent. The Secretary of State will call for a Report on the subject from the Ceylon Government; but he will await the Report of the Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the Opium Question as it affects India, before deciding whether any steps, and, if so, what steps, should be taken to restrict the consumption in Ceylon.

  THE HOUSE CLERKSHIP AND ITS PATRONAGE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the numbers and positions of the officials of this House, and their total annual salaries, whose offices are in the gift of the Clerk at the Table; and can he state why the pledge given by the late Mr. William Henry Smith, that these posts would be thrown open to competition and placed under the Civil Service Commissioners, has not been redeemed?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that the number of persons in the Department of the Clerk of the House is (excluding the Clerks at the Table) 45, and their total salaries (exclusive of allowances) amount to about £17,000. I am not aware of any pledge given by the late Mr. W. H. Smith, but I should point out that appointments to clerkships are already made by limited competition under a scheme of examination by the Civil Service Commissioners.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to let the matter remain as it is notwithstanding Mr. Smith's promise?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The question is one which is dealt with by the Commissioners appointed by Act of Parliament, and the Treasury have no power to interfere.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand it would require an Act of Parliament to change the system?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Certainly.
  MR. SEXTON: Are the powers and duties of the Clerks at the Table defined by Statute?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I believe they are defined.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that I will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the powers and duties of the Clerk at the Table with a view to their precise definition.

  PRISON ACCOMMODATION IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all persons sentenced in the Metropolis to imprisonment are confined in prisons within the Metropolis; what was the number, distinguishing male and female, of
  1704
  such prisoners on 1st June, 1893, in each prison, and whether there are sufficient, and, if so, what, number of properly certified cells in each prison, distinguishing male and female cells, for their accommodation; and whether persons sentenced in any other counties or boroughs, and, if so, how many, were confined in the Metropolitan prisons on the stated day?
  MR. ASQUITH: In order to answer this question, it is necessary to know the precise meaning to be attached to the word "Metropolis"; even then it would take a long time to go through all the committals of prisoners, approaching 4,000, who were in custody on June 1 to ascertain how many were committed within the boundary intended by the word "Metropolis" and how many from outside it. As there are 4,392 certified cells, besides others in the infirmaries, and associated accommodation for special cases besides, there is obviously ample accommodation for the prisoners of the Metropolis, however it may be defined.

  THE CASE OF MR. FREDERICK FINCH.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department can he explain why it is that Mr. Frederick Finch, who was nominated as a schoolmaster in Her Majesty's Prisons four years ago, and then received a notification from the Home Office, saying that they were reducing the Prisons Staff, but he would hear further from them, has from that day received no communication of any kind from the Home Office?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that Mr. Finch was not nominated, and that nothing is known in the Prison Department of his having been told that he would hear from it. There is no prospect of any vacancy.

  OPIUM DENS IN THE EAST END OF LONDON.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there exists an opium den in Limehouse Causeway which is much frequented by many persons, including young English girls; whether the existence of such a place is in accordance with the law; and whether the

  1705
  police possess adequate powers for its suppression?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Commissioner of Police informs me that there are absolutely no grounds for the assertion that English girls frequent these opium dens. The police have no power to suppress opium smoking.
  MR. S. SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a description in The Sunday Sun of a visit to an opium—
  MR. JOHNSTON: Nobody believes The Sun.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir; I have read the statement, and referred it to the Commissioner of Police. The hon. Gentleman's question suggests that the place is frequented by English girls, and my information is that there are no grounds for the statement.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION'S AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the power of the Irish Laud Commission to cause to be made such inspections and Reports as may be necessary as to agricultural prices under 50 & 51 Vict., c, 33, s. 29, is limited to such inspections and Reports as were necessary for the purposes of that section; whether there is any Treasury Minute authorising the continuance of the expense after the purposes of the section had been fulfilled; whether any notice was given to Parliament at the time of the proposed continuance; whether other agricultural statistics in Ireland are collected by the Registrar General's Department, and whether the Treasury have considered the inconvenience of having two authorities collecting such statistics; whether he is aware that the statistics collected by the Land Commission, owing to their inaccuracy, serve no useful purpose; and whether, having regard to the wishes of the agricultural community, the Treasury will order the discontinuance of this expense?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The answer to the first question is, Yes. The continuance of the expense was sanctioned by Treasury Letters for the years 1890 and 1891, after which date the preparation of these statistics became part of the duties of the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission created under the Purchase of Land Act, 1891. Provision
  1706
  for the service was made in the Estimates of the year, and the attention of Parliament was thus drawn to the continued collection of agricultural statistics. The Registrar General collects statistics as to areas under cultivation and quantities. He has no machinery for collecting the statistics as to prices referred to in the question. The present arrangement is one of economy and convenience. I have no reason to think that the statistics as now prepared by the Land Commission are not generally accurate; and I cannot undertake, on the information before me, to make any alteration.

  "ALABONE v. MORTON."
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of "Alabone v. Morton," and to the following words in the Judgment of Mr. Justice Wright:—
  "It is to be hoped that the proper authorities will take steps to enforce the Apothecaries Act against both parties, and consider whether proceedings of another kind should be taken against the defendant, whose fraud and false pretences are established by the evidence in this case, so far as that evidence can be relied on ";
  and whether, considering the nature of the fraud and false pretences referred to by the learned Judge, he will direct the steps recommended by him to be taken?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is not quite clear whether the Society of Apothecaries intend to use their power; but I have given instructions that the matter should be laid before the Public Prosecutor, with a view to his taking proceedings either independently or in conjunction with the Society.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen a suggestion in The Irish Catholic of 15th July that the Lord Lieutenant should erect another College, to be of the University of Dublin, for the special benefit of Roman Catholics, and to be endowed out of Crown Lands; and whether any negotiations for this purpose are at pre-sent going on?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have seen the paragraph in the publication mentioned which contains the suggestion in question. If any negotiations are in progress in the direction indicated, they are kept a secret from me.

  LONDON OMNIBUS FARES.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that on several days during the week ending 8th July the scale of fares painted inside the omnibuses of the London General, the London Road Car, and other Companies were superseded by paper bills posted inside or outside the vehicles bearing the words "No penny fares." "All fares raised one penny," "Sixpence any distance," &c, whereby serious inconvenience and loss were suffered by many thousands of poor people; and whether such practices are in contravention of the law; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to prevent their repetition on future occasions?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that paper bills were posted on certain omnibuses in London in the Royal Wedding week bearing the words "No penny fares," "Sixpence any distance," &c. The Commissioner of Police directed a caution to be conveyed to the omnibus proprietors in question that such notices were illegal, and that the only fares recoverable were those painted inside according to the Act. A general notice will be issued to all omnibus proprietors calling their attention to the subject, and warning them that proceedings will be taken in every case brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police in future.

  TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS AND THE ARMY.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to a speech made by the right hon. the Postmaster General at the annual meeting of the Eastern Central Postal Telegraph Messengers' Institution at the City Temple, on 12th July, when the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have spoken adversely of recent Regulations to encourage telegraph messengers in performing three years' Army service;
  1708
  whether, as Secretary of State for War, those Regulations still have his approval; and whether he is aware of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to revoke them, or alter them to any material extent?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It rests with the Post Office to determine what should be the conditions of service of those employed under it. I am most anxious to give every facility and encouragement to enlistment in the Army, and would welcome any assistance which the Post Office can give for this purpose. But we must not forget, or do anything to impair, the voluntary character of service in the Army; and there is obviously some danger of affecting that character if service in the Army is made rigidly compulsory as a condition for other service under the Crown. It is, therefore, proper matter for consideration whether the existing Rule is not too rigid; but I hope every facility will continue to be afforded to messenger boys to serve their time in the Army, and that at the conclusion of their service they will be entitled to resume their position under the Post Office.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask whether the Regulations referred to were framed or prompted by the present or late Minister for War; whether it is the practice for the head of one Department to make Regulations concerning the conduct, movements, or discipline of the employés in another Department; how long the practice has existed, and what authority the Minister for War has for interfering with or making Regulations for telegraph messengers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think I have already answered the question. I stated that it rested with the Post Office to determine what should be the conditions of service.
  MR. CREMER: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether the Regulations were prompted or framed by the present or late Minister for War?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They were framed long before I was Minister for War, so that they cannot have been prompted by me. I cannot answer as regards my predecessor.

  THE ROYAL WEDDING—AN UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, on the occasion of the Royal Wedding, on Thursday, the 6th of July, an officer of the Life Guards struck, with the blade of his sword, a man named Arthur Walker, of South Crescent Mews, Burton Crescent, W.C., who was in the crowd near Somerset House, and who sustained a severe wound on the head from the blow; and, if so, what steps have been taken in the matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This was an unfortunate accident. The troops had very stringent orders to keep the streets clear; and I am informed that Mr. Walker was twice desired to move back. Instead of doing so he appears to have seized the bit-rein of the officer's charger; and the officer, whose horse had a light mouth, fearing it might become restive among the crowd, intended to strike his assailant with the flat of his sword to make him let go. The sword, however, unfortunately turned in his hand, and cut through Mr. Walker's hat, inflicting a slight scalp wound.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will any compensation be given?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not suppose the case is one in which any question of compensation will arise. It appears that Mr. Walker was in the act of refusing to obey a lawful order, and in the course of his refusal seized the officer's horse by the bridle, which was obviously a dangerous and improper thing to do.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause any independent inquiry to be made into the facts of the case? My information is totally different from that supplied to him.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have the information both of the police and of the officer himself. If the hon. Gentleman forwards any information to contradict that evidence in any respect, of course it will be considered.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I will supply the evidence of six independent witnesses who saw the whole occurrence.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With this remarkable confirmation of the representations made to him
  1710
  as to the liability of this pattern of sword to turn in the hands of the user, will the right hon. Gentleman re-consider the question of the advisability of continuing to issue this weapon?
  [The question was not answered.]

  THE WELSH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state to the House if it is the intention of the Government to drop the Welsh Suspensory Bill, and to bring in a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales either in an Autumn Session or early next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian): I hope to save hon. Members the trouble of putting questions of this sort by stating that until the time required for the disposal in this House of the Irish Government Bill is more definitely ascertained, the Government cannot make any statement with regard to the measure referred to in the question, or to any other Bills.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already made a communication upon the subject to the Welsh Parliamentary Party?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have written to an hon. Friend of mine who is associated with the Welsh Parliamentary Party; but I am not aware that I have made any communication to my hon. Friend in the smallest degree inconsistent with what I have just stated.

  FRANCE AND SIAM.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can afford the House any additional information on the state of affairs in Siam; and whether, with a view to the prevention of further hostilities, Her Majesty's Government have offered their assistance in the pacific settlement of the boundary and other questions originally in dispute?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: At the same time, may I ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact, as reported in a telegram from Bangkok, reported in The Times of Friday, that two French gun-

  1711
  boats, on Thursday night, passed up the Menam River after nightfall, and are now anchored opposite Bangkok; whether the Siamese Government was in receipt, at the time of this incursion, of pacific assurances from the French Minister; whether a cannonade took place between the French gunboats and the forts, accompanied by loss of life; whether the British Government had prior notification of this movement of the French ships of war; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to protect British interests and British trade in Siam?
  SIR E.GREY: I am informed that there is a desire on the part of the House that there should be a discussion to-day on the difficulties which at present exist between France and Siam, especially as regards the situation at Bangkok. I am told there was an intention to move the Adjournment of the House in order to bring about a discussion of the subject. No doubt the situation is a serious one, as the House was informed last Friday, when shots had been fired; but I am happy to be able to say that, since that demonstration of hostilities, no further hostilities have taken place near Bangkok, and matters remain in suspense. I am sure it will be the desire of the whole House that, while nothing should be omitted on our part to watch and guard most closely the British interests that are involved, also nothing should be done on our part which should aggravate the situation in any way. At the present time there is every possibility that the situation will end in a peaceful solution, and that there may be no further outbreak of hostilities. I am sure the House will be anxious that at this particular moment, while matters are still in suspense, nothing should be said in this House which could possibly aggravate the situation. I, therefore, propose to ask the leave of the House, in order to avoid discussion on the matter to-day, to make the following statement:—
  "In order to consider justly and dispassionately the present position of affairs between France and Siam, it is necessary to keep distinct several questions which from the course of events have become intermingled. But it is right to premise that perhaps the main difficulty in forming any conclusion on those questions
  1712
  lies in obtaining clear and definite information, and in the absence of such information Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to offer any decided opinion as to the merits of the various points at issue. There are, first of all, certain claims by the French Government for compensation for losses suffered by some French merchants and travellers in consequence of the action of Siamese officials. These are not of large amount; but the French Government appear to have laid stress on these being satisfied as a preliminary to negotiations on more important matters, while the Siamese Government have made difficulties and objections which have not yet been withdrawn. There is, secondly, the: question of frontier between France and Siam in or adjacent to the Mekong Valley. This is a question of a complicated character on which Her Majesty's Government have not sufficient information to pronounce a definite opinion, and in which—provided it be kept within certain limits, and do not assume such proportions as to affect the independence and integrity of the Siamese Kingdom—Great Britain is not directly interested. There is, thirdly, the question of the capture of a French officer. Captain Thoreux, and the alleged murder of another with some Annamite soldiers. It is reported in the papers this morning that Captain Thoreux, whose liberation was promised by the Siamese Government some time ago, has now been actually conveyed into French territory and surrendered. In regard to the other incident, the facts are contested, and it is not known what the demands of the French Government, may be. Fourthly, there is the forcible ascent of the Menam by two French gun vessels against the opposition of the Siamese Authorities. In regard to this act we are not at present in possession of all the facts, the information received by Her Majesty's Government being little, if at all, more than that which has appeared in the public Press. But there is reason to believe that it was contrary to the directions of the French Government and to the expressed wish of the French Representative at Bangkok. It is absolutely necessary to await more detailed information before an opinion can be pronounced on the merits of the question. Our last advices from Paris, however, state that the French Commanders positively assert that they were subjected to an unprovoked fire in the exercise of their undoubted right to ascend as far as Paknam. Fifthly, there is the question of the protection of British subjects and property and those of other European Powers at Bangkok. Her Majesty's Government have for some time past been making provision for this, and they are assured by the Naval Authorities that the arrangements are complete and the force sufficient. Should more ships be required they will be immediately available. Finally, there is the question of the independence and integrity of Siam. Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible that this is a subject of grave importance to the British, and more especially to the British Indian Empire; but the French Government declare themselves to be not less anxious than ourselves to maintain and respect that independence and integrity. Her Majesty's. Government are fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter, and they will not lose any opportunity which may present itself of facilitating a satisfactory solution."
  MR. CURZON: Having heard the statement made by the Under Foreign Secretary, I propose to refrain from taking any step which I might otherwise have done to call the attention of the House to the subject to-day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [PAYMENTS.]
  Resolution reported;
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom,—

  (a) of salaries, pensions, and gratuities to Judges, Land Commissioners, County Court Judges, and officers of the Civil Service, and other officials who are in receipt of salaries paid out of moneys voted by Parliament; and

  (b.) of salaries, gratuities, and pensions to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, together with the expenditure incidental thereto,

  in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to delay the confirmation of the Resolution; but it is possible the Chief Secretary may think this is a convenient and desirable opportunity to make his promised statement with regard to the Civil servants and the Police.
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reference to what occurred on this matter on Friday night, when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Civil servants and the Constabulary should be allowed to lay their views before the House, as, although the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say I should do them as much justice as I could, yet the fact remained that I was more or less opposed to them, I have on consideration thought that the best course is to prepare a short statement of the cases made out by the Civil servants and the officers of the Constabulary, and to lay before the Committee, in a short time, the points raised and the criticisms made upon the proposals of the Government. The document so prepared is in type, and will be obtainable in the Vote Office this
  1714
  evening. I do not think this is a convenient occasion to go into the matter, because the case of the Constabulary is one of extreme importance, and involves a good many other points besides financial considerations. Therefore it will be more convenient that I should make a general statement upon Clause 27 or Clause 28.
  Resolution agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 13th July.]
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    THIRTY-NINTH NIGHT.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Judges and Civil Servants.
    Clause 27 (As to existing Judges and other persons having salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund.)
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the omission from page 15, line 21, of this clause of the words "and Land Commissioners in Ireland." I doubt, Sir, whether the effect of the insertion of these words has been entirely realised. I may, perhaps, explain, with regard to the Land Commissioners, that they are the most important administrative functionaries in Ireland; that, up to the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, the Land Commissioners—some of whom have been fixing fair rents for many years previous, and others were connected with purchase transactions since 1885—were paid salaries placed upon the Votes of Parliament, and held their offices under Statutory Authority for a very short term of years. But when the Land Purchase Act of 1891 came to be passed, the right hon. Gentleman, now the Leader of the Opposition, inserted in the Bill, against the wish of the Irish Party and of the Liberal Opposition, a provision which placed the salaries of these Commissioners upon the Imperial Consolidated Fund, and gave them judicial term of office, under which, as the Committee is aware, they can only be removed from office on an Address from both Houses of Parliament. That step was taken, of course, upon the assumption that the Imperial Administration of Irish affairs was to continue. But the assumption in regard to the

    1715
    present Bill is of a different character. This Bill proposes to confide the legislation and administration of Irish affairs to a domestic Legislature and Executive, and, therefore, the policy upon which these provisions were inserted in the Land Purchase Act of 1891 cannot be regarded as an operative policy in regard to the present Bill. If these words are taken out the effect, as I judge it, would be that the status of the Commissioners under the Purchase Act of 1891 in regard to their salaries and tenure of office would remain unaltered unless it was altered by an Irish Act. But if the words are allowed to remain, what will be the effect? The Committee will observe that the proposal is that the Land Commissioners in Ireland, after the passage of the Home Rule Bill, should only be removable upon an Address of the two Imperial Houses of Parliament; that they should receive the same salaries and pensions as heretofore; that their duties should be defined by Her Majesty, that is to say by the Imperial Government; so that, as I understand it, the Irish Government would have no power to modify their functions in any respect, to relieve them of any existing duty or to impose any new duty. And, finally, the Imperial Government might give to any of these Committees the day after the Home Rule Act is passed the same pension as if they had served out a full term of service. Might I for a moment call the attention of the Committee to the duty which the Land Commissioners have to perform in Ireland. In the first place they control the direct registration of title in the case of transfer of land, and the Irish Government would, as responsible to the country, have the right to see that these duties are efficiently and diligently discharged. But how, I ask, can the Irish Government secure efficiency or diligence in the discharge of these duties if the officers who discharge them are responsible not to the Irish Government, but to the Imperial Government? In the second place, these Commissioners manage the property of the late Disestablished Church in Ireland. By Clause 15 of the Bill you propose that, subject to any existing charges thereon, the existing property shall belong to the Irish Government, and shall be managed and administered by them. But how can
    1716
    they manage and dispose of it if the officers in charge of it are responsible not to (hem but to the Imperial Government. It is evident they could not manage or dispose of it by the hands of the present Commissioners, and the result would be that they might have to appoint a second administration with regard to Church property, an inconvenient and costly course. But the two main functions of the Commissions are the fixing of fair rents and the management of transactions of sale and purchase of land. It is provided by the Bill that after three years the Irish Legislature might pass an Act relating to the relations between landlord and tenant and in relation to the sale and purchase of land. But as I understand these words, after the three years have passed away, and after the Irish Legislature had passed an Act relating to landlord and tenant or the sale and purchase of land, the Commissioners who would have to fix the fair rents and approve of transactions of purchase would continue to be subject to the Imperial Parliament. I should be glad to know that I have correctly stated the effect and force of the words, because it appears to me under these words the five existing Commissioners would continue in despite of the will of the Irish Legislature and the Irish Government, to hold office as long as they pleased, that is for 20 or 30 years to come, as some of them are very young men, and they could continue to administer the law relating to the fixing of rent and the purchase of land without regard to what would be the will of the Irish Legislature and the policy of the Irish Executive on that subject. Of course, if it could be shown to me that this clause is merely meant to secure that the financial interests of the present holders of office should be protected, and that, if they were to retire from office they should be entitled to the pensions prescribed in the last paragraph of the clause, that would be another thing; that would be compatible with harmonious administration in Ireland. But if, on the other hand, it is meant to secure that these gentlemen should remain in office as long as they pleased, say 20 or 30 years, without regard to the Legislative or Executive Authority in Ireland, then I venture to submit such a state of affairs would not be consistent with the principle of autonomy, that it

    1717
    would not be consistent with the right of the Irish Legislature to make laws in respect of the letting and purchase of land, and, above all, it would not be consistent with the liability which you propose by this Bill to lay upon the Irish Consolidated Fund with regard to the deficiencies arising through land purchase. The Commissioners would have power to carry through transactions of sale and purchase of laud without regard to the opinions of the Irish Government; they could spend the whole £30,000,000 of credit given by the Purchase Act of 1891 at their own mere discretion, though these transactions might fix a heavy liability on the Irish Consolidated Fund, because the Commissioners are only instructed to secure that the farms shall be the security of the landlord's interest in the farm. These liabilities to the last penny would fall upon the Irish Consolidated Fund; but by the Bill you allow the Irish Government no power to control the transactions on which this liability would arise, and by these words you secure that the Commissioners who control these transactions would be dependent in no degree on the Irish Government, but would be dependent altogether on the Government of the United Kingdom. I say that unless these words can be explained in a more limited sense than that which I am disposed to attribute to them, they would raise a formidable, if not insuperable, obstacle in the way of harmony between the Executive and Legislative powers on the one hand and the Administrative power on the other, which would be inconsistent with good government in Ireland. I beg to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 21, to leave out the words "and Land Commissioners in Ireland."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, New-castle-upon-Tyne): I think my hon. Friend has not quite grasped the significance of this clause. The general principle of the clause is that everybody affected by the clause is to be left exactly as now with respect to tenure, salary, and pension. The clause is no more than
    1718
    a declaration of the intention of Parliament to preserve existing rights as they are in these three respects. The clause deals with persons and not with offices, and it is intended to guard and secure the financial interests for one thing and the position for another of individuals who have, under Statute, a vested interest. The Irish Legislature is not to pass any law which affects their salary, or pension, or removability. But my hon. Friend overlooks the fact that, of course, these Land Commissioners, like any other Judges, would have to administer the law; and therefore if, on the expiry of three years the Irish Legislature changes the laws which these gentlemen interpret and administer, then clearly the Laud Commissioners will be bound—just as the Judges would be bound in reference to a change of law they are called upon to administer—to interpret the new law. My hon. Friend talks of their remaining under Imperial control. But, being judicial in their tenure and polity, they are not under the control of any Executive Government whatever. No Executive Government can either affix a certain interpretation to an Act of Parliament, nor can it interfere in the execution of that Act, and they will be just as they are now. At this moment the Land Commissioners, as my hon. Friend well knows, are in no sense whatever dependent upon the Irish Executive Government. They are appointed to interpret and carry out the law, and that would remain their business. If the Laud Law of Ireland was changed—if a valid Act was passed by the Irish Legislature affecting the conditions upon which fair rents were to be fixed, and so forth, these gentlemen would have to administer and interpret that law, just as now they interpret the various Acts of 1881, 1885, 1887, and 1891. They would be in precisely the same position. Suppose any change were to take place in the system of Irish government—this Parliament is perfectly free to make any changes it may think fit in the Irish land system—and the Irish Land Commissioners would have to interpret the law so passed. The case would remain just the same notwithstanding this clause, and the Land Commissioners will remain not removable except in the two modes prescribed by the Act.
    MR. SEXTON: What are the two modes?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The first is on an Address by the two Houses, and the second mode is that they are removable by the Lord Chancellor, no doubt. The Lord Chancellor may remove them for misbehaviour. But that can only be done by an Order, and that Order must lie for 40 days—or for a considerable time—upon the Table of the two Houses of Parliament; and if either of the two Houses object to that Order, the removal of the Land Commissioners would be an invalid operation. These are the two modes by which—and by which only—the Laud Commissioners can be touched. So much for the point made by my hon. Friend. I do not think it requires the Amendment to carry out the object the hon. Member has in view.
    MR. SEXTON: I cannot quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is left precisely as it was before, because the provision of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, dealing with the status of these officers, might have been altered by an Irish Act if it were not repeated in this Bill, but being repeated in this Bill the provision of the Organic Statute could not be altered by au act of the Irish Legislature unless it is made alterable in express terms. I wish to ask one question. Is it understood that the power of the Irish Legislature to make laws upon the relations of landlord and tenant, and relating to the sale and purchase of land after three years, would include the making of laws in respect of the administration of such laws? Provided that the rights of these Commissioners to salaries, and in the event of their removal to pensions, are preserved, would it be within the power of the Irish Legislature, as part of their power to make laws relating to landlord and tenant, to make laws respecting administration?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Chief Secretary had omitted the most important point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and that was the point relating to purchase. The right hon. Gentleman had stated clearly and plainly that if an Irish Parliament of the future legislated in the matter of fair rents the Land Commissioners, like any other Judges, would be bound to administer the
    1720
    law as they found it, and would have no right to ask where that law came from. He would like to ask a question about the £30,000,000 of Imperial credit, advanced under the Act of 1891. Would the Irish Parliament be at liberty to legislate upon that, because if they were that was a thing which had not yet been realised even in that House? He could hardly suppose that the Imperial Parliament which had placed this £30,000,000 of credit at the disposal of the Land Purchase Department were prepared to hand over the control and management of legislation upon that sum to the Irish Parliament. Would the Irish Parliament be free to legislate upon the credit that had already been passed?
    MR. J. MORLEY: In answer, first of all, to my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry, I must reply that the object of this clause is solely to protect vested interests. That object is not at all a fetter to legislation by an Irish Legislative Body upon the Land Question, only in that legislation they will not be able to interfere with or to overthrow or impair vested interests which these gentlemen possess. We could not, I think, have come to Parliament with any less proposal than that. In answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who asks whether the Irish Legislature will be free to make laws affecting the £30,000,000 which are capable of being advanced by the British Treasury under the British Treasury, and whether they would be able to alter and vary the conditions under which these advances are to be made, I think it will be found that the matter has been fully dealt with when we come to the Financial Clauses. I may remind him the matter was partially dealt with by Clause 17, but we had reason to think that clause was not well drawn. So long as the money is advanced out of the British Treasury and by the sanction of this Parliament, undoubtedly our view is that the Irish Parliament would not be able to alter and vary the conditions of those advances.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the trouble he had taken in replying. He would not, in consequence of that reply, persevere with the Amendment on the Paper, but would ask leave to withdraw it.
    MR. HUNTERwished to point out that there were two questions. One was as to salaries and pensions of the Land Commissioners, and as regarded that there was no objection to the clause whatever. But the point regarding the removability of the Land Commissioners required consideration, and he thought it should be left to be dealt with, if necessary, by the two Houses of the Irish Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Chief Secretary will not accede to the request made to him by the Member for Aberdeen. I think this is a serious question, both from the point of view of Irish policy and the point of view of British financial interests. I do not propose to say much beyond this—that, even in the view of the Government, I think they must feel some regret at the reflection of their own views of what is likely to be done by the Irish Parliament at the end of the three years, when the Land Question in Ireland is thrown over to be dealt with by the new Legislature which they are proposing to create. They cannot look with equanimity upon the possible result of such an abandonment of the interests to which they have been pledged, which abandonment will be greatly aggravated if, in addition to an entirely new land policy, it were open to the Irish Government to have an entirely new set of officials to administer that policy. If you insist upon permitting the Irish Legislature by Acts of Parliament to interfere with the property of the Irish landlords, at all events you might not grudge them such small security as they may obtain from the fact that the existing Land Acts and any further Land Acts analogous to them will have to be administered under this Bill by the able and impartial gentlemen who now administer them. So much for the question of land policy. But there is another question which has been raised by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell), and to which the Chief Secretary himself has made some allusion, and that is the financial interest of England. The Land Commissioners at the present moment administer the Irish Church Fund, upon which there have been large advances from the British Treasury, and the interests of the British Treasury would be seriously imperilled if that fund were badly administered. It
    1722
    seems perfectly proper and just that the British Treasury should retain in the management of that fund some officials appointed by them, and who hold office during the pleasure of the Imperial Parliament. And what is true of the Irish Church Surplus is equally true of the Irish Land Purchase Acts. The Member for North Kerry appears to be of opinion that at the end of three years it will be in the power of the Irish Parliament to deal as they please with the Land Purchase Acts.
    MR. SEXTONremarked that Clause 35 gave them power after three years to deal with the laws relating to the sale and purchase of land, and he, therefore, had asked if they would also have power over the administration of such laws?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The language is ambiguous. Clause 35 appears to hand over the whole of the Irish Land Question—whether it be a question of rent or purchase—to the new Irish Parliament. I understand the Government do not mean to admit that and rely on some other clause certainly not discussed, and I think not fully on the Paper, for securing that, so far as British credit is concerned, it may not be in the power of the Irish Legislature to modify the Land Purchase Acts at all. If that is to be admitted, it is quite clear that we ought to have administering these Land Acts gentlemen irremovable by the Irish Parliament, and appointed by the Imperial Parliament, and from the point of view of British credit it is necessary that some provision like that in this clause should remain in the Bill. My objection to the clause is not that it goes too far, but that it does not go far enough. You have secured, no doubt, by this that so long as the present gentlemen hold office the interests of the Imperial Parliament shall be safeguarded, but as soon as they resign or die, or are removed by the procedure laid down in the Land Act of 1891, who is going to look after the interests of the Imperial Exchequer so far as they are involved in the Land Question? Though this is not the clause in which to introduce it, we certainly ought, at some stage of our proceedings, to introduce a provision by which the Imperial Parliament shall be always represented, whether for the Church Surplus Fund or loans for land purchase. Thus, and thus only shall we

    1723
    be able to provide for permanently securing our financial interests. I am one those who think that there will be serious danger to British interests and to the British taxpayer if we go on making advances for laud purchase after this Bill has passed. We were not permitted to deal with that clause which seeks to deal with this point, for it was one of those passed after 10 o'clock on Thursday night. Certainly if on Report we are allowed a little more latitude of discussion than we have been permitted in Committee, I shall consider it to be my duty to point out to the House, and so far as I am able to the country, that the Government propose to continue this system of gigantic loans to Ireland, and at the same time shatter to the foundation the basis of credit upon which these loans can properly be issued. I leave that question for further consideration, and I only rise to beg the Government not to agree with the appeal made by the Member for Aberdeen, and to point out that, so far from this clause going too far in the matter of giving permanent status to the Land Judges in Ireland, in my opinion it does not go far enough.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that the 20th section of the Land Act of 1891 provided—
    "Save as aforesaid, each Commissioner other than the Judicial Commissioner shall hold his office by the same tenure as a County Court Judge in Ireland."
    That was to say, in 1891 that House gave each of these five gentlemen a permanent tenure, and two years after that they were lightly told by the Member for Aberdeen that they were to violate the undertaking which the House solemnly gave and these gentlemen accepted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SETON-KARR Mr. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's) rose to move—
    In page 15, line 2, after "Ireland" insert "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts of Ireland Act, 1887.'"
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, New-castle-upon-Tyne)said, it might save the time of the Committee if he pointed out that the Government were providing for this class of officials along with two other classes whose vested interests they
    1724
    felt bound to protect from the terms of an Amendment which he (Mr. Morley) had on the Paper.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he was not satisfied with the way in which the Chief Secretary raised the point as to these officials. He (Mr. Seton-Karr) would state his reasons—
    THE CHAIRMANwas understood to say that the Amendment was in Order, but that it might be convenient if the question were disposed of on the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he would like to state the reasons why he desired to have these officials included at this particular point. The Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland had urged him to propose the insertion of these words, as they thought the Amendment was necessary to safeguard their interests. They were not satisfied with the course proposed by the Government, as the matter would remain doubtful; but by this Amendment their rights would be recognised in a perfectly unambiguous manner. He asked them to remember that these officials were permanent Civil servants, not paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but by Parliamentary Vote. For this reason they ought to have special terms included in the Bill for their protection. He held that they should be specifically named as he proposed. Another reason was that these gentlemen had been obliged to give up their private practice as solicitors, and that they were dependent for the rest of their lives on the carrying out of the Act of 1877. He believed that the officials for whom he spoke were all Unionists, having a substantial stake in the country, and when they were about to be handed over to the tender mercies of a Nationalist Irish Parliament that would probably be in a condition of chronic impecuniosity, they not unnaturally felt some anxiety about their future. He wanted to make a special reference to the word "existing." He would ask what would happen to the Clerks of the Crown and Peace when those existing had, in the natural way, departed, and their successors came to be appointed? Who would vote their salaries? The Parliament in Ireland or the Imperial Parliament? There was ambiguity here again. He took it that the salaries would be voted by the Irish

    1725
    and not by the Imperial, Parliament. He submitted that the House was in honour bound to safeguard in the most perfect manner the interests of these officials, and he trusted the question would be considered in a proper light.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 2, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877.'"—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he believed anyone who had listened to the hon. Member could have anticipated the answer he (Mr. Morley)would give. He entirely agreed with him. He had only to say that the sole question between the Government and the hon. Member was as to the convenient place in which this protection should be provided for. He had himself put an Amendment upon the Paper for the purpose of effecting the very object which the hon. Member had in view. The place where the hon. Member proposed to insert his Amendment was not the most convenient. The Government recognised to the full the legality and equity of the claims of existing Clerks of the Crown and Peace, and were anxious to safeguard their vested interests; and they defied anyone to say that they were not embraced within the scope of the clause as they proposed that it should stand. They were accused of wanting to hand these gentlemen over to the tender mercies of the Irish Parliament, whereas they proposed exactly what the hon. Member desired to have done. On the question about the future Clerks of the Crown and Peace, he had to say that they would not be paid by Vote from that House. The Irish Government would make its own arrangements with its own Clerks. They had only to safeguard the vested interests of those whom they were bound to by the tradition of Parliament, and who might suffer injustice.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, his own impression was that the Chief Secretary's words were wider than the Amendment. He said his words covered two other classes of persons. Might he ask who those other classes were?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, in his Amendment the case of the Clerks of the Peace would be dealt with, together with the cases of certain officers connected with the Law Courts and of the Dublin Police Magistrates.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Chief Secretary must give credit to those who were raising the Debate, as they were trying to protect these men, who felt, naturally, very nervous about their position, and desired that it should be stated as clearly as possible. He did not think they would be as well satisfied if included generally as if specified directly. The Chief Secretary should be satisfied that, by the general inclusion which he proposed, there might not arise difficulty in the future, by which the decision of some Court might throw these men out. It was necessary they should be properly specified.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he thought the terms of his Amendment would meet the case.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, they were all agreed about what was wanted, but the Government ought to make the matter clear, so that the difficulties that had arisen under other Acts with regard to the position of officials might not arise under the working of this Bill, if it became law.
    MR. W. KENNYasked how would that part of the emoluments which were derived from the presentments by the Grand Juries be dealt with? Was it necessary, in order to bring the officials within the proposed Amendment, that the entire amount of the salaries should be paid by Parliament. He believed that they were paid partly out of the rates and partly out of the Votes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Committee would probably agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it might be desirable to introduce the words regarding all the officials together, and he admitted the weight of his objection from that standpoint. But there was the question of drafting, and he thought on that point the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Seton-Karr) would come in at a more appropriate place than the Amendment of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman did not consider the definition given in the 1st sub-section of the clause as to persons whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, it covered all existing officers serving in Ireland in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, whose salaries are charged upon the Consolidated Fund.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: If we had the words "receiving salaries provided by money voted by Parliament," would that not include money voted under Act of Parliament?
    MR. J. MORLEY: No.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he was strongly assured that these gentlemen were most dissatisfied with the words proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. They could not be blamed if they regarded the probable working of this measure in this way with considerable suspicion. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary why he objected to the Amendment? He had not stated any objection. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was not legislating for his own benefit, but for the safeguarding of those who were entitled to be heard. He had other Amendments on the Paper directed to the same object—the protection of these men under the working of the Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEY: If the Amendment is defeated it will be impossible for us to deal with the question at all.
    MR. SETON-KARR: Tell me why you object.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have told you.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would like to hear what was to be done with regard to the matter of the portions—one portion of the salary voted by Parliament, and the second by the Grand Jury. He understood that was the way in which the salaries were made up—partially by Parliamentary vote and partially by Grand Jury vote.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Partially by fee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it would be well to end all ambiguity as to where the Parliamentary portion was to come from in future. Were they to be burdened in this Parliament in future by this
    1728
    solitary Irish Estimate, or was it to be taken away, or withdrawn, from the Imperial Parliament? The other point was, what was to be done regarding that portion of the salaries which were now drawn from local sources? Was this to be controlled by the Imperial or the Irish Legislature? What was the Chief Secretary's view on this question?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, of course there would not be a solitary Irish Estimate. The clause would entitle the officials in question to receive their present salaries and their pensions from the British Treasury, the latter recouping themselves from the Irish Exchequer. They did not propose to guarantee any sums from local sources.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it was necessary the matter should be made perfectly clear.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary told them that the salaries and pensions would be a matter for the British Treasury. If that were so, they should know whether they would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund? They should know whether they were to be paid under the authority of that House?
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that if the fees paid by Grand Juries to these men were intended to fall on the Irish Exchequer, it was time for the Nationalist Members to protest against it. There were other officers besides these men in a similar position. The proposition of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) apparently was that the whole income of these men should be placed on the Public Revenue of Ireland. Was that reasonable? "Her Majesty"—which meant the Imperial Government—was to have the control of the duties of the officers. The Irish Parliament was to have no power in relation to modifying or controlling the discharge of those duties; but the Irish Revenue was to bear all the cost. Well, he did not think they could agree to that. He thought they might make it, "Her Majesty in communication with the Irish Government," or they should in some form of words give the power of control, and removal where necessary, to the Irish Government. Then, again, why should the Irish Legislature give those gentlemen who might be removed by Her Majesty, or who might retire upon

    1729
    the passing of this Act, the same amount of pension as they would receive if they were to serve 20 years longer? Could this be justified? Why should these gentlemen, who were protected in their offices by the fact that they could not be removed, be allowed to retire on pension on the morrow of the passing of the Home Rule Bill? As the whole of the burden was to fall on the Irish Revenue, he asked the Government to say that the Irish Government should at least have some opportunity of expressing an opinion in the matter.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he understood there were two classes of Clerks of the Crown, one being appointed under a Statute of Geo. IV., and the other under the Act of 1877. The class appointed under the Act of Geo. IV. were largely paid by fees and by Grand Jury presentments, but certainly part of their salaries was paid by the Crown. He wished to know whether Subsection 3 would include both those who were appointed under the Act of 1877 and those who were appointed under the Act of Geo. IV?
    MR. FLYNNsaid, that some of the Members of the Opposition reminded him of the phrase about being more Catholic than the Pope. The gentlemen he referred to were more concerned about these officers than were the officers themselves. The Clerks of the Peace had stated their case, and the gentlemen who represented them had moved the Amendment now under consideration. That being so, it was somewhat interesting to find that fresh grievances had been discovered which were not contemplated by those who were immediately interested.
    MR. H. PLUNKETTpointed out that the Clerks of the Peace, whose remuneration was paid partly by the Crown, partly by the Grand Jury, and partly by private individuals, did not come under the Amendment, because that Amendment only referred to officers receiving salaries out of money provided by Parliament. The class, however, consisted of very long service men, and he submitted that the Amendment should be recast so as to cover their case.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the gentlemen referred to had no claim upon the provisions contemplated in the subject,
    1730
    as they received no salary from Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may suggest, in the interests of the progress of Business, that we should defer these very important questions until a later stage of the clause. I adhere to the view I formerly expressed, that the clause is rather clumsily drafted, but still I think it would take too long to bring it into a more æesthetic shape now, and I think it would be well to drop the Amendment and to amend the proposed Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he would take the course suggested by his right hon. Friend, on the distinct understanding that he moved the Amendment in another form later on.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYmoved an Amendment providing that existing Judges and other persons having charges on the Consolidated Fund should be retired on pension on the day on which the Act came into force. He remarked that the Judges were Imperial Judges, and were appointed to carry out the Imperial law. If, however, the Bill became an Act they would have to carry out the local laws passed by an Irish Legislature.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR, rising to Order, asked whether the Amendment was not wholly inconsistent with the words already passed in Clause 26?
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, he was dealing with "existing Judges" &c.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member must take care not to come into conflict with Clause 26.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, he wished to clear the ground entirely of Imperial obligations. He thought that Parliament had no right whatever practically to desert the Judges at the present moment. The freedom of speech that existed in that House was not allowed to interfere with the Judges.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There is no freedom of speech here.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYwent on to say that the Judges might not agree in politics with those who would be at the head of affairs in Ireland if this Bill

    1731
    became law, and in that case their lives would certainly not be very happy ones. He thought that the honourable course of the House of Commons was to settle up with these officers and let them go. As honourable men, Members could not force the Civil servants to serve other masters than those they were engaged to serve, and it must also be borne in mind that unwilling service was bad service. He did not wish in any way to reflect upon hon. Members who might form the Irish Executive, but he contended that the House had not only a right but a duty to take into consideration the feelings of the Civil servants, and to provide a means of escape for them. Many of these people would have to leave Ireland and seek a home elsewhere. They would scarcely be fit to start their careers afresh, and even if some of them should be able to, they would only be likely to receive small remuneration. No doubt the Chief Secretary desired to do what was fair and just, but in this proposal he had not attained his wish, and it was to be hoped that he would adopt such a scale of remuneration and compensation as would be satisfactory to the officials concerned. He had received a statement as to the terms desired by the officials, and having looked into those terms they did not appear to him at all exorbitant. In dealing with this question the Government should remember the dictum of Mr. John Bright, "that England cannot afford to be mean." To his mind, however, the Government would be acting worse than meanly if it did not adopt some such Amendment as this.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 3, leave out all the words after "Crown," and insert the words "shall be retired on the day that this Act comes into force, and shall receive as pension such sum as they would have earned as pension or gratuity if 10 years had been added to their actual service, and such further sum as may be considered equitable for loss of pay and allowances and prospects of promotion and higher pensions."—(General Goldsworthy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and receiving salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a most extraordinary proposal. So far as I can understand it, it is that on the appointed
    1732
    day, the moment the Act comes into force, all the Judges and Land Commissioners and all the permanent Civil servants are to be retired, and compulsorily retired. I thought that the contention on the other side was that there would be too great a readiness on the part of the Irish Government to compel these important officials and servants to retire.
    GENERAL GOLDSWOETHYsaid, he had put his Amendment on the Paper without consulting the Leader of the Opposition.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The proposal is one which cannot be seriously entertained in any quarter of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, in a very heroic way, "Do not let us be mean—let us give them these pensions and gratuities."
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: No; compensation.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Quite so, compensation for loss of pay and allowances and prospects. "Let us," he said, "do this thing handsomely—do not let us be mean." But he forgets that all this money which he so generously distributes will have to come not out of our pockets, but out of the pockets of the Irish people; and I should think, therefore, that to entail this expenditure upon Ire-land would be about as mean a thing as we could do. We should be imposing upon Ireland the necessity of having a double set of Judges and Civil servants, and should be requiring them to pay for the same.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I have another Amendment further on.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I hope I shall be better able to meet the hon. Member on the next Amendment than I am on this.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend, and when he said that the lives of the Irish Judges and permanent Civil servants of the Crown would not, perhaps, be very happy under an unrestricted Irish Legislature I fully agreed with his sentiments, and had great sympathy with his motives; but there are two reasons, in addition to those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, why I think it undesirable for the hon. and gallant Member to press his Amendment. One reason I draw from the position of these gentlemen themselves, and the other I draw from the

    1733
    position of the minority in Ireland. As regards these gentlemen themselves, I am not sure that, though the Amendment is designed entirely in their interests, that they would look with great satisfaction at having their official career cut short with no further security for compensation than is contained in the words—
    "Such further sum as may be considered equitable for loss of pay and allowances and prospects of promotion and higher pensions."
    There is no very clear statement in the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend as to who is to make the equitable estimate.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: That is in another clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If it is the Irish Government, I presume that would not satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Even if it is the Imperial Government, I am not certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would look with equanimity at leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the British Treasury. I, therefore, doubt if these officials would think it in their interest that we should adopt the course the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests—and suggests in perfect good faith—for the purpose of safeguarding their interests. There is another consideration that ought not to be absent from our minds. The difficulties of the new Irish Legislature when it comes into existence, and the friction and conflict which we apprehend will result from bringing it into existence, are more likely to be mitigated if we keep in Ireland a body of able, impartial, and educated public servants than if we deprive the Government of the services of such men. To hand over to an Irish Legislature, not only the management of Irish affairs, but the management of Irish affairs with an entirely new judicial and official staff would be most disastrous to Ireland generally, and especially so to the minority. It is in their interest, as well as in that of the officials themselves, that I would urge my hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that in the case of the alteration of the duties of any of the Judges, County Court Judges, Land Commissioners, or other officers, the country which paid the whole of their
    1734
    salaries had some right to be consulted. He ventured to think that that could not be considered an extravagant claim. He did not think it right that the Imperial Government alone should determine such change of duty, and, in order to secure that the Irish Government should be consulted in such cases, he begged to move that the words "in communication with the Irish Government" should be inserted in the clause, so that it might then read
    "Or such duties as Her Majesty, in communication with the Irish Government, may declare to be analogous."
    Amendment proposed, in line 11, after "Majesty," to insert the words "in communication with the Irish Government."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he saw the point which the hon. Member raised, and it was, no doubt, not unreasonable that duties of this important nature should be fixed with reference to the wishes of the country which had to pay the officials for fulfilling those duties, and which was, therefore, most concerned in their good and efficient discharge. At the same time, he thought it would be contrary to all precedent if they were to insert in the Bill such words as "Her Majesty in communication with the Irish Government." He thought the object which his hon. Friend sought might be attained in another part of the clause by inserting the words he now suggested in cases where the Treasury, for example, had to make certain awards. They should assent to the introduction of words to the effect that the Treasury should be in communication with the Irish Government. In the present case, as he had said, he thought it would be contrary to all usage to attach such words as those suggested. He thought they might trust to the good faith, and to the natural growth of communications between the Irish Government and the Imperial Government in this matter. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, in view of the fact that he was prepared to meet him in another part of the Bill.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he admitted the importance of the point the right hon. Gentleman had made, but this was a very different matter. At any time there

    1735
    might arise a question of the duties of the Judges. Land Commissioners, or others. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit the principle that it was desirable that the Irish Government should be consulted in these appointments. If he admitted the principle, he should be glad to leave to him the consideration of the method. He knew there was some technical difficulty as to the use of the words after "Her Majesty," but he had no option but to raise the point in the most convenient form. He should be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman introduced words to secure his object, and at present he would not press the Amendment.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think the object is not unreasonable, and I will consider between now and the next stage where we can introduce these words.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, there was a good deal in this, and he should like to see the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member on the Paper, so that it might be considered. These Judges and Civil servants had been appointed for a specific purpose by Her Majesty, but under the proposal of the hon. Member their positions might be rendered intolerable. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would stick to his clause.
    MR. SEXTONsaid the initiative would rest with Her Majesty.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid Her Majesty must act on the advice of someone. He failed to see what could be meant by the words "in communication with the Irish Government," unless Her Majesty were to have two sets of advisers.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had no such purpose as to suggest that the communication which should take place between Her Majesty and the Irish Government should place the latter in the position of advisers on these matters. His object was to secure that when a change was made the country which had to pay the money should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, the Irish Government were only to be "in communication" with Her Majesty, therefore he did not think the Amendment would have the slightest effect. Of course there would be communication between Irish Representatives
    1736
    and English Ministers, and, unless something were to be done on the advice of Irish Ministers, he did not see the necessity for putting in the words proposed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he wished here to raise the point as to the remuneration of these officers, which the Committee had been engaged in considering earlier in the evening. Subsequent to 1877 these officials had been paid by salary, but prior to that they were paid in part, if not wholly, by fees, and they held their offices during good behaviour. They held the tenure of Judges. The Government were bound on every principle of equity to see that these officials would in the future receive salaries not less than were paid them at present, and that their powers were not interfered with. The fact that the salaries had hitherto been voted not by Parliament but by the Local Authorities, did not, to his mind, affect the question. He thought the question could best be raised by moving to insert after "salaries" the word "emoluments," so that the clause would read "salaries, emoluments, and pensions."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the word "salaries" would include emoluments.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he wished to know how the interests of those officers who were appointed before 1877 were to be secured—the salaries of these gentlemen being dependent on sources other than Parliament.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "salaries" to insert the word "emoluments."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'emoluments' be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that in the Definition Clause "salary" was made to include "remuneration, allowances, or emoluments." In 1877 these offices, which had previously been remunerated by fees, became freehold offices. Well, a freehold office was property which was protected by Clause 4.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLwished to know whether the officers appointed previous to 1877 were subject to the same principle of irremovability as those appointed subsequently?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he took it that, their office being freehold, they were irremovable.
    MR. KNOXsaid, the noble Lord need not concern himself about these gentlemen. There were no officials in Ireland who more deserved to be removed. Though paid large salaries out of the county fund so far as he could learn these gentlemen did nothing. The Clerk of the Crown in County Antrim was Lord Donegall, who was never in Ireland. He (Mr. Knox) did not know if anyone was acquainted with his address in Ireland, indeed, he did not know if the noble Lord had ever been in Ireland. Lord Donegall, at any rate, drew a large freehold salary and did nothing for it. His salary was property, and the Irish Parliament, under Section 4, would not be able to interfere with it. That was a great pity. Unfortunately, to the day of his death Lord Donegall would draw a large salary for doing nothing.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked what redress these Civil servants would have if their salaries were not paid? Would they have an abstract right to recover on the protection which was afforded to other Civil servants? If they had only the remedy of petition of right or whatever other remedy was given under Clause 4 it might take them a long time to derive any benefit from the provision.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that their rights would be like those of other holders of freehold property in Ireland. The view of the Government was that they would be protected under Clause 4.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, that the posts filled by these servants called for the performance of onerous duties, and the fact that the remuneration happened to come in the particular way which had been described made no difference. There was no security that that remuneration would not be withdrawn, and, if it was, against whom would they have a remedy? Would it be against the State who appointed them? No; but against some utterly unknown entity from whom they received power to recover under Clause 4. The State had engaged the services of these gentlemen—[Ironical cheers.] He understood that cheer. The offices these gentlemen held were onerous, though
    1738
    in some cases the functions were allowed to be performed by deputy. The offices were State offices performed for a consideration, and it seemed to him strange that the Government should with one hand profess to give these gentlemen security and with the other take away every security that was worth anything at all.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, the Chief Secretary had several times declared that these gentlemen were protected under Clause 4, and the right hon. Gentleman based his statement on the assumption that their right to hold their offices and to receive certain fees and emoluments was included under the word "property." He should like to ask the Solicitor General if he could confirm that statement?
    MR. LITTLEsaid, it was asserted that some of the gentlemen who received these salaries performed no service; and if that were so, should such a condition of things be continued? He did not press for an answer now, but he desired to have one before the Report stage;. because, so far as he was personally concerned, if the Government were going to charge on the Irish people the salaries and pensions of persons who did nothing, he should persistently oppose the recognition of such a principle at a later stage.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)said, he would answer the question as to whether the salaries of the officers they were discussing were property by saying "yes."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was a most extraordinary statement to make, that Clerks of the Peace in Ireland had no duties to perform—
    MR. KNOX: I said Clerks of the Crown.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member's only authority for that statement was that Lord Donegall did no duty in County Antrim. But there was not another Clerk of the Crown in Ireland of whom that could be said. It was absurd to say, because a man handed over certain duties to a deputy that, therefore, there were no duties of the kind to discharge in Ireland. Did the hon. Member (Mr. Knox) ever see the list of voters for the County of Cavan? If so, he would have seen the signature of the Clerk of the Peace at the

    1739
    bottom. That official was responsible for preparing the list; he had to attend Quarter Sessions and the Assizes.
    MR. KNOX: I did not say those duties had not to be fulfilled.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why, then, had the hon. Member referred to Lord Donegall? The only effect of doing that was to suggest that these gentlemen had no duties to perform. He (Mr. Russell) maintained that they had most important duties to perform. The Solicitor General for England could not know much about the matter; and he was, therefore, at a loss to know why the hon. and learned Gentleman had been questioned. There were only a few of these officials, and the question was whether they were to be dealt with in this happy-go-lucky way? Clause 4 protected them—that was to say, their property was not to be taken away without due process of law. He was not going to ask the old conundrum "What is due process of law?" but he maintained that it was a monstrous thing to leave gentlemen in possession of a freehold to scramble for their rights either under Clause 4 or in any other way.
    MR. STOREYthought it desirable that the Committee should take note of the fact that a great deal of trouble was taken to secure the interests of private persons, but very little to secure the rights of the taxpayer. The position of the Opposition reminded him of an arrangement between officers and soldiers of a retreating army to take away as much plunder as they could. The Irish Legislature was to be compelled, under a heavy monetary penalty, to keep up officials for whom it might have no need in the future. The Irish Government should be left free to transfer officers to some useful post, or to get rid of them on the best terms in the public interest. Instead of this just principle being adopted, the Committee had to listen to these sordid demands by the Opposition, and to see the Members of that Party, with some Radicals to help them, play the ancient role of looking more at private than at public interests. The Clerks of the Peace in England in many cases had little to do—so little that they employed deputies to do it—and it was not difficult to believe that many of these officials would be unnecessary in Ireland. But it was now proposed that whether
    1740
    the Irish Government required them or not they were to retain their services, or pay them exorbitant compensation for retiring. He submitted that that was carrying the principle of private compensation out of public funds too far. While not disposed to be unjust to these men, he thought it would be more just to leave the Irish Government to settle affairs with them, not according to private interests, but according to the needs and the monetary resources of the Irish people.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In asking leave to withdraw this Amendment, I desire to make one observation on the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland. The hon. Gentleman has given us to understand that we, the Tory Party, are at what he called our "old trade" of protecting private rights. Well, I never knew that the protection of private rights was the monopoly of the Tory Party. I had hoped, for the credit of this House, that there is no section of it that does not hold that when a man has rights they ought to be protected, even as against the taxpayers. The saving of the taxpayers' money is, no doubt, highly important; but there is something of higher importance still—namely, the fulfilment of the obligations of Parliament. If we disregard these obligations no savings that we can effect will prevent the State from rapidly falling into ruin. I do not wish to continue this discussion. The Government have met me in a fair spirit. They have admitted that the Civil servants have rights properly outside the sphere of the Irish Parliament, and I do not think it would improve their position by arguing the case further. I beg, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, in reference to the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, to insert after "Ireland," in line 2 of the clause, the words "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1887,'" that he did not move that Amendment, because he had been assured by the Chief Secretary that his point had been fully met by the definition of the Bill. He wished, however, to make the matter plain to the Committee, and have it on record that the Government were prepared to safeguard the interests of the Clerks of

    1741
    the Crown and Peace in Ireland. He thought it hardly became the hon. Member for Sunderland to describe the defence of vested interests as a sordid policy, for the hon. Member was one of those who were willing to appropriate many thousands of the British taxpayers' money to the purpose of paying Members of Parliament.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I now beg to move to leave out, in lines 12 and 13 of the clause, the words "if and so far as not paid out of the Irish Consolidated Fund." The effect of omitting these words will be to enact that the salaries and pensions shall be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. This is a proposal for which the friends of the Irish Civil servants ought to be grateful, because it will give them a claim upon the British Exchequer. When this Amendment is agreed to, I shall move another providing that the sums paid by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, in the matter of these salaries and pensions, shall be repaid to it from the Irish Exchequer.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 12, to leave out from the word "pensions" to the word "shall," in line 13.—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Those who consider only the Irish Civil servants may be satisfied with this proposal; but those who think, as I do, something of the British taxpayer, ask for some further explanation of this extraordinary change. The salaries and pensions of the Irish Civil servants are going to be placed on the guarantee and security of the British Exchequer; but I want to know what guarantee the British Exchequer will have that the repayments will be made to it out of the Irish Consolidated Fund? I look upon this as putting an additional burden on the British taxpayer.
    MR. J. MORLEY: My right hon. Friend must not have read the clause, for if he did he would see that under the clause as it stands the Exchequer of the United Kingdom is responsible for the salaries and pensions if there is a default
    1742
    on the part of the Irish Exchequer. If the Irish Exchequer makes default we shall have means of recouping ourselves under the new financial arrangements proposed by the Government.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESobserved that the Chief Secretary was not quite accurate in his statement. Under the clause as it stood the salaries and pensions were, in the first instance, a charge on the Irish Consolidated Fund; but under the clause as amended the liability would be transferred from the Irish Consolidated Fund to the British Consolidated Fund. What security was there that the Irish Secretary would make good the payments made by the British Exchequer? The Chief Secretary said that the security would be found in some new financial arrangements which had not yet been submitted to the Committee. The Committee were still, to a great extent, ignorant of those financial arrangements. They were asked to impose a fresh liability on the British taxpayer.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLmade an observation which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, they were asked to impose a liability upon the British taxpayer, for whom some of them had still some feeling, on the understanding that any sums so paid by the British Exchequer were to be repaid by the Irish Exchequer. But the Irish Exchequer did not yet exist.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLagain made a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Pray hold your tongue while I am speaking. This was not merely a case of putting the cart before the horse, but of putting the cart before a horse that had not yet been foaled. The Irish Exchequer had not yet been foaled. It did not exist. How, then, could they talk about putting a charge upon it?
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I was making a remark for the good, as I thought, of my hon. Friend, when he interrupted me with very un-Parliamentary language. I was endeavouring to explain that the object of the Amendment is to make these salaries and pensions a charge on the British Exchequer in the first instance, and to provide that the British Exchequer shall be repaid out of the Irish Exchequer. The advantage of

    1743
    the change to the officials whom we are trying to safeguard is that their salaries and pensions become a charge on the British Exchequer first, and ultimately on the Irish Exchequer.
    MR. COHENthought a sufficient answer had not been given to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—namely, what protection against default by the Irish Exchequer the Financial Clauses would supply to the British Exchequer? The Committee were still in ignorance of what that protection was.
    MR. SEXTONthought no useful purpose was to be served by continuing the discussion. It was not a matter of the slightest moment. The original proposal was that the Irish Consolidated Fund should pay, the Imperial Treasury guaranteeing. Now it was proposed that the Imperial Treasury should pay, and be recouped from the Irish Exchequer. He could not refrain from saying that the Amendment would be offensive to the feelings of the Irish people in providing that their officials should be paid by the British Exchequer. The Irish Consolidated Fund ought to be good enough for them.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square): The important point that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and others is what security is to be given to the British taxpayer that he will get back the money he has paid from the Irish Exchequer?
    MR. SEXTON: Clause 14.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Clause 14 seems to me, as at present advised, to be a most unsatisfactory security for the British taxpayer. The Lord Lieutenant may sign a cheque, but Clause 14 does not state how that cheque is to be honoured. This point of the security for the British Treasury will have to be carefully considered, that is, of course, if we can find the opportunity of considering it.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, that much of the difficulty that had now arisen was due to the postponement of the Financial Clauses. As to Clause 14, for instance, the Committee did not know whether the Government intended to stand by it in its present terms, and therefore they were at a disadvantage. There were no means whatever set out
    1744
    in the clause for enforcing repayment by the Irish Exchequer, on whose goodwill, it seemed, the British Treasury would only have to depend. He wished to ask the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary whether Clause 14 would be introduced as it stood, or whether it would be introduced in a modified form?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the Chief Secretary had stated that his Amendment was one for which those who were anxious to defend the interests of the Civil servants ought to be grateful. But a very different view of the Amendment was taken by the hon. Member for Kerry. The hon. Member had said that the Amendment was insulting to the Irish people—
    MR. SEXTON: I said it was offensive to the people of Ireland that certain of their officials should be paid by the British Exchequer.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the measure of the gratitude which the Chief Secretary claimed must evidently be the difference between the security offered by the Imperial Exchequer and that offered by the Irish Exchequer. The hon. Member for Kerry considered it an insult to the Irish people to assume that any such difference existed. The Chief Secretary held quite another view, and one which they would remember when the question arose of the security offered by the Irish Exchequer for payments due to the British taxpayer.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. TOMLINSONmoved to insert after "shall," in line 13 of the clause, the words "continue to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and." He thought it was desirable that those words should be inserted, showing that the process by which the payment of salaries and pensions was secured should be continued.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 13, after the word "shall," to insert the words "continue to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That matter is already provided for in the clause. To say that these salaries and pensions shall be paid out of the Exchequer of the

    1745
    United Kingdom is the same as saying that they shall be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 14, after the word "Kingdom." to insert the words "and all sums so paid shall be repaid to that Exchequer from the Irish Exchequer."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is there any provision made for the payment of interest which may fall due owing to undue delay in settling accounts on the part of the Irish Exchequer?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think it would be very undesirable to give the Irish Government to understand that we contemplated the possibility of their being in arrears. If Clause 14 works at all there will be no chance of interest becoming due.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that Clause 14, as it stood, really contemplated default on the part of the Irish Government, for it provided that until the whole of the amount due by the Irish Exchequer to the British Exchequer was paid, no other amount should be paid out by the Irish Exchequer.
    MR. HANBURYmoved to amend the Amendment by inserting the word "forthwith" after the word "shall," in order to secure that the payments by the Irish Exchequer to the British Exchequer should be prompt.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert the word "forthwith" after the word "shall."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'forthwith' be there inserted."
    MR. BARTLEYsaid he thought if the Prime Minister would say distinctly what the Government intended to do in regard to Clause 14. whether they intended to stand by it in its present form or not, the course of the Committee would be more clear.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to do this,
    1746
    for there were Amendments to the clause on the Paper, some of which he accepted. He maintained that the word "forthwith" added nothing to the force of the Amendment.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think we have a right to know from the Prime Minister whether, when we impose this, which, is a proper liability on the British Exchequer, Clause 14 is to stand as it is substantially? As to the word "forthwith," I think that a proper system of accounts ought to be set up between the British and Irish Exchequers, so that no delay with regard to payments may arise.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The idea of the Government is that the collection of the Revenue shall remain in the hands of the Imperial Authorities, and that all claims shall be paid out of the money so obtained and the net remainder be handed over to Ireland.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Will there be any objection to state that in some part of the Bill?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is what will be done.
    MR. HANBURYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CLANCYdesired to say, on behalf of the Party with whom he acted, that they did not at all admit the justice of compelling Ireland to pay the whole of the pensions, salaries, and gratuities of the class of Civil servants now under discussion. He could not but remember the speech of the Prime Minister in 1886, and also his speech of this year in introducing this Bill. He remembered perfectly well that in 1886 the Prime Minister described the Civil Service of Ireland as wasteful and extravagant; and he went into figures to prove that it was wasteful and extravagant. He proved beyond all doubt that while in England and Scotland the cost of the Civil Service administration was about 8s. 6d. per head of the population, in Ireland it was 16s. That seemed a very great disproportion indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman accounted for it, as they all on the Irish Benches accounted for it, by the fact of British misgovernment. The right hon. Gentleman most distinctly—as he (Mr. Clancy) recollected—attributed this

    1747
    wasteful and extravagant expenditure on the Civil Service to the system of Government with which Ireland had been blessed. As far as he (Mr. Clancy) had seen, that statement had never been challenged, and he was quite certain it could never be disproved. The government of Ireland by England had resulted in creating in Ireland the most expensive Civil Service to be found in the whole civilised world. He did not believe that they could find in any Province in the Eastern Empire any expenditure equal in proportion to this Irish Civil Service expenditure. He asked the Committee—and he specially asked British Home Rulers—was it fair, after having created this Civil Service in Ireland for British purposes, after having maintained it for years and years to the British interest, after having swelled the costs of the Service entirely for British purposes and so-called Imperial interests, to come down when they were settling their accounts and ask Ireland to pay the whole of the cost of their own misgovernment? He did not intend to discuss the matter at any length at this stage, because they had an Amendment down to a similar proposal in the next clause; but he desired to safeguard their position at this stage by saying that they did not in the least recognise the justice of this claim. They thought it another wrong imposed on Ireland for the benefit of the so-called British taxpayer, and it was a proposal entirely unjust to Ireland. They did not intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but they thought it right, holding the views they did, to make this protest, and he hoped it would be borne in mind that when their Amendment on a similar provision came on, they would insist in dividing the House on the question.
    Amendment (Mr. J. Morley) agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that, as he had before pointed out, Sub-section 2 of the clause contained the very novel and surprising provision that the Imperial Government might grant to any of the officials set forth in the clause any pension before the completion of his period of service, without the Irish Government being any party to it. That might involve the Irish Exchequer in very heavy charges. He said—and he
    1748
    would press the matter if necessary—that the Irish Representatives could not agree that the Irish Exchequer of hereafter should be burdened with pensions to these officers, beyond the period of their services, unless the Irish Government was consulted, and they could not accept the principle that the Imperial Government should fix fancy pensions for these officials without consulting the Government of the country which would have to provide the money. He therefore moved to omit from line 18, Sub-section 2, the words "Her Majesty may if she thinks fit," and to substitute "The Treasury may in communication with the Irish Government."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 18, to leave out the words "Her Majesty may if she thinks fit," and substitute the words "The Treasury may in communication with the Irish Government."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have already stated that I see the force of the argument from my hon. Friend's point of view; and the Amendment he now proposes—through I cannot accept it, for a reason which I shall mention—would not go beyond the scope of the provision which I stated I would be willing to accept. But my hon. Friend proposes to substitute "The Treasury" for "Her Majesty," and to that I cannot agree. He must see that this is a question not of finance but of policy; and, therefore, not a matter to be settled by the Treasury, but by the Imperial Government. It would not be right to impose on the Treasury the burden of deciding whether a Judge of the High Court or a County Court Judge should get a pension on retiring before his period of service has expired. The Minister concerned, and not the Treasury, should decide that matter. That is the reason why I cannot accept the Amendment; but later on, on Clause 28, I shall regard it as perfectly reasonable and practicable.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that Clauses 27 and 28 did not touch one another. Clause 28 referred to a different class of officials, and his argument dealt with the class of officials mentioned in Clause 27. The Irish Exchequer, which might very

    1749
    likely be a straitened Exchequer, might be burdened under the operation of this clause by very heavy pensions. He understood that the Chief Secretary agreed that special pensions should not be placed on the Irish Executive without consulting the Irish Government; and if the Irish Government was be to be consulted he did not care in what form of words that consultation was provided for.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the danger of the word "consultation." I confess that the Irish Government would be entitled to notice. It would be hard that any decision should be taken which would mean imposing a burden on the Irish Government without fair notice. I would give the Irish Government opportunity of remonstrating if necessary; but the consultation asked for by the hon. Member for Kerry means more than that. I want further to add that if the Treasury are to be at all consulted in the matter the hon. Member for Kerry will find that the Irish Government will have security in the economical views of the Treasury, unless it is totally differently constituted from the Treasury which this generation knows. Whether British money or Irish money is concerned, the Treasury is as close-fisted as possible, and the hon. Member may rest assured that it will take the most economical view of all subjects that come before it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: If my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry thinks that the object of this sub-section is to impose a burden on the Irish Exchequer he misapprehends it. We believe that when the Irish Government is established there will be more Judges than employment can be found for, and the effect of this sub-section would be to substitute a pension for a salary for these Judges.
    MR. SEXTON: But the sub-section relates to Commissioners and Police Magistrates, and not to Judges alone.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is quite true, but there will also be more Commissioners than are required. The point of the sub-section is the substitution of pensions for salaries in the cases of officials of whom there are too many, and therefore it is a matter of retrenchment, and not a matter of imposing burdens on the Irish Exchequer. But, as I said, we will try, between this and
    1750
    the Report stage, to find some words laying down the propriety of inviting and hearing the views of the Irish Government.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that communication would not be enough. Communication might be accompanied with contempt for the views the communication drew forth. What he wanted was a fair consideration of the opinions of the Irish Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Chief Secretary will not go beyond what he has said. One of the considerations the Government have had in view in framing the sub-section is not merely to supply a method of economically weeding the Irish Bench: but in the event of certain circumstances arising—which you think unlikely, but which we think very likely—it is only fair to allow existing officers to escape from duties which would be absolutely intolerable. Under such circumstances, it would be most improper to give the Irish Government a consultative voice in the matter. The decision should be left entirely to the Imperial Government.
    MR. KNOXsaid, that, granting the decision in this matter should rest with the British Government, he thought the Department to decide it should be the Treasury, and not merely the Secretary of State, for Her Majesty would act through the Secretary of State. But granting a pension was one thing, and fixing the amount was another thing, and he thought that in fixing the amount the Treasury should act in communication with the Irish Government.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought that if the words suggested were put into the sub-section the whole protection afforded by the sub-section to the Civil servants would be gone. The principle of the sub-section was to safeguard the interests of the Civil servants under the Irish Government; but if every case of pension that arose was decided in consultation with the Irish Government it would do away with the advantage of the sub-section altogether, for if consultation meant anything it meant that the Irish Government should have the power of overruling the decision of the Government.
    MR. SEXTON: On the understanding given by the Chief Secretary I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. TOMLINSON MR. TOMLINSON (Preston) rose to move in page 15, line 19, after the first "pension," insert "to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain." He said that the pensions could not be made effective unless they were made a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and he, therefore, proposed to make them effective by making them a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 19, after the first "pension," to insert the words "to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think the Amendment of the hon. Member is required, because, in the event of a pension being authorised, there is only one fund on which it can be charged.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it must be remembered this introduced a new state of things altogether. If they were not face to face with a new Constitution it might not be required; but here they had an Irish Exchequer and an Imperial Exchequer, an Irish Consolidated Fund and an Imperial Consolidated Fund, and he submitted, without some such words as proposed, there was nothing in the Act to give effect to what they desired.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he now begged to move a third sub-clause providing that existing officers in Ireland in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown, although receiving salaries out of money provided by Parliament, should he removable only for misconduct or incapacity. He had, he thought, already sufficiently explained to the Committee what led them to insert this sub-section. They ascertained there were certain classes of officials in Ireland whose salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and whose tenure was not that of the Judges, Commissioners, and so forth, but who, in spite of that, were only removable for misconduct or incapacity. The persons concerned were Clerks of the Crown, Dublin Metropolitan Police Magistrates, and certain officers connected with the Four Courts—with the
    1752
    Courts of Justice. This was the class they had in view; but if, on inquiry, it should be found there were any other class they had lost sight of, but who came within the sub-section, they would be included. Anterior to 1867 these gentlemen had a permanent office, but they had no title to a fixed amount, and by this clause it was proposed to give them the same protection as was enjoyed by other persons in the service of the Crown in Ireland. This was a clause which they had included in order to add still further to the protection they had already given—namely, to put a number of gentlemen on the best footing that their scheme allowed, and he did not expect that it would meet with any opposition from any quarter.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, line 21, at the end of the Clause, as a new sub-section, to add the words—''This section shall apply to existing officers serving in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown, who, although receiving salaries out of money provided by Parliament, are removable only for misconduct or incapacity."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment at the beginning. So far as he could gather from the right hon. Gentleman, the intention here was to apply to those officers who held their offices permanently, except for misconduct or incapacity, the provision of Sub-section 2. These gentlemen, who might remain in office as long as they pleased, were to be allowed to retire immediately the Home Rule Bill passed, and upon such retirement they were to receive the same pension as if they had completed their full time. Therefore, he proposed to amend the Amendment by inserting at the beginning the words, "Sub-section (1) of."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert at the beginning, the words "Sub-section (1) of."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for

    1753
    North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), because it was impossible to draw a distinction, in justice or in fact, between these officials and the Commissioners or officers referred to in Sub-section 2.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that upon this occasion he was afraid he could not accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Amendment would include the Bankruptcy Judges, who were officials that stood higher than other officers of the Court, and one of these Judges had been the object of special and virulent attack by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
    MR. J. MORLEYpointed out that the Bankruptcy Judges held office under the same tenure as the County Court Judges, and, therefore, would be included in the benefits of Sub-section 2.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.)said, the Bankruptcy Judges were paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and retained office under the same circumstances as County Court Judges.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, these officers had taken office under certain circumstances, and they were now going to be transferred against their will; and he wished to ask whether they ought not to have the right to say whether they objected to serve the new Government? If so, their interests ought to be safeguarded by the Imperial Government that appointed them and were responsible for them.
    MR. SEXTONhad no desire to prevent them saying whether or not they would serve the new Government; but if they were so fastidious that they would not serve the new Government he objected to giving them the same pension as if they had completed their full term of service.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, there were other very important judicial officers to be considered, the Chief Clerks and Masters in Chancery; and these, as well as the Bankruptcy Judges, should be included in Sub-section 2.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, that, as he understood it, the sub-section proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would secure these officers; but now,
    1754
    owing to the limitation proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), the Government were going to put in words that would debar this class of officers from the benefits of Sub-section 2. He thought the Government should stick to their guns, particularly after some of his hon. Friends had withdrawn an Amendment upon the understanding that these officers would come within Sub-section 2.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURagreed that, after what had fallen from the Government, it would be unfair that these officers should not receive the full privilege of the clause. But he put that on one side, and asked the Government if they meant to say that while the County Court Judges were entitled to the treatment of Sub-section 2 the Bankruptcy Judges were to be excluded.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it was not the case that all the higher officials would wish to retire, though some might, and they could be spared. It was possible to contemplate the retirement of a certain number; but with regard to the Clerks of the Peace, Dublin Metropolitan Magistrates, or officers of the Four Courts, they were all gentlemen who had no claim on this sub-section. That was his distinction between the higher officers mentioned in the sub-section and these officers.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that after giving certain privileges to one class they proposed a new sub-section by which they dealt with persons whose salaries were not paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and they said they should not have the privileges of Sub-section 2, because they were inferior officers. Now he pointed out that they were not all inferior officers, as the tenure was not the same for all of them, and in support of that he mentioned the Bankruptcy Judges, who were regarded with as much consideration as any Judges of the High Court; but their salaries, by an extraordinary anomaly, happened to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. As they were as highly placed as the Judges, Commissioners, and officers mentioned in Sub-section 2, he urged the Government to give them the privileges which, in Sub-section 2, benefited the officers mentioned in that sub-section. That point the right hon. Gentleman had not answered.
    MR. SETON-KARRreminded the Committee and the Government that he only withdrew his former Amendment in the interests of Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under the Act of 1877, on the distinct assurance from the Government that they were in favour of the spirit of the Amendment, and that all that he desired was secured in another way. Now an Amendment was sprung upon the Committee by the virtual Leader of the House, the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), under which these men were to be deprived of the benefit of Sub-section 2. Under the circumstances he was surprised to hear the Chief Secretary say he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry. In his (Mr. Seton-Karr's) opinion it was a breach of faith with the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman was not doing what he said he would do two hours ago. As had been shown by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, the contract with these men was made with the British Government; they were transferring them by this Act to a contract with the Irish Government; and the Chief Secretary had admitted they were in honour bound to respect their vested interests, and that was exactly what he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman was making a rather serious charge. If he had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) it would not have made the slightest difference to the point they were now discussing.
    MR. SETON-KARRasked if the right hon. Gentleman would deny that a few hours ago he said his object was to protect their vested interests?
    MR. J. MORLEY: And I am protecting them.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, that all he wanted was that these men should be placed on the same footing as those in Sub-section 2, so that if they found they could not get on with the Irish Government they should be allowed to retire on such pension "as to Her Majesty seems fit." If the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) were accepted these men would be excluded, and the question of their pension could not be considered.
    MR. STOREYtrusted that the Committee would consider the
    1756
    interests of the Irish and the English taxpayer. Under the clause as it stood an officer could retire and would be entitled to the ordinary pension; but what was asked by the Party opposite was that if a person who had held office for five years chose to retire when the Irish Government came into possession of its own, he should be able to retire upon a full pension as if he had completed his entire term.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid that, as he understood it, persons in the position of Chief Clerks and Registrars would be excluded from the benefit of Sub-section 2 if the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) were carried. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) had been accepted it would have included both classes of officers within Sub-section 2, and no valid objection could be shown against that, except that in the one case the salaries were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and in the other case they were provided for out of moneys voted by Parliament. He thought they were entitled to ask on what ground this distinction was drawn, which, as it appeared to him, would work great injustice?
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the difference was not in the payment, but in the tenure of office. In the first class the officers were only removable upon Address from both Houses, and now it was proposed to add another sub-clause of persons only removable for misconduct or incapacity. The interests of those referred to in the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's were amply safeguarded by the Superannuation Act of 1859, and it would make no difference in their position whether the Amendment were accepted or not. It was said they were depriving these of the benefit of Sub-section 2. That was simply because the sub-section carried a right to a pension that otherwise did not exist.
    MR. SETON-KARR: "As to Her Majesty seems fit."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the right to a pension was subject to certain statutory rights; in the case of a County Court Judge it was 20 years' service, in the case of a Judge of the Supreme Court it was 15 years, and in the case of certain other officers it was 10 years' service. But in the present case hon.

    1757
    Gentlemen opposite desired that a man who had only served five years, if he was indisposed to work for the new Government, was to be entitled to a pension. He thought such a proposition had only to be stated to answer itself; they were asking now to extend this privilege, which was not a vested right and did not exist at this moment, to these servants, and they were asking that they should receive that privilege out of the funds of the Irish people.
    MR. MACARTNEYquite admitted that these public servants had not a vested right, but the foundation of this privilege which it was proposed to give them was this Bill. If there was no Bill there would be no necessity for this clause. These men were permanent Civil servants, paid by money voted by Parliament; they could only be removed on incapacity or misconduct, and surely it did seem to be an absurd thing that they would give better terms to permanent Civil servants removable on pleasure than to those who could only be removed for misconduct and incapacity. The greater number of gentlemen who would be benefited by this section were men who performed most important duties for the Crown and the Public Service in Ireland, and, as a rule, they were extremely capable public servants. They did not belong to one set of politics in Ireland, and he knew gentlemen belonging to the same political Party as hon. Members below the Gangway occupying some of these important posts. These officials were led to expect from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, and the policy which the Government declared they would adopt in regard to Ireland, that they would be treated like all the other permanent Civil servants in the country, and he asked the Government not to exclude them from this privilege.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had stated that a man might retire for no good reason, and then ask for a full pension; but in the Bill of the Government in this subjection were the words "Her Majesty may, if she thinks fit." Surely the wording of that sub-section implied that each application should be considered on its merits. If there was an unfounded application for a pension on retirement it would be refused. It seemed to him the
    1758
    Government desired to take advantage of a technicality to exclude the officers appointed under the Act of 1877 from the benefits of this sub-section. If the Chief Secretary adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry, he would be virtually committing a breach of faith. It was a question of honour to protect the vested rights of these men who might be in an untenable position under the new Irish Government. He attached great importance to this matter, and if the Government persisted in resisting it he should consider it his duty to divide the Committee upon it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLremarked, that the President of the Local Government Board had just said they were seeking to bring in a certain set of officers under this clause who had no right to be brought in. They were resisting an Amendment to exclude them. They (the Opposition) were standing by the clause as submitted by the Government. They were simply opposing an Amendment by one who had been called before now the real Leader of the House of Commons. He would answer what had been said by the Member for Sunderland by citing the case of the Bankruptcy Judges. In what did they differ from the Judges of the High Court? In absolutely nothing, save that for some reason or other their salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund. He agreed that there were too many Judges in Ireland, but there were not too many Bankruptcy Judges, he was sorry to say. Everybody who knew anything about Ireland knew that one of these Judges had been persistently and pertinaciously attacked in that House for the mere performance of his ordinary duties. He had sat in the House when the Speaker had had to interfere and protect that Judge from hon. Members opposite. Were they to be told that, having accepted employment under the Imperial Government, this Judge was now to be transferred without his will or consent to another Government, and that if he was anxious to retire and declined to serve the Government of the men who had over and over again unjustly assailed him, did the hon. Member for Sunderland mean to say that this Judge ought not to have the right to retire?
    MR. STOREYwas understood to say the Judge ought to have the right to retire.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Ought he not then to have his pension considered, not by the Irish Government, but by the Imperial Government? This clause did not give him an extra pension, but only such persons as Her Majesty might think fit. They were constantly asked to remember that the veto, for example, would be directed by the Imperial Government. They were asked to trust the Imperial Government when it came to a question of veto; why should the Imperial Government not be trusted when it came to a question of pensions for officials? Why should such a matter be handed over to hon. Members opposite, who were the declared enemies and opponents of these men? The Opposition could not possibly allow these two Judges to be left to the tender mercies of the Irish Government, but they must insist on the Government doing what was a plain matter of duty in regard to men whose salaries ought to have been on the Consolidated Fund long ago.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, there were three classes of Civil servants provided for under the 27th and 28th clauses. First, those whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund, secondly those who held office during good behaviour, and thirdly those who held office during pleasure and whose salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund, But for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Civil servants who held office during good behaviour would have come under the 28th clause instead of the 27th. The Bankruptcy Judges held office during good behaviour, but their salaries were not charged on the Consolidated Fund. What was to be their position? There were two of these Judges—and upon the head of one of them abuse of no ordinary kind had been helped by gentlemen opposite. The other Judge was at one time a Member of that House. The position of these gentlemen at the present moment was that of Civil servants holding office during good behaviour, and, therefore, they were in possession of the freehold
    1760
    office which had been referred to in the course of the discussion that evening. They had a "property" in their office, and the Chief Secretary, finding that they came under Clause 28, brought up his Amendment which would place them under Clause 27. Why should they not have the benefit of the entire of that clause? It was not correct to suggest that the present Amendment had been framed to cover an inadvertence, for the intention of the Government was clear from the Amendments which had been put by them upon the Paper as far back as April last. It was clear that it had been the intention of the Government to give these officers who held during good behaviour all the benefits that were intended to be conferred on Civil servants whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, there were two classes of permanent Civil servants whose offices had been described as "property." The first was those whose salaries were on the Consolidated Fund, and the second was the class of Civil servants whose salaries were not on the Consolidated Fund, but were voted from time to time by Parliament. Those whose salaries were charged on the Consolidated Fund were perfectly safe under Clause 27 as it at present stood without the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, that Amendment being intended to bring the second class under the clause. Then the hon. Member for North Kerry came in with his Amendment to nullity the effect of the Chief Secretary's proposal. Persons who were to be compulsorily transferred to new masters, whom, rightly or wrongly, they distrusted, ought to be allowed certain privileges in the matter of pensions if they elected to retire at the eud of a certain number of years. These persons—Bankruptcy Judges, Chief Clerks, and Masters—were appointed by the Imperial Parliament, and they had naturally anticipated that they would remain in the service of the United Kingdom so long as they held office. A change, however, was about to be effected by the Bill, and they were to be transferred to other masters. They distrusted those masters, and they asked that there should be no difference made between them and the Judges of the High Court. They might desire to retire when the change took place. Not long ago an

    1761
    official of the London County Council resigned his appointment through fear of the masters under whom he was compelled to serve. He said it was better to resign his position before a charge was made against him by persons hostile to him. What could be more natural than that Irish officials, who had already been persistently attacked in the House, should say—"Let us now retire—we should have been willing to complete our service to entitle us to a pension under the Imperial Parliament; we will complete that period of service in any other capacity, but we refuse to be transferred to an Irish Parliament without being made perfectly safe in the position we are to occupy." The Amendment of the Chief Secretary covered the case of these officials, and the right hon. Gentleman must be gratified to find the Opposition so enthusiastic in their support of his proposal. It was to be hoped, therefore, that he would not permit his excellent Amendment to be turned aside from its purpose.
    MR. WEBBsaid, he should not have intervened in the Debate had it not been for the statement made at an earlier period that the Nationalist Party were the declared enemies of the class whose interests they were now discussing. He wished to repudiate that statement. Anything which in times past had been said reflecting upon these gentlemen had been said in the heat of agitation and under circumstances of extraordinary provocation. He believed that if English Members had received the same provocation, they would have said things quite as bitter as any which had fallen from the Irish Nationalists. But there were no people more quick to forget than the Irish, and he believed that these officials would have a more satisfactory position under the Irish Government than that they occupied at present, because they would find every one on their side only too anxious to make things easier for them in the future than they had been in the past. It had been said that these officials were able men. Well, if they were well fitted to discharge the duties which they were performing there would be no desire on the part of the Irish Government to get rid of them; but he protested against their being encouraged to neglect their work in the hope of being allowed to retire upon their
    1762
    full salaries. It would be a fierce light which would beat upon the Irish Legislature, and if there was the slightest injustice done the whole world would know it. He believed the Irish Government would work well with its officials, and any such arrangement as putting the gentlemen in question into the same position regarding subsidies as the superior Judges was quite unnecessary, and could not be beneficial.
    SIR T. LEAsaid, he would acquit the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken of any desire to deal harshly with Irish officials, but at the same time the hon. Member did not say that inequality did not exist. He (Sir T. Lea) was certainly disappointed at the disposition shown by the Government to recede from the measure of justice to the Irish Civil servants which they had proposed to the House. The hon. Member opposite had said that language had been used in the House towards the Irish Bankruptcy Judges which he condemned. But although the hon. Member condemned the language which had been used, and although he excused it in view of the condition of things which prevailed at the time, he must admit that the Judges whose conduct had been so dealt with were likely to distrust those who had attacked thorn. In common justice to those Judges they should not be put on a lower level than the Judges of the High Court. Then, although the principal Land Commissioners would be treated fairly, the Sub-Commissioners were not paid out of money voted by Parliament, and would not, therefore, received equal treatment with the others. He hoped the Chief Secretary would adhere to his Amendment.
    SIR J. GORSTthought the Government would feel that they had not treated Members on the Opposition side of the House quite fairly. Sub-section 2 undoubtedly placed in the hands of the Imperial Government a great power, and one which might be used greatly to the injury and dissatisfaction of the Irish Government; but he supposed that the sub-section was proposed by the Government and accepted by the Irish Members in good faith—on the understanding that the Government would not use a power of this kind in an unreasonable and unfair manner, and

    1763
    that the Government of Ireland should be informed as to the steps that were to be taken. He understood that permission to retire would not be given unless there was good ground for it. The words of the sub-section would permit the Government to pay the retiring official the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had completed his term of service. To give a full pension to a man who retired after, say, only five years' service would be grossly unjust, and no one supposed that any Government, whether Radical or Tory, would pay such a pension. The words, no doubt, were very large, but the assumption was that the Government would exercise its power reasonably. Most of the speeches he had listened to had been against the granting of that power at all rather than directing themselves to the question as to whether certain officers should have the benefit of Sub-section 2 and certain others should not. He considered the Government had pledged themselves to the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr), that the officials for whom the hon. Member had spoken should be put in the same category as the Judges of the High Court. ["No, no!"] Yes; and the proposal of the Government would effect that object. But suddenly the hon. Member for North Kerry sprung an Amendment on the Government to which the Government yielded without much consideration or thought of their previous pledge. There had been nothing said to justify the division of these Irish officials into two categories. Why should a Judge of the High Court in Dublin have the opportunity of retiring under Sub-section 2 when a Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy had not? The Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland, it was said, were gentlemen who were very likely to wish to retire. He knew nothing about that. He spoke with the utmost impartiality in the matter, but he could not for the life of him see why the Government should exclude from the benefits of Sub-section 2 the officers they had promised at an earlier period to include. The only reason he could see was that the hon. Member for North Kerry wished to have it so.
    MR. BYLESsaid, he had some diffidence in prolong-
    1764
    ing this Debate, but so many Members had addressed the House on behalf of the pensioners and would-be pensioners under this scheme, and so many of the speakers had been Representatives of Ireland, who might be said to be interested on behalf specially of the Irish taxpayer, that he thought it right and just to say that there were many Liberal Members, representing large working-class constituencies in this country, who entirely agreed with the views taken by his hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry. He understood that the Government had accepted the hon. Member's Amendment to their own proposal. He understood that the Chief Secretary intimated at once that that was all that was meant by the Government Amendment, but if the Government had not accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry he should have divided with him, and he believed many other Members would have divided with him oven against the Government. He could assure the Committee that there was in this country, amongst working-class voters, a very strong and growing and intensifying feeling against pensions at all, and against vested interests. During the whole of the evening hon. Gentlemen had been endeavouring to extend the pension system, to exaggerate and inflate the amounts which were to be receivable from the Public Purse by the present holders of Office in Ireland, and it had been a somewhat instructive and not very agreeable Debate to him. He was not sure that they had not had hon. Gentlemen defending their own relatives. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Name!"]
    MR. SETON-KARR: I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member suggests that Members of this House have got a personal interest in the views which they advocated.
    MR. BYLES: No.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.
    MR. BYLESsaid, he did not say anything of the kind. He said he was not sure that hon. Members were not defending their own relatives. No doubt he should be able to provide the hon. Gentleman by-and-bye with what he desired. All that was asked by this Amendment was that officers under the Government at present discharging certain duties for a certain salary should

    1765
    be entitled to receive that salary if they chose to continue that office, but should not receive any further pension than that to which they were at present entitled. No one would be any worse than he was before; but the proposal of hon. Members opposite was that other officials should be put in the position of Judges of the land, who were being treated in a particular manner for special reasons—namely, that they might be induced to retire. He understood the Chief Secretary to say that the object of the proposal was to reduce the number of Judges. There were too many Judges in Ireland; too much money was being paid, and too little work was being done, and a sort of premium was offered to Judges in order that their number might be reduced. That was a motive which could be defended on economic grounds. But that that principle should be extended to all sorts of other permanent officials was a proposition which he was quite sure not only Irish Members, but a very large number of Radical and Liberal Members, would protest against.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had no doubt given very forcible expression to his own opinion; but what authority had he for saying that he also expressed the opinion of the working classes of this country?
    MR. BXLES: I represent a very large working class constituency. [Cries of "So do we!"]
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERdid not deny that; but what authority had the hon. Gentleman to say that the working classes were against all vested interests? That was a proposition which the working classes would repudiate altogether. He was under the strong impression that there was a feeling amongst the working classes in favour of a scheme of old-ace or retiring pensions.
    MR. SEXTON: For those who have worked hard for them.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: But the hon. Member was against pensions as a principle.
    MR. BYLES: I did not say so.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member spoke of pensions as a
    1766
    principle. He would remind the Chief Secretary of the still unanswered question why was a Judge of the Bankruptcy Court to be placed man invidious position—distinguished from all the other Judges of the land? Everyone who had any knowledge of the Irish judicial system knew that it was purely accidental whether a Judge filled a position in one category or the other. Some eminent Irish legal authorities had earned their position on the Bankruptcy Bench by services not a whit inferior to those which had placed other members of their profession in higher judicial positions. A Judge of the Bankruptcy Court was just as much entitled to justice and consideration as any other judicial officer. No doubt, technically, Judges of the Bankruptcy Court held their office under a somewhat different tenure to that of the other Judges, but the Chief Secretary had not, shown why they should be placed in a. different category to the other Judges.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLwished to put. a case to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Byles)—that of a private firm, say a firm owning a newspaper professing Radical principles. Supposing the editor and sub-editor, and the leading members of the staff of that newspaper, had permanent situations—that they were secured by a permanent tenure; suppose that that newspaper changed its politics (a thing which occurred not very long ago); he asked his hon. Friend what would he say to those gentlemen who had that permanent tenure if they refused to conduct the newspaper under its new auspices? What the hon. Member would do if he were the owner of the newspaper would be to pay them their pensions. Why should not the State do the same thing? Were they not turning things upside down in Ireland? Were they not telling men employed by the Imperial Government that they must take service under another and a totally different Government, professing totally different principles, which these men never undertook to serve, and which they ought not to be forced to serve?
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he must accuse the Chief Secretary for Ireland of a breach of faith in accepting the

    1767
    Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry. If his (Mr. Seton-Karr's) Amendment had been accepted, the case of the officers concerned would have been fully met; it would not only have been unnecessary but impossible for the hon. Member for North Kerry to have moved his Amendment; this discussion, which had lasted three hours, would have been avoided, and it would not have been possible to jockey these men in the way now attempted. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. MAC NEILLasked whether the word "jockey" was in Order?
    THE CHAIRMANcould not say it was out of Order, but he hoped such language would not be used.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, it was an ordinary expression which conveyed his meaning. He was sorry to offend the tender susceptibilities of the hon. Member, and he could assure him that he intended no personal offence. He wanted the hon. Member to know that, having the new sub-section of the Chief Secretary before them, and knowing nothing of the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, they were induced to withdraw certain other Amendments, and at the last moment the hon. Member's Amendment upset the whole previous situation. Did the Chief Secretary know the hon. Member's Amendment was to be moved? If the Government adhered to their former assurances they were bound to give these men the full benefit of the whole clause.
    MR. J. MORLEY: There is only one very short answer to the hon. Member. He says if he had known we should have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) he would have divided on his Amendment. Does he not see, even with his very moderate vision, that supposing he had carried his Amendment, the effect of his victory would have been that we should have been precluded from dealing with these gentlemen?
    MR. SETON-KARR: How about my second Amendment?
    MR. J. MORLEY: If the hon. Member had lost his Amendment what would have become of the pensions of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace for whom he professes to be speaking? I turn aside
    1768
    from that and from the hon. Gentleman's polite and courteous language about "jockeying" to the one serious point that has been raised—namely, with reference to the position of the Bankruptcy Judges. I shall take time to consider that point. It certainly was not our intention to exclude the Bankruptcy Judges from privileges enjoyed by other Judges. We think there are reasons why, if anybody were so minded, he might make out a good case; but the circumstances of the Bankruptcy Judges being what we know them to be, and our desire never having been to place them on a lower footing, though they are on a different footing, from the other Judges, I will take time to consider between this and Report whether we can so amend the sub-section as to secure that they shall have the same privileges as the other Judges. As to the other officials, their position remains unchanged.
    MR. COHENsaid, he did not propose to imitate the language of the right hon. Gentleman, or to make any references to "moderate visions;" but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with his powerful vision, he did not see that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) absolutely traversed the whole object of the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment. If he did see this, he would ask him whether the allegiance which hon. Members all knew the right hon. Gentleman owed to the hon. Member for North Kerry—[Nationalist cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]—well, whether the desire by which the right hon. Gentleman was actuated to do that which the hon. Member for North Kerry desired to see done, could be carried quite so far as to induce him to accept an Amendment flagrantly contradicting the Amendment he had himself brought forward.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 142.—(Division List, No. 221.)
    MR. SETON-KARRmoved to insert in the proposed Amendment, after "to" in the first line, the words—
    "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877,' and all."

    1769
    He said, that good reasons had been given for this proposal in the course of the Debate that had lately taken place.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    In line 1, after the word "to," to insert the words "Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877,'and all."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. MORLEY: We cannot accept this Amendment. There is no necessity whatever for it.
    MR. TOMLINSONspoke in support of the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. H. PLUNKETTmoved to insert in the proposed Amendment, at the end thereof, to add the words—
    "And all Clerks of the Crown or Clerks of the Peace appointed previous to the 14th day of August, 1877,"
    He said this proposal bore some resemblance to Amendments which had been proposed before, but in reality it was quite distinct and different. He understood the object of the Chief Secretary's Amendment to be to leave certain officers in the same position as they were in at present as regarded their tenure of office, salaries, and pensions. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Clerks of the Peace and Crown had a perfectly good case, but said they were covered by his own Amendment, and denied that the Clerks of the Peace and Crown appointed previously to 1877 had no case whatever. He (Mr. Plunkett) submitted that they had a very strong case indeed. In 1877 they were given a certain status by Act of Parliament. They were dealt with very liberally in the matter of pension, and, in addition, were given a certain reversion to a joint office which was then created. It seemed to him that 16 years' service since then could not have weakened, but must have very largely strengthened, their claim. The right hon. Gentleman stated that they had a freehold. But if it should so be that the Irish Government changed the Grand Jury Laws these officers would be absolutely deprived, not only of their salaries, but of their pensions, because
    1770
    their salaries were now paid by presentment of the Grand Juries—it was true it was under Imperial Statute; but if the Grand Jury Laws were changed he did not see where their salaries would come from. Therefore, he submitted that, though technically they were county officers, from every moral point of view they had a far stronger claim than Clerks of the Peace, who had been already provided for. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to treat the Amendment seriously, and to tell them on what grounds he refused this concession to a small and decreasing number of officers.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end thereof, to add the words—
    "And all Clerks of the Crown or Clerks of the Peace appointed previous to the fourteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven."—(Mr. Horace Plunkett.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had already explained the view of the Government on this point. These persons held a freehold office under an old law of 200 years standing, and a freehold of that kind could not be disturbed by an Act of the Irish Legislature without violating the provisions of the 4th clause of the Bill. If the officers were disturbed, the disturbance must be accompanied by the grant of just compensation. The 4th clause already gave protection to them, and, therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, that all the 4th clause stated was that no property should be taken away without due process of law, and this was all the protection it gave. But he doubted if an office was property within the meaning of that clause. A man could be deprived of an office by Statute without property being taken without due process of law. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to insert the word "office" after the word "property" in the clause? The point was whether property, be it real or personal, included an office. If it was so declared in the Bill, all doubt would be removed.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, the word property occurred twice in the same sub-section of the 4th clause. In the first part it said that no person should be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," and in the last part that no "private property may be taken without just compensation." He wished to ask the Solicitor General in which of these definitions of property the offices in question came?
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, they seemed to be going back to a former condition of things, when everyone thought he was entitled to ask a question that had been answered before. Offices of the kind in question were property. The right hon. Member for Bury (Sir. H. James) said this could not be right, because property must be either real or personal. Well, some offices were real property and some were personal. At any rate, he took offices of this kind to be property, though he should like to inquire into the matter a little more before he said they were real or were personal property.
    SIR H. JAMESasked if the Solicitor General would kindly say so in the 4th clause, so as to make it clear?
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that to put in "property, including offices," would be very bad drafting, and would lead to very bad law.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, he must again ask the Solicitor General under which definition of property in the sub-section he placed the offices. To his mind it was an important point, because in the one case property could not be taken away without due process of law, and in the other a person could not be deprived of it without just compensation.
    MR. VICARY GIBBSasked if the question was not to be answered? It seemed to him to be a very important question, and one that ought to be answered.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYalso thought there ought to be a definition given, so that there should be no difficulty in the matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was severely taken to task by the Prime Minister in one of the early Debates for
    1772
    suggesting that so august a person as the Solicitor General had lost his temper. He did not say the hon. and learned Gentleman had lost his temper on this occasion, but he had certainly been very brief. Brevity was not a Parliamentary virtue which he regretted, but if they were to have brevity at the cost of not answering perfectly legitimate questions by competent persons he could only say they would have too much of a good thing. His hon. and learned Friend, a most competent lawyer, had put to the Solicitor General this question, whether the offices referred to came within the definition of property of which nobody could be deprived "without due process of law," or under the definition of private property in the other part of the subsection which could not be taken "without just compensation"?
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that if his hon. and learned Friend who put the question would give his opinion on the matter he would say whether he agreed with him or not.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, he understood that the Chief Secretary in the earlier discussion this evening was perfectly candid, and had stated that this class of official was protected, because they had a freehold property in their office, which was protected under Clause 4, and he (Lord R. Churchill) imagined the right hon. Gentleman would not go back upon that position.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, that the Committee had had two absolutely contradictory opinions on the subject—the one, that of the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James) and the other that of the Solicitor General. Without these contradictory opinions he should have thought the question doubtful. He would now merely content himself with asking whether the Government intended that the gentlemen holding these offices should be deprived of them with or without just compensation? It was no answer to that question to say—"Will you, a private Member, pledge your opinion as to a sub-section you did not draw, and did not approve of?" instead of giving a reasonable opinion on which they might be expected to act in the Division Lobby.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that he and his hon. and learned Friend had stated several times that these offices could not be interfered with without the occupants receiving just compensation.
    SIR E. CLARKEsaid, he had heard from the Solicitor General not an opinion, but a challenge to somebody else to give an opinion. Now, he would give an opinion himself. It was clear that the private property which could not be taken "without just compensation" was property taken away for public purposes from private individuals for the use of the public. That could not possibly apply to offices. As for the other part of the sub-section—
    "Whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,"
    the word "property" there did not include offices such as that with which the Committee was now dealing, and he should be very much surprised if the learned Solicitor General would commit himself to a definite opinion the other way.' If not, these words should be put in to make it clear—in other words, that "freehold offices "should be included in this protecting sub-section.
    SIR J. RIGBYobjected to be called up time after time under cross-examination and asked to repeat under different forms an opinion he had already expressed. In this case he did not hesitate to say that, in his opinion, these freehold offices were property in the first part of the clause and private property in the second.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLmoved to add at the end of the sub-section, "And Subsection 2 shall apply to the Judges in Bankruptcy." The Chief Secretary, he thought, might well make so small a concession as the Amendment involved. There were only two Bankruptcy Judges, and one of them, Judge Miller, was so old that he was entitled to claim his pension at once. The other was Judge Boyd; and surely a case had been made out for Judge Boyd coming under Subsection 2. In the plain performance of duty which could not be shirked, Judge Boyd had brought himself into collision with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; the bitterest expressions had been
    1774
    used towards him; and it was certain that his life would not be a happy one under a Nationalist Government. [Cries of "Question!" and "Oh!"] Hon. Members carried the "angelic" theory further than it would go; for there were other people besides hon. Gentlemen who were concerned in the matter. He hoped the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment at once, instead of deferring it to the Report stage.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words—
    "And Sub-section (2) shall apply to the Judges in Bankruptcy."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that he had already stated his opinion that it was reasonable that the Judges in Bankruptcy should have the advantage of Sub-section 2. But he was not at all persuaded that that object had not been already gained by Sub-section 1. It was necessary to consult with the Legal Advisers of the Government; and, therefore, he could not go further than promise to deal with the matter on Report.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise that, unless he got a clear opinion from the Law Officers that Judge Boyd was included in Sub-section 1, he would bring up words on Report which would include him.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, in that case it was hardly worth while to pursue the matter further.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, they were in this difficulty, that they did not know what might take place on Report. They might never reach the clause, as it might be gagged.
    MR. J. MORLEY: It certainly will not be my fault if we do not get to it on Report.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that if it was not the right hon. Gentleman's fault, might he ask whose fault it would be?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Committee could not discuss the question of whose fault it would be. As he understood it, they had a pledge from the

    1775
    Government that on Report they would carry out a certain Amendment, and it was the business of the Government to find means to carry out their own pledge. He assumed that with the pledge was involved the business of carrying it out.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words, as amended, inserted.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, the Amendment he had to propose was to add two further subsections at the end of the clause, and he would state shortly the reasons why these should be added. They had heard something of the Clerks of the Peace appointed under the Act of 1867. These gentlemen were really in the position of County Court Judges, as they required to be possessed of certain qualifications; but as they were always gentlemen of an advanced age it was impossible for them to serve the requisite number of years that would entitle them to a pension. County Court Judges were provided for, and by his Amendment he proposed to put Clerks of the Peace in the same position as County Court Judges, and for the same reasons. The second sub-section of his Amendment opened up a somewhat wider question. There was no reason why the Irish Government should not abolish the office if they chose, and in such an event he proposed that these men should be placed in the same position as they would have been in if the office had not been abolished.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words—
    "(4) 'The Superannuation Act, 1859' (the twenty-second year of Victoria, chapter twenty-six, section four), shall be deemed to extend to the office of Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877,' and every such officer on retiring shall be entitled on the computation of the amount of his superannuation allowance to have added to the number of years he may have actually served a further additional twenty years on account of professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service, and every such officer shall be entitled to such superannuation after a period of service of five years.
    "(5) In case the said office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace be abolished every existing officer if then holding office shall be entitled to a superannuation allowance equal to his full salary, such allowance to be payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Government cannot accept this Amendment, on two grounds. First, because these Clerks of the Crown and Peace have accepted office without any such provision as is proposed in the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment and with full knowledge of the salary they were to receive; and, further, because the scale as regards pensions proposed in the Amendment is exorbitant and unprecedented. The second ground is that never since the Superannuation Act of 1859 was passed has a professional addition to the scale of 20 years been granted. It has scarcely ever gone beyond 10 years, and has only in a few cases amounted to 15 years. As to the proposal that these officers should have a superannuation allowance equal to their annual salary, if the hon. Member will read the Superannuation Act more carefully he will find that under that Act the highest compensation is two-thirds of the salary, and not the full salary. Many persons hold the view that even two-thirds of the salary is much too liberal, and yet here is the hon. Gentleman making a proposal which is altogether extravagant and unprecedented.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these allowances are unprecedented in the sense that they have never been allowed to persons who remained in the same service. But the case of these Irish Civil servants is absolutely unprecedented. This Bill practically calls upon them to transfer their allegiance. The Chief Secretary says that when these gentlemen entered office it was contemplated that they were to have these allowances. But can it be said that these gentlemen contemplated serving under a totally different Government from that under which they entered office? We desire that the whole of the Civil servants shall be treated on the footing that this is no ordinary abolition or change of office or retirement, but that it is a demand that they shall act under a Government under which they have never dreamt they would have to serve, and which would be composed to a great extent of men with whom they have

    1777
    been in conflict in the discharge of their duties. It is the duty of the Government and of the Committee to take special care that the future of these men shall not be spoilt and their lives put upon a different footing from that which they had contemplated. Without wishing to force any particular scale upon the Government, I deprecate the application of the ordinary Treasury rules and precedents as regarded pensions and retirements to the entirely unprecedented cases of these men.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to soften as much as possible any hardships that may arise. The right hon. Gentleman says he is not going to argue about the scale; but he used the argument and took up the position that on account of the extraordinary character of the change that this Bill will introduce not one of these gentlemen was to be displaced except upon his full salary. [Mr. GOSCHEN: I did not say so.] No, the right hon. Gentleman did not say so; he is too circumspect to say that, but his argument goes to that extent. I have shown the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that the scale of retiring allowances that he proposes is unprecedented and excessive.
    MR. SETON-KARR: I do not desire to bind the right hon. Gentleman to the scale I have proposed as long as he accepts the principle of my Amendment.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In my view, the Amendment of the hon. Member is nothing but the scale. The whole point and purpose of the Amendment is to give to these Civil servants certain terms, not upon the ordinary scale—
    MR. SETON-KARR: May I say one thing?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman has said a great many things already. This is a serious point. Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds whether they are prepared to take up the position that every Civil servant in Ireland shall be permitted to retire immediately, not only upon their full salaries, but with an allowance calculated upon every possible increment upon these salaries.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not claim that there should be full salaries given
    1778
    to these Civil servants as retiring allowances. But I claim that the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to quote precedent in cases that are entirely unprecedented. No ordinary Treasury Rules can possibly apply to cases that will be created by this Bill, for it proposes that the Civil servants shall transfer their allegiance from the Government under which they entered on service to a Government of which they had never dreamed.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think that the matter can be argued more appropriately upon Clause 28.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there is something to be said for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this matter can be better dealt with on Clause 28. I may say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would have saved discussion on the matter if he had stuck to the original proposal; but the Government, by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, have divided the Irish Civil servants into two classes, one of which is to obtain the benefit of Sub-section 2, and the other of which is to be excluded from that benefit. Perhaps the best course to pursue under the circumstances will be to divide upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to reserve the discussion upon general retirement allowances until Clause 28 is before the Committee, and until we know the proposals of the Government.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, that he had been charged by the Chief Secretary with not having read the Superannuation Act, and with having made a proposal which was unprecedented and exorbitant under that Act. But on referring to the Act again he found that 28 years was the maximum period allowed to be added for professional experience. The Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland were men of advanced years, who had qualified themselves for their positions by long years of study and preparation; and he therefore thought they were entitled, on that account, to have 20 years added to their period of service.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the Government had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry after their clause had been before the House for three months. The Government had changed front frequently

    1779
    on the subject under consideration. On the First Beading they took one view, on April 7 they took another, they had now proposed a third, and had accepted a fourth at the bidding of the hon. Member for North Kerry. He awaited with interest the fifth view which they should take of the question.
    Amendment amended, in line 8, by leaving out the word "twenty," and inserting the word "fifteen," and inline 14, by inserting the words "three-fourths of," before the word "his."
    MR. W. KENNYasked whether the Committee "would be able to discuss the position of Clerks of the Peace on Clause 28?
    MR. J. MORLEY: We shall be able to discuss the general question of the principle of compensation on Clause 28.
    MR. W. KENNY: Therefore, if the Clerks of the Peace come under any section, they must come under this? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
    Question put, "That the words,
    '(4) "The Superannuation Act, 1859 "(the twenty-second year of Victoria, chapter twenty-six, section four"), shall be deemed to extend to the office of Clerks of the Crown and Peace appointed under "The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877," and every such officer on retiring shall be entitled on the computation on the amount of his superannuation allowance to have added to the number of years he may have actually served a further additional fifteen years on account of professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service, and every such officer shall be entitled to such superannuation after a period of service of five years.
    '(5) In case the said office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace be abolished every existing-officer, if then holding office, shall be entitled to a superannuation allowance equal to three-fourths of his full salary, such allowance to be payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom,' be there added."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 246.—(Division List, No. 222.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 28 (As to persons holding Civil Service appointments).
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think that I may be consulting the convenience of the Committee if I take this opportunity of briefly stating the general drift of this clause. Everyone will agree that a clause which affects a body like the per-
    1780
    manent Civil servants in Ireland is a clause of very great importance. So far as I am concerned, I regret that it has fallen to me to be the instrument for proposing terms which are not entirely acceptable to all the members of that Service, because I have received from all members of that Service with whom I have had dealings treatment of the utmost considerateness, though to many of them the policy with which I was associated was not altogether welcome. They have shown to a Government with which they are only partially in sympathy the same loyalty and fidelity which they have shown to other Governments, and it seems like a bad return for that loyal service that I should have to lay down some propositions which they do not altogether accept. I hope and believe that this is a part of the Bill which we ought to discuss so far as we can without any Party spirit, because whatever may happen it is indispensable for the Government of Ireland, whoever may be in power, that there should be the least degree of friction between the permanent Executive Service in Ireland and those who have the administration and control of it. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he believed we are all agreed in desiring to do what is fair, just, equitable, and generous to those gentlemen, only limited by the precaution that we shall not impose on the future Government of Ireland an unreasonable or excessive load of financial responsibilities. I should like to recognise the moderation, tone, and temper which the Civil servants themselves have shown in what I freely admit are rather trying and exceptional circumstances. I have had the honour and advantage of several interviews with their representatives; and I heard no language used, either as to any future Government in Ireland or as to our policy or this clause, which was not in tone and temper and spirit moderate and right. What is the principle of this clause? It declares that permanent Civil servants are to continue to hold office by the same tenure, to receive the same salaries, gratuities, and pensions, to perform the same duties as heretofore, or analogous duties. On that point the word "analogous" has raised some complaint, because it is a vague and unsatisfactory word. The

    1781
    answer to that complaint is that the word is used in other Acts of Parliament, and in the same sense as in this clause. The whole tendency in Parliament for many years past has been that Civil servants whose functions are changed, or whose position is changed, shall not only undertake duties which may be determined by the Heads of Departments to be analogous, but shall undertake any duties which the Heads of Departments, in their discretion and acting conscientiously, may wish them to undertake. What are the dangers to be guarded against for the Civil servants? Those dangers were capricious dismissal or reduction of salary. It some quarters it was also apprehended—but not by us—that there would be such unfair—what I may call scandalous—treatment on the part of the new Irish Government as would make the position of those servants intolerable, and would practically amount to expulsion. On the other hand, what are the dangers to the Irish Government? The danger of sudden retirement en masse of the Civil servants, a sort of large general strike, or else, what would be worse than a general strike, a sort of sullen service which would end in great inefficiency, and give the Irish Government no chance of conducting the government of the country. In order to guard against these two sets of dangers, we began by establishing a transitional period, originally fixed at three years, but, in deference to representations partly made by these gentlemen, now extended to five years, to give the Irish Government time to look around and feel its feet; and, on the other hand, to give the Civil servants time and opportunity to consider their position. Nothing could be worse than any sort of violent break in the administrative system of the country, and we have introduced this transitional period to ease off whatever difficulties might arise in the relations between the Civil servants and the Irish Government. During that transitional period a Civil servant may do one of five things:—(1) He may leave the Service under medical certificate or existing rules as to age; (2) he may be dismissed for misconduct or incapacity; (3) he may be removed on abolition of his office, or on reorganisation of the Department, provided that such reorganisation does
    1782
    not create a fresh office; (4) he may-resign; or (5) he may be required by the Irish Government to retire. We, however, make a provision that either in the case of a Civil servant wishing to resign, or in the case of the Irish Government desiring him to retire, there shall be six months' notice on either side; and we also provide that the number of retirements or resignations at one time shall be limited. It is, however, provided that the officer is not to have the benefits conferred by this clause if he is already, or within the period named, incapacitated by infirmity or is over age. We propose to guard the Civil servant during the transitional period by providing either that he shall have his whole salary if he continues to serve; or if he retires or is removed, we provide for him special terms of compensation; or if he continues to serve under the Irish Government after the five years of the transitional period, then we secure to him the full pension which he has earned up to the end of that period, payable, not upon the end of the period if he continues to serve the Irish Government, but upon his retirement. It is awarded to him at the end of the five years. Then he makes his own bargain with the Irish Government, and when he ultimately retires from the Service, the Treasury will pay him the sum which he had earned at the end of the five years. All these sums are secured by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. We have introduced another provision, of which I hope the Committee will see the usefulness, and that is a Joint Committee, of which two Members shall represent the Imperial Treasury and one Member shall be nominated by, and shall represent, the Irish Government. That Committee is a protection to the Civil servant in this way. If the Civil servant says he has been wrongly dismissed, then he has the right of appeal to this Joint Committee, who, after investigating the matter, would report to the Treasury, and the Treasury would then be guided by that Report as to their decision. The Report would not be absolutely binding on the Treasury in making their award, but it would be a guide to them. It will be observed that we give the Civil servant a very considerable boon. If he resigns to-day, unless he has attained the age at

    1783
    which he is entitled to resign, he goes out of office carrying nothing with him. But under the Bill, if he resigns voluntarily, then we give him a very large pension to take with him. We must, then, give the Irish Government what I may call a correlative right. We do not allow him to resign without giving six months' notice, and we insist that the Irish Government shall not require any officer to retire without six months' notice. We take care of that, and we take care, in other ways, against anything like a vindictive clean sweep, which, however, we do not at all apprehend. To use an expression I have used before, the Irish Government would he mad from many points of view if they made anything like a vindictive clean sweep, and I do not think there is the slightest chance of their doing so. We take the precaution, however, that the Treasury may determine how many officers may resign at a given time, or how many officers the Irish Government may require to resign at a given time. The Treasury will thus control the matter for five years. This appears in Sub-section 2 of Sub-section 8. I now turn to the scale. The officer will receive, whether he resigns or is removed, the ordinary abolition terms, and we also give the following additional advantages. He is to be allowed to count for pension, whenever he resigns, the full five years' transitional period, and the pension will he calculated on the higher salary—namely, the salary he would be entitled to at the end of the five years, when it would have been added to by annual increments. The Committee will see that this is a considerable advantage to him. The Civil servant will receive an abolitional addition on the scale under the Schedule—that is to say, if he has completed less than 10 years' actual service, he will get three years' abolitional addition; if he has completed more than 10 and less than 15 years' service he will get five years'; and if more than 15 and less than 20 years' actual service he will get 10 years' abolitional addition, and there will be added to that, under any circumstances, the five years' transitional period. Take the case of an officer who has completed 10 years' service. His pension will be calculated on 10 years' actual service, plus five years' transitional service, plus an abolitional addition of five years. If he
    1784
    has completed 15 years' actual service, then his pension will be calculated on 15 years of actual service, plus five years' transitional service, plus 10 years' abolitional addition. Take one more case of an officer who has completed 25 years' actual service. His pension will be calculated on 25 years' actual service, plus five years for transition, plus 10 years for abolitional addition. That will be 40–60ths, or two-thirds, still calculated on the higher scale, which would be reached at the end of the transitional period. Of course, at the end of the transitional period, it will be for him to make his own bargain with the Irish Government. Beyond that date no responsibility will rest with the Imperial Exchequer. I would like to take one more case—the case of the Resident Magistrate. The Resident Magistrate, in many cases, is entitled to professional addition. That is given by the 4th section of the Superannuation Act, and I think the Committee will perceive that these gentlemen, entitled as they are to this professional addition, will get very good terms. The pension of a Resident Magistrate with 10 years of completed service will be calculated on 10 years' actual service, plus five years' transitional service, plus 10 years' abolitional addition, plus 10 years' professional addition, and that we consider very handsome. I ought to say that there are two other classes affected besides permanent Civil servants. The scheme extends to all persons continuously employed and paid by a State Department. That would include temporary clerks, copyists, and mechanics employed in a Government Department.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Would it include National School teachers?
    MR. J. MORLEY: No; National school teachers are certainly public servants in one sense, but they are not the officers of the Central Government. The National School teachers, with whom nobody would wish to deal more generously than I, are appointed by local managers, very often by an individual in a locality; and the Central Government, beyond imposing certain necessary qualifications upon them, is not their master, and, therefore, we have not been able to include them in the scheme.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Would it include Inspectors of National Schools?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Oh, certainly; they are, undoubtedly, officers of the Central Government.
    LORD F. HAMILTON: Does the clause apply to officials whose salaries are paid out of the county cess?
    MR. J. MORLEY: If the noble Lord will wait a moment he will find I shall come to that. There is a further class permanently employed, but not giving their whole time, such persons as Crown Solicitors and Sessional Crown Solicitors. The clause gives such pensions to those gentlemen, in cases of abolition of office or removal, as the Treasury may think just, provided that it is one-fourth less than the superannuation allowance to which a Civil servant in the full sense is entitled. These gentlemen are paid by the Government for the work they do, but it does not give them the same claim for superannuation allowance that gentlemen whose whole livelihood depends on public service have. I will explain in a sentence why that distinction is drawn. These Crown Solicitors continue the practice of their profession, and they are paid by the Government for the work that they do for the Government; but it does not give them the same claim for compensation and superannuation allowance as clearly as you would give to gentlemen whose whole livelihood depends upon their public service. The proposal to give Crown Solicitors a professional addition cannot be considered, because that means giving compensation to a man for something he loses in abandoning his work for the public service. These gentlemen do not abandon their profession. Although we recognise their position as public servants, we bargain that their pension shall not exceed three-fourths of the scale of permanent Civil servants. The total number of persons affected by Clause 28 is 1,201. The gross amount of pensionable salary earned by these 1,200 gentlemen at the end of the transitional period would be £333,000. Then we have to make an approximate estimate of the gross annual amount of the superannuation allowance of these 1,200 people. It is £149,284, or, roughly, £150,000—that is to say, about half their pensionable salaries.
    MR. GOSCHEN: That is if they all retire?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; and if they all claim their pensions. Then there is this fact to which I will call the attention of the Committee—that of the 1,201 persons 637 have an annual salary not exceeding £100, and the salary of 100 more does not exceed £200. That is an interesting figure, although I do not know that there is any particular moral to be drawn from it, except that in connection with these apprehensions of "a clean sweep" it is exceedingly unlikely that it would be thought worth while making a spoil of these 637 gentlemen. As to the Joint Committee, we have appointed that as a protection to stand between the Irish Government and the Civil servants. Something was said about the word "rights" in that clause. Perhaps "claims" would have been the better word. This Committee will inquire into the dismissal of any servant, and whether he is entitled to a pension or gratuity under the clause, and their decision will turn upon whether the appellant fulfils all the conditions prescribed in the clause. I have not been able to admit that county officers who are responsible to and paid by County Bodies have a necessary claim to the generosities of this clause. I see an Amendment on the Paper referring to this, and when that is moved it will be time to state my reasons. To sum up, I have not gone into the details of the claims made by the Civil servants. I have, however, circulated a frank and full statement of those claims; and I would point out to those who think we are dealing harshly that we have given more than abolition terms. We allow voluntary resignation; and we allow a pension calculated on the increased rate of salary. The Irish Representatives may have some remarks to make on this scheme; but I am at a loss to understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite can find fault with the proposals we now make to the Committee. We have endeavoured to frame a considerate and reasonable scheme which, without laying any excessive load on the Irish Government, will secure the just interests of the Civil servants under every likely, every probable, and, I will add, every possible contingency. If the Irish Government should prove to consist of lunatics, then contingencies may arise for which we

    1787
    cannot profess to make provision, and for which provision cannot be made. But if apprehensions of this kind are well-founded, and you are going to frame a scheme of compensation on the hypothesis that the Irish Government is capable of every enormity and iniquity, then you have only one course before you—that is, to allow every Civil servant, no matter how long or short his service, to retire on the appointed day, carrying with him his full salary, without the necessity of ever being called upon to do another stroke of work. On that hypothesis you will also have to guarantee to them some enormous gratuity to compensate them for the loss of promotion and other contingent and hypothetical advantages. It is inconceivable that anyone should propose, or that the Committee should adopt, such a lavish scheme. The only lines to go upon are the lines we have adopted; and I only say this in conclusion. If the whole Committee in its discretion, having fairly considered the matter, desire to extend the liberality of our scheme in some of those particulars which the Civil servants have brought forward, then it will, of course, be in the power of the Committee to do so. They will not, however, forget the limits of their generosity, because it will not be at our own expense. That generosity is, and must be, of such a nature as not to impose an unjust and intolerable burden on the Irish nation. Subject to that consideration, we desire to go as far as we can; and I submit to the Committee that we have followed the only practicable course. We have advanced very far in the path of generosity to those to whom we desire to be generous, to whom all British Governments owe a great deal, and on whom we should be extremely sorry to inflict the smallest hardship or the slightest injury.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe there is no question before the House; therefore it is only by the indulgence of the Committee that I can make a few remarks on the present occasion. I shall not abuse that indulgence by entering in any controversial spirit upon what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I only desire to thank him for his extremely lucid statement, and for the clearness with which he has laid before the Committee the views of the Government and the
    1788
    principles according to which they think the Civil servants of Ireland should be compensated. We shall have in the course of to-morrow to discuss in detail both the general principles which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down and their particular application to the present circumstances of Ireland. On the present occasion I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman feels keenly the duty which is due by the Imperial Government to the Irish Civil servants, and that although he has not shown in the Bill itself that he would give the same application to that sentiment that we should do in similar circumstances—if we could conceive ourselves in similar circumstances—it is not because he himself differs from the long line of his predecessors in recognising the enormous services given to the State by the Civil servants in Ireland. I shall wish to show, on some future occasion, that there are grounds for thinking that the special circumstances of Ireland and special promises given by important Irish officials make these proposals of the Government inadequate. I shall wait until we come to the detailed Amendments before I deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman knows what controversial matter underlies all these proposals; and I am sure he will not think that we, on our part, in making these Amendments, are indifferent to the interests of the Irish Exchequer; but we cannot help feeling that when you are going to effect a revolution in Ireland of the magnitude proposed by the Government, and when that revolution destroys the whole of the carefully-built-up Civil Service which has governed the country for many years, even the more or less exceptional proposals of the Government do not meet the whole circumstances of the case. There is only one point which I would mention, merely for the purpose of seeing if I have rightly interpreted the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He said he was going to give five years' full service to every man who resigns within the transitional period. Of course, that is a boon to those who resign early in the transitional period; and, if I have rightly interpreted the views of the right hon. Gentleman, it is also a boon to those who do not resign early.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the

    1789
    number of persons to be benefited was something like 1,200. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion that bore to the total number of Civil servants in Ireland?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he could not say at that moment; but the whole number of persons affected was included.
    MR. BARTLEYasked whether the five years was a diminishing number of years according to the period of retirement?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that the five years were to be counted whenever the officers retired.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. J. Morley,)—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 412.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. W. JOHNSTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would agree to extend it to Ireland?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): This Bill has passed through a Committee composed of gentlemen of both sides of the House, including the Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Po well) and the Member for the University of Cambridge (Sir John Gorst). I propose to deal with it in Committee of the House this day week, and if any hon. Gentleman interested in the Bill will put down Amendments they will be considered in the interval.
    MR. FIELD: Will Ireland be included in this Bill?
    MR. ACLAND: I have said before now that the Chief Secretary is considering that question. It is difficult to apply this Bill with all our machinery to Ireland, though we have no objection to so extend it if it can well be done.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  CHIMNEY SWEEPERS (re-committed) BILL. (No. 399.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, Clause 1, 11th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be reported to the House."
    MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTconsidered that some explanation should be given as to the object and scope of the Bill.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said, the Bill had been before the House for a considerable time. The Government had put down a number of Amendments to it; the Bill had been re-committed, and these Amendments had all been accepted and included in the Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLobserved that, although it was true that the Bill had been before the House for a long time, no human being had ever explained what the Bill intended to do. He was exceedingly anxious that the Member for Northampton, who was in charge of the Bill, should give some explanation of its object.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it would be a perfect labour of love for him to explain the Bill. It had been so long before the House that he thought all Members had read and digested it. The Bill was brought in in the last Parliament by Sir John Colomb, and it was supported by several gentlemen on the other side. Sir John Colomb not having a seat in the present Parliament, and his (Mr. Labouchere's) name being on the back of the Bill, a deputation of the sweeps waited upon him and asked him to take charge of the measure. The Bill was really very simple. There was at present a system of registration in regard to sweeps, and the Bill proposed to enlarge that system of registration a little, and bring it into proper order. The objection of the sweeps was that there were good sweeps and bad sweeps; and it sometimes happened that persons

    1791
    blackened their faces and, pretending to belong to that respectable calling, went to houses in the early hours of the morning, rung the bell, and, having gained admittance, possibly they stole things. The object of the Bill was to render this respectable and honourable calling, if possible, even more respectable than it was. There had been much consultation on the subject with which the Bill dealt; it had, he believed, been thrashed out; and, in his opinion, it was a measure which the House would be proud of having passed.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  TRAMWAYS BILL.—(No. 418.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SCHWANNmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
    Several hon. MEMBERS objected.
    MR. SCHWANNasked to be allowed to briefly explain the object of the Bill. It was to enable Local Authorities who possessed tramways to work them themselves, and it was supported by gentlemen on both sides of the House. Every Local Authority at the present time had, at great expense, to obtain a Private Bill in that House, otherwise it was not able to work its own tramways, and it was considered that the law ought to be changed in that respect.
    Objection being taken,
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

  EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords]. (No. 411.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL.
    Resolution [14th July] reported.
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, the sum of £5,834,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mellor, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir John Hibbert.
    Bill presented, and read first time.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 398.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL. (No. 396.)
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 395.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  CHURCH BUILDINGS ACTS (COMPULSORY POWERS REPEAL) BILL.—(No. 279.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 109.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 402.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Tuesday, 25th July.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (CONTRIBUTION TO IMPERIAL CHARGES).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Statement showing, on the basis of the figures for the year 1892–3, (1) the Imperial Charges towards which Ireland would contribute; and (2) the amount of such Contribution, under the financial scheme in the Government of Ireland Bill."—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 337.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Summary of Representations made to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by the Royal Irish Constabulary respecting Clause 30 and Schedule 6."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 336.]
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

TOOK THE OATH.
Several Lords.

MARRIAGE OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (Lord CARRINGTON): I am commanded, my Lords, to read to the House Her Majesty's gracious reply to the Address from your Lordships:—
"I sincerely thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address. It is particularly gratifying to Me to be assured that you participate in My feelings on the marriage of My beloved grandson The Duke of York with the Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and in the confidence that, by God's blessing, this event will conduce to the happiness of My family and the welfare of My people."
Address and Answer to be printed and published. (No. 201.)

FRANCE AND SIAM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (having given him private notice of the question) whether he could give the House any fresh news respecting the unhappy differences between France and Siam; and whether he could give any explanation of the reason why two French warships proceeded up the River Menam, he believed, contrary to the orders of the French Government? But there was one matter in particular with regard to those two French ships—that M. Pavie, the French Minister at Bangkok, had apparently orders given to him to assure the Siamese Government that no warships would proceed up that river; and yet M. Pavie, who would be probably in telegraphic communication with the captains of those ships at the mouth of the Menam, apparently did not hand over those orders to the captains of the two vessels. He would also ask whether the noble Earl could give any ex-
  1638
  planation with regard to the breach of faith on the part of the French Government in not giving a notification to the British Government in this matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): I do not wish to stop the noble Lord, but he has no right to make a speech at this time in asking a question by leave of the House. My Lords, my noble Friend very kindly gave me notice of this question. I think it would be for the convenience of the House, as this is a matter of some delicacy and importance, that I should read a written answer on the subject—
  "In order to consider justly and dispassionately the present position of affairs between France and Siam, it is necessary to keep distinct several questions which from the course of events have become intermingled. But it is right to premise that perhaps the main difficulty in forming any conclusion on those questions lies in obtaining clear and definite information, and in the absence of such information Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to offer any decided opinion as to the merits of the various points at issue. There are, first of all, certain claims by the French Government for compensation for losses suffered by some French merchants and travellers in consequence of the action of the Siamese officials. These are not of large amount; but the French Government appear to have laid stress on these being satisfied as a preliminary to negotiation on more important matters, while the Siamese Government have made difficulties and objections which have not yet been withdrawn. There is, secondly, the question of frontier between France and Siam in or adjacent to the Mekong Valley. This is a question of a complicated character, on which Her Majesty's Government have not sufficient information to pronounce a definite opinion, and in which—provided it be kept within certain limits, and do not assume such proportions as to affect the independence and integrity of the Siamese Kingdom—Great Britain is not directly interested. There is, thirdly, the question of the capture of a French officer, Captain Thoreux, and the alleged murder of another with some Annamite soldiers. It is reported in the papers this morning that Captain Thoreux, whose liberation was promised by the Siamese Government some time ago, has now been actually conveyed into French territory and surrendered. In regard to the other incident, the facts are contested, and it is not known what the demands of the French Government may be. Fourthly, there is the forcible ascent of the Menam by two French gun vessels against the opposition of the Siamese Authorities. In regard to this act we are not at present in possession of all the facts, the information received by Her Majesty's Government being little, if at all, more than that which has appeared in the public Press. But there is reason to believe that it was contrary to the directions of the French Government and to

  1639
  the expressed wish of the French Representative at Bangkok. It is absolutely necessary to await more detailed information before an opinion can be pronounced on the merits of the question. Our last advices from Paris, however, state that the French Commanders positively assert that they were subjected to an unprovoked fire in the exercise of their undoubted right to ascend as far as Paknam. Fifthly, there is the question of the protection of British subjects and property and those of other European Powers at Bangkok. Her Majesty's Government have for some time past been making provision for this, and they are assured by the Naval Authorities that the arrangements are complete and the force sufficient. Should more ships be required they will be immediately available. Finally, there is the question of the independence and integrity of Siam. Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible that this is a subject of grave importance to the British, and more especially to the British Indian Empire; but the French Government declare themselves to be not less anxious than ourselves to maintain and respect that independence and integrity. Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter, and they will not lose any opportunity which may present itself of facilitating a satisfactory solution."

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, he had to move the Amendment which stood in his name, and he must explain it at some length, because the matter was not generally understood. He hoped their Lordships would not think it inappropriate that it should be moved by one who, until recently, had been an Alderman appointed by the Body which was promoting the Bill. The object of the Amendment was to restore to the Bill a provision that was inserted in the House of Commons, but which their Lordships' Committee had rejected. He would first impress upon their Lordships that this Motion was not made by the members of the London County Council out of their own heads, or to please themselves, but on behalf of the vast body of Londoners whose chosen servants and agents they were. It was not a new proposal by any means. It had been mooted for a quarter of a century and upwards, first through the imperfect representation of the Board of Works, and now through the more perfect representation of an elected Council. The desire of Londoners to act as a common body for their common interests and to
  1640
  have a voice in the local affairs which concerned those interests—very feeble, if they went back for a few years—had now grown very strong, and it increased in strength year by year. It was shown in the first Council elections in 1889, and it was shown still more emphatically in the second election of 1892, when those candidates were returned most decisively who held most clearly the doctrine that Londoners should have the main voice in those local affairs that were peculiar to themselves, and should have a voice in local affairs which concerned them, though they might not be peculiar to themselves. He was told that, sharply accentuated as were the differences in the London County Council on some points, there had been no dissentient voice heard on this point; and that was because the members knew that their constituents-wished the thing to be done, and would support them in their efforts to get it done. Then, he asked, was the Thames Conservancy a local matter affecting the interests of London? They had only to see what the functions of the Conservators were. They had power to make regulations about docks, piers, vessels discharging cargo and ballast or taking them in, and such matters as dredging the river, scouring it, cleansing it, and keeping it clean, embanking, and so forth. To put it briefly, they had large powers of regulation over the access to the river, the flow and volume of the river, the purity of the river, and its use for navigation and recreation. The River Thames flowed through London for 20 miles; and as London lay upon both banks, there were 40 miles of bank on which vast masses of Londoners dwelt. But London had interests far beyond the 20 or 4.0 miles. It was calculated that the basin of the Thames contained 6,500,000 inhabitants; and of these,. 4,500,000, or more than two-thirds, were Londoners. It was calculated again that of those 4,500,000 Londoners, 2,500,000 drank the water of the Thames and used it for all their domestic purposes; whereas of the outsiders who did the same they did not know the number, but they were stated not to amount to 1,000,000 people. The flow and the volume of the river deeply concerned the low-lying lands that were exposed to inundation. The purity of the river affected the health of the whole community; the

  1641
  access to it and the use of it affected the convenience and the business of the whole community. Now Londoners could, through their various Local Authorities, of whom the London County Council was the principal, execute various works having a bearing upon the Thames. They could embank and bay back floods so as to affect the volume and flow of the river; they could make bridges for which they must use the bed and also affect the flow of the river; they could make ferries, for which they would use the surface of the river; and as for its purity and the health of the population, which was dependent upon it, there was no subject which now so constantly engaged the attention of the Local Authorities of London. Thus he could show that Londoners had power relating to access to the river, its use, its quantity, and its quality, and the Thames Conservators had the very same. Therefore it was that Londoners asked to be a part of the Thames Conservancy. What request could be more reasonable? What request was likely to conduce more to the public welfare? It was so reasonable that he should not have made these remarks at length if he did not see in the voluminous evidence, which it had been his fate to read, the most persistent attempts to minimise and disparage the interest of London in this great matter, and to make out that it was a mere trivial interest, or even none at all. He would not labour it more now; but he would only anticipate a general assent to this proposition—that when they had a public administrative Body framed on the principle of representing a diversity of interests, it was a reasonable thing that the largest of all interests should be represented on that Body. That the Thames Conservancy was a Body framed on that principle was apparent from a very short review of its history. Before the year 1857 the only authorities were the Crown and the City of London. Quarrels arose, litigation, compromise, and in 1857 a body of Conservators was established. They were 12—seven from the City of London, two from the Trinity House, two from the Admiralty, and one named by the Privy Council. That was not found satisfactory, and in 1864 other interests were represented; six were added representing four private interests—the owners of ships, of tugs, of
  1642
  lighters, of river steamers, and of docks and wharves. That was done with respect to the Lower Thames—that was the river from Staines to Yantlet Creek mouth. But two years later it was thought right to combine the Conservancy of the Upper Thames with that of the Lower, and five more Conservators were added—one appointed by the Board of Trade and four appointed by a body which he should not describe inaccurately if he called them the riparian owners. So that they had a Body framed to represent those interests—the City of London, which he trusted their Lordships would not confuse with London, for the City was not London, and did not represent London, and its interests were very frequently adverse to those of London, but it was represented there, and riparian owners were represented, and public authorities concerned with navigation and with trade, and various private proprietors who were in the habit of using the river. Now they asked that a greater interest than any of these might be represented too. Then, he would ask, by what amount of authority was their proposal backed? Their Lordships would find it to be very considerable. As long ago as 1867 the Board of Trade addressed a letter to the Thames Conservancy, begging them to make arrangements to find room on their Body for nominees of the Metropolitan Board of Works. But nothing was done. Time ran on. The Board of Works did not forget the matter, but they did not prevail; and when they quitted office, and the County Council took their place, they handed on a strong and elaborate Memorandum which they had prepared for the purpose of agitating the question again. The County Council lost no time. He thought it was the first Bill they introduced in which they made the proposal for having seven nominees. He supposed they asked for seven because the City had seven; but he really did not know. So the matter stood. He was told that that Bill was considered a very ambitious Bill by the Treasury Authorities, and they pruned it severely; but they did not prune away this clause, and this clause went to the Committee of the House of Commons, of whom Sir Joseph Bailey was Chairman. That Committee recommended that the County Council should have five nominees upon the

  1643
  Thames Conservancy. Then the matter came into the House, and what was done in the House was very remarkable. Two Ministers of the Crown spoke—Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was at the Board of Trade, and Mr. Ritchie, who was at the Local Government Board. Neither of them objected to the proposal in principle. Both of them approved the proposal in principle; but they urged that there was a wider question—there were other interests, and they suggested that the matter should be put aside now, and that there should be a general inquiry next year, where all interests might be represented. He would now read a passage or two from what those right hon. Gentlemen said. Mr. Ritchie said that he was in favour of the Council being represented on the Conservancy Board; but he did not commit himself to the proposal in the Bill. Then he made the suggestion which he (Lord Hobhouse) had mentioned—that the whole question should be gone into upon a general inquiry. Mr. Ritchie said—
  "As the noble Lord (Lord Compton) has referred to me, I feel bound to say just one word upon the subject. The noble Lord is perfectly accurate in saying that I am distinctly in favour of the London County Council being represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. Having constituted a great Body like the London County Council, it ought to have something to say with regard to a river which runs through so large a portion of its district; but as to whether or not the representation proposed in this Bill is too large, whether it is adequate or inadequate, I do not express any opinion, and on that question I desire to withhold my opinion. I think the course suggested by my right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) is the right and proper course. It is quite clear that if the London County Council are to be represented on the Board there will be claims for representation on the part of other County Councils through whose district the river runs, and that they also should have representation given to them. That, I take it, would be the view of the London County Council also."
  And he (Lord Hobhouse) said it was the view, and always had been the view, of the London County Council—
  "And, that being so, I should deprecate the London County Council proceeding with these clauses this year."
  That was in 1890. The hope that was held out of an inquiry had not been realised at that moment—three years later—and so, in the present year, the Bill was renewed. The County Council again asked for seven nominees. The matter went to a Hybrid Committee of the
  1644
  House of Commons, nine in number, who proposed that they should have four nominees. That Committee made a Special Report; and the Report bore so strongly upon what he thought was the strongest objection urged against the proposal that, as it was short, he would take the liberty of reading it to their Lordships. The Committee said—
  "We are of opinion that reasons exist which make it desirable that the London County Council should be represented on the Thames Conservancy, and that they should have increased representation on the Lea Conservancy."
  Their Lordships would see that this Amendment did not relate to the Lea; but the two things were mixed up in the Report of the Committee. Then they said they wished to guard themselves against giving any opinion as to what should be the adequate representation to be given to other County Councils in the event of a general reconstruction, on the principle of giving representation to riparian owners by some future Parliamentary action. Then they went on to say they did not wish it to be supposed that the abstract claim of the London County Council to have a representation on the Thames Conservancy was not weaker than it was in 1890, when a Committee of that House, on which they were represented, agreed to a clause giving them five seats on that Board, and that they had thought it desirable to exercise caution with regard to the number of seats now allowed them by the Board, in order that nothing should be done now to make it difficult in case of future reconstruction to give, within limits, a total number of Conservators in either case. That seemed to him a very careful, well-balanced judgment. The Commissioners were impressed with the expediency of remodelling the Thames Conservancy, and with the likelihood of its being done before long; but they considered that there were preponderating reasons why they should not now hesitate to give the County Council its nominees. Those reasons were not stated, and he could only guess at them; but he assumed them to be the reasons which he had been assigning to their Lordships. Now he reached the last division of his case, and he asked what objections there were to the proposal? A great many Petitions

  1645
  were filed in opposition; there had been speeches made in the Council, and, of course, every conceivable objection had been made, besides some that were not so conceivable. He would pass over most of them, but there were two or three to which he must advert. First, he said the proceedings bristled with the suggestion that the Londoners had no grievances to complain of, and that, unless the Thames Conservancy Board had committed some fault, it ought not to be interfered with. He was glad to say that he had no such topic to bring forward. Those who had paid attention to the subject thought that the Conservancy would gain in power by the new element, and that they would display more energy of action, particularly with regard to the purity of the Thames, and they were confident that friction would be avoided in all those cases in which the two Bodies had to take action on the same object matters. It stood to reason that if two Bodies had to act upon the same object-matter it was better they should have a common link between them, and better that they should discuss arrangements before taking public action, and before committing themselves in public to particular views and to particular sides of a controversy, instead of doing it afterwards. With great deference to those who were constantly insisting upon this topic, he (Lord Hobhouse) protested against being told that a body like the Londoners must make charges of neglect and misconduct before they could ask to be represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. He denied that if they had a Body framed upon the principle of representing a diversity of interests, that when the greatest of those interests came forward to be represented they should be put to the invidious task of making and proving accusations. He would also make this remark—if that objection was good against their proposal, it was equally good against all proposals to interfere with the present constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board. And yet he had referred to what had been said from time to time by officials in Parliament; and he did not know a single official or a single section of Parliament which had been charged with the duty of specially attending to that matter who had expressed an opinion that the Thames Conservancy Board did not require recon-
  1646
  struction, or, indeed, which had not expressed an opinion to the contrary. He did not know how far their Lordships' Committee had attributed weight to that particular reason, for he had not had the advantage of seeing their reasons; but he did know that at every turn of the controversy it had been urged upon them, and he said that if they had attributed weight to it, it was a new objection in the mouth of such a Body, and that it would not stand the brunt of public discussion. There were other Bodies who came forward, whom he would treat together, because their objections ran upon the same ground. The riparian proprietors came and said they were in a minority of 4 in 23, and they did not wish to be in a minority of 4 in 27, and they accused the London County Council of trying to control the affairs of the Thames; and the riparian County Councils came and said that they were not represented at all, that they had as good a right to be represented as the Londoners had, and they also accused the London County Council of aiming to control the affairs of the Thames, and to exclude other people. His answer was this: As regarded control and exclusion, there was not the smallest pretence for saying that the County Council or any of their advocates had at any time set up any such claim. They excluded nobody; they only asked to have a voice or a few voices, if their Lordships liked to put it so, among a great many in that affair which so much concerned them. And as to representation, what might be the case with the riparian owners—whether they had too little or not—he did not know. They had four members, which were all that the Londoners were asking for; and he really could not tell whether they ought to have more. But as to the riparian owners, he said that they had a good claim—and the London Council had always said that they had a good claim. But it was a claim they had never put forward except for the purpose of excluding the London Council. The moment they put forward their claim in a positive shape, he thought he might say he would undertake—at all events he felt perfectly confident—that they would meet, not with opposition, but with support from any body of Londoners, including the London County Council. But when they opposed

  1647
  the County Council, not because they were injured by the Bill, but because it did not give them what they had never asked for, he thought that it was not a worthy objection, and he trusted that the House would attribute no weight to it. Of course, the Londoners could not put forward the claim of the other counties, and the House of Commons' Committee-dealt with that matter specially in their Report. They could not deal with that claim until it was made; but the moment that it was made the matter would stand upon a different footing. Well, really those objections led up to one of greater weight, which was this: that that was not the time or occasion for making alterations in the Thames Conservancy; that it should be done in a Thames Conservancy Bill, where all interests might be better represented, though it seemed to him they had been very fully represented before the Committee of that House. That was the objection which prevailed in the year 1890, and which pressed very much upon the House of Commons this year; and possibly—he did not know that—but possibly it was the ground of the decision of their Lordships' Committee. He would be uncandid if he did not confess that the objection had a great deal of reason in it, so much that it might guide the judgment of a reasonable man. But their Lordships would remember that the House of Commons had it all before them, that they dealt with it specially in their Report, and that they thought it was overborne by other considerations. He agreed with them, and he urged upon their Lordships that, notwithstanding that fairly good reason against their proposal, there were far stronger and better reasons in favour of it. Those were the reasons which he had been endeavouring to explain, and he would briefly summarise them thus:—The Thames Conservancy was a composite Representative Body for representing a diversity of interests; Londoners were far the vastest and densest mass of persons who had an interest in the matter. The local affairs of the two touched one another at various points; therefore it was desirable that the Governing Bodies should be in touch with one another. Londoners desired it; they had asked it for 25 years and more. It was a reasonable desire and a healthy desire; it had been favourably received
  1648
  by officials of all sections of the Legislature, and had never been unfavourably received. In 1890 it was put off for the reason that he was dealing with now; but the hope then held out of its comprehensive treatment had proved futile to that day. Every year that passed did not weaken the reasons for representing the County Council, but strengthened them; and their strength was now so fully felt that this year, at last, they had the House of Commons with them. He hoped that they would not again be put off by this prospect of a perfect reconstruction of the Thames Conservancy Board—a reconstruction which he admitted to be reasonable, which he admitted to be desirable, but which they could not bring about, and which, he believed, was more likely to be brought about by the infusion into the Body of a new and energetic element than by any other means.
  Moved, in Preamble, page 1, after line 3, to insert—
  (20 & 21 VICT. c. CXLVII.)
  "And whereas the Council have various duties and obligations with regard to the banks of the River Thames and the prevention of floods, and are otherwise interested in the flow of the river and purity of the water and the conservancy thereof."
  "And whereas the inhabitants of London have no direct representation on the Thames Conservancy Board, constituted under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, and the Acts amending the same, and it is expedient that the Council should be empowered to appoint members of the Thames Conservancy Board as hereinafter provided:
  And in page 5, after Clause 2, to insert the following clauses:—
  (REPRESENTATION OF COUNCIL ON THAMES CONSERVANCY BOARD.)
  "(2A.) From and after the passing of this Act the number of the Conservators of the River Thames shall be 27 instead of 23, and the additional Conservators may be elected as hereinafter provided:—

  (1.) It shall be lawful for the Council to elect four persons out of their own body to be Conservators, and the several persons so elected shall hold office as Conservators only so long as they continue to be members of the Council;

  (2.) The first, Conservators to be elected by the Council may be elected at any time after the passing of this Act, and such Conservators and any other persons appointed in their place shall, if they continue to be Members of the Council, remain in office until the second meeting of the Council in the month of November,

  1649
  one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four, when they shall retire and a fresh election shall take place, but such retiring members shall, if they continue members of the Council, be re-eligible;

  (3.) The Conservators to be subsequently elected by the Council shall be elected triennially at the second meeting of the Council in November of every third year, and shall remain in office until the next triennial day of election, if they shall so long continue members of the Council;

  (4.) Any Conservator so elected retiring from office at any triennial day of election and continuing to be a member of the Council shall be re-eligible;

  (5.) Any vacancy in the office of Conservator occasioned by the death, resignation, removal, or disqualification of any member so elected shall be filled up with all convenient speed by the election of a new Conservator by the Council, who shall retire at the same date as the Conservator in whose place he is appointed would have retired.

  "The additional Conservators elected by the Council shall (subject to the provisions of this Act and as from the passing thereof) severally have the same powers, functions, duties, privileges, and obligations as other Conservators under the Acts relating to the conservancy of the River Thames, and shall form part of the corporate body of the Conservators of the River Thames.
  (THAMES CONSERVANCY ACTS, &C. TO REMAIN UNAFFECTED.)
  "(2B.) All the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Acts or of any other Act relative to the powers, functions, duties, privileges, obligations, or proceedings of the Thames Conservators as a body, and all acts and proceedings done, taken, or pending by, against, or in relation to the Conservators as a body, shall remain unaffected by the addition to and incorporation with that body of the four Conservators added by this Act, and (except only as is in this Act expressly otherwise provided) shall in all respects continue and be as if this Act had not been passed."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, after the very lengthened statement to which their Lordships had listened, and with the knowledge that there was a subject of great importance to be discussed later on that evening, he would be as brief as possible in replying to the point which had been raised by the noble Lord opposite, and in asking their Lordships to affirm the decision which their Committee came to upon this Bill. He was somewhat at a loss to know whom the noble Lord represented—whether he represented himself alone. He supposed he did, because he (the Duke of Richmond) did not imagine that he had any commission from the County Council to act on their behalf.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, he was instructed by them, and asked by them, to move the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Lord would be kind enough to explain to him—because to him it was a perfect mystery—what had taken place in the County Council within a very short time on that very matter. He found, upon the adjourned Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council which sat upon the 27th June, paragraph 4 of the Report, which raised objection to the proceedings of the Committee to which he had the honour to be Chairman, and went into the various points, was withdrawn. It said that of the only three matters upon which there was serious objection were the representation sought by the County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board, and the additional representation on the Lea Conservancy—he need not go into the other, because that was abandoned—the proposal for the representation on the Thames Conservancy Board was opposed on behalf of the Thames Conservators. Then it went on to say that, in the event of their Lordships making important Amendments in the General Powers Bill, the Representatives of the Council in the House of Commons should be requested to oppose the Amendments when the Bill returned to that House. Then there was an Amendment to that Report; but the Amendment was lost and the Motion was carried, and it was resolved accordingly, and then—and this was the point which he should like the noble Lord to explain, because he did not understand it—it went on and said—
  "The Vice Chairman of the Committee who brought up the Report withdrew, by leave of the Council, paragraph 4."
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he could tell the noble Duke how that was.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was dealing with the noble Lord opposite at present.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he was a member of the Council, and he knew all about it.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, that he knew nothing whatever about it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he might take it to be the fact that the noble Lord was moving the rejection of the conclusion which they arrived at knowing nothing about it. He told him

  1651
  (the Duke of Richmond) that he was acting on behalf of the County Council; and now, when he pointed out to him that the Vice Chairman of the Committee of the County Council had withdrawn that very clause which he was now advocating, he said that he knew nothing whatever about it. He did not think that was a proper way of dealing with the decision of the Committee of their Lordships' House. In the first place, he should, in a very few words, ask their Lordships to reject the Amendment of the noble Lord, and to adhere to the decision of the Committee. In the first place, the Committee were unanimous; in the second place, they heard everybody who desired to be heard with the greatest possible attention, and he might say patience; they refused no evidence whatever; they allowed the parties to bring forward everything on either side that could strengthen their case and could put before them the information which they desired to have before they came to a conclusion, and, as he said before, the decision of the Committee was unanimous. He thought it would be a bad thing for the House to reject the decision of a Committee unless there could be shown to be some ground for rejecting their decision—unless it could be shown that they had excluded evidence, that they had not allowed the counsel to explain the different points to them at so much length as they desired, and that the Committee had acted, he might really say, not with bona fides, and without giving the best of their attention to the subject-matter before them. He thought their Lordships ought to uphold the decision of the Committee, or it would not be very easy to find noble Lords to serve on Committees if, after they had worked hard and done their best, a Motion was to be made by a noble Lord who said he knew nothing about it to upset the decision of that Committee. That was why, upon general grounds, he thought their Lordships ought to uphold the decision of the Committee. What was asked by the noble Lord? In the first place, it was a point, though he did not seem to think so, that the Thames Conservancy had done its work admirably. He would not go into the history of it, because the noble Lord went into it at some length, but in 1864, 1866, and 1867, Acts of Parliament were passed, out of which the
  1652
  Thames Conservancy resulted; 200 miles of the Thames were under the Thames Conservancy, and that touched no less than nine County Councils. The London County Council had, by the Act of 1888, power to initiate Private Bills; and they were the only County Council who had that power. The noble Lord said that no other County Councils had come forward in the matter. For the best possible reason, that they had not the power to do so. The County Councils, other than the County Council of London, could not initiate private legislation. He desired to call their Lordships' attention to the style of legislation and the manner in which this was dealt with. The proposal was to entirely alter the constitution of the Thames Conservancy, a constitution which, after public inquiry, was agreed to. The number of members of the Board was decided after considerable inquiry was made; the last time, he thought, was in 1866. The noble Lord said that this matter had been frequently before Parliament; but he thought that rather weakened his case, because it showed that each time they came before Parliament, Parliament rejected their proposals. He concluded they would think that was unanswerable, and that they did not think that was the mode in which the constitution of the Thames Conservancy ought to be dealt with. The proposal was to alter the constitution of the Thames Conservancy by a clause in a Private Bill. As he had said before, there was no other County Council in England which had power to initiate legislation; and he asked their Lordships to listen for a moment to the sort of Bill in which the revolutionising of the constitution of the Thames Conservancy was attempted. First of all, it was to provide for representation, then—
  "To empower the Council to prohibit or regulate the creation of dwelling-houses on lowlands subject to floods; to confer powers on the Council with respect to their procedure, prevention of epidemic diseases, the requiring of Returns, the re-arrangement of wards, compensation to workmen, and electric lighting, and leasing of lands";
  and then, though one would hardly expect to find it in a proposed re-constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board, it provided—
  "Against the giving of false alarms of fire, to extend and explain the powers of the Council

  1653
  with respect to sky signs, and with respect to bands, and to confer certain powers on Vestries and District Boards."
  His point was that that was not the style of Bill out of which a re-constitution ought to come. The noble Lord thought it not very reasonable that one should take up the point that the Thames Conservancy had done a remarkably good work, and that, in fact, no fault could be found with the manner in which the Thames Conservancy had done the work allotted to it. Therefore, he said, of the Thames Conservancy—that if no fault could be found with the Thames Conservancy on account of the manner in which they had carried on their duties—if nothing could be urged against them that they had neglected their duties, that they had not taken every possible care of the conservancy of the river, then he said they had no right to alter that constitution by a clause in a Private Bill, which was not the mode of dealing with the question. The late Deputy Chairman of the London County Council stated before the Committee of the House of Commons that he had no charge to make against the Conservancy, and could not lay his finger on a single action on which the Conservators had not done their duty. In 1891, before Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee, Lord Farrer stated he gave the Conservators every credit for taking all the pains in their power, and that from his knowledge of the Conservators he was satisfied they had done whatever was in their power. The engineer of the London County Council stated that he was often surprised the Conservators had been able to do as much as they had; and, in addition to that, the counsel who was advocating the Bill said he had no allegations to make against the Conservators. Then, he said, when they found a Public Body who was doing work in the manner which all parties agreed the Thames Conservancy had done theirs, that was not the sort of Bill in which they ought to alter their constitution. If there was a necessity for any alteration in the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board—and he was not there to say, one way or the other, whether it was desirable or not—he said the re-constitution of that Board ought to be done after full public inquiry by some Government Department in
  1654
  which every person interested would have the opportunity of being heard, and of stating his views upon the matter. The noble Lord had gone into the various duties which devolved on the London County Council. He thought, he said, they were interested in the banks of the river, in the prevention of floods, in the various bridges crossing the river, that a large population derived their supply of water from the Thames; but all that was not peculiar to the London County Council, because the Surrey County Council might have said exactly the same thing. The Surrey County Council constituents had a large supply of water from the Thames. That County Council owned bridges across the river, they had a large and increasing population, and they were interested in the prevention of floods. They had, therefore, an equal right to be represented; but they could not bring forward their case, because they had no right to initiate Private Bills, He said, therefore, if they were going to alter the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board, they should do it by a public inquiry, where everybody interested would be represented, and where justice would be done, and that they should not alter the balance of representation on the Thames Conservancy Board by means of a Private Bill to add four members which would alter the representation entirely which was come to in 1866. He would, therefore, ask their Lordships, for the reasons which he had advanced, and which he thought it wiser not to set out at greater length, to reject the proposal of the noble Lord opposite.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he intended to leave the task of answering the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) to his noble Friend Lord Farrer. The only reason he rose was to allay the apprehension in the mind of the noble Duke with regard to the resolution of the London County Council as regarded Clause 4 of that Report. He was present at the Council, and it was withdrawn at his suggestion. For this reason, because he thought it would be more respectful to their Lordships' House if they heard the noble Duke's reasons why his Committee disagreed with the unanimous votes of the Commons Committee of nine before they instructed their repre-

  1655
  sentatives to move in this matter. He would only say one word more. The noble Duke said the Committee in that House was unanimous. Considering the very high reputation and high standing of the noble Duke in that House he was not at all surprised that the Report was unanimous; for if the noble Duke was very strongly of any particular opinion he could hardly imagine that it was likely noble Lords of far less experience and standing would care to differ from the opinion of the noble Duke, whose experience and position in that House were so high. He hoped he had made the matter clear that the London County Council, instead of wishing to show disrespect to their Lordships' House, was induced at his request, out of respect to their Lordships' House, to forego the consideration of that clause to which he had alluded.
  LORD TURINGsaid, he wished to say a few words on behalf of Surrey, though the case had been put so extremely well by the noble Duke opposite. He would detain their Lordships but a very few minutes. The County of Surrey, as the noble Duke had said, was quite as much, even more, interested in the Thames than the County of London. It had 28 miles of shore. And then, beyond that, there were other counties which were all interested in the river, and all for the same reasons. Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Berks, Bucks, Oxfordshire, and Gloucestershire—all these counties were desirous of being represented, and he thought justly so, on the Thames Conservancy Board. Then they were told by the noble Lord that the County of London did not wish to oppose the other counties; but the noble Duke had explained why the County of Surrey had not been able to bring forward their case, because they were not allowed, while the London County Council was allowed, to initiate a Private Bill. If the County of London was really so zealous a champion of the rights of other counties, why had not they included them in the Bill? Then they would have really shown themselves to be the champions of county interests. What had the County of London done? They had endeavoured to get a clause for their county only into a General Powers Bill. And why was it opposed by the other counties? Not in the least because they did not wish London to be properly represented, but because
  1656
  they knew very well that, if the County of London was represented, that county would, on the principle of quieta non movere—having got all they wished for, be glad enough to let things remain quiet. That was why the other counties did not wish such a clause introduced into a Bill of this description. Then besides that, the circumstances had been entirely changed since the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board. They made noallegation against that Board—they did not blame it; they did not say it had done wrong or was in fault. But they said this: that if at the time that Act was passed County Councils had been established, as a matter of course Riparian Councils would have been represented on the Board; and they asked that in case any change were made in this Board all Riparian Councils should be represented. And how did they ask that that should be done? They asked that it should be done by a Committee of Inquiry next Session—as he supposed it was too late to appoint it now this Session—with the view of re-constituting the Thames Conservancy Board, in order that the London County Council and all the other Riparian Councils might be justly and fairly represented.
  LORD FARRERsaid, he could assure his noble Friend who had just sat down, that as a Surrey man, as well as a London Alderman—that if Surrey came forward another year, or if there was another opportunity, which there certainly would be after the Report of the present Water Commission, of altering the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board, that the London County Council would give them every assistance in procuring adequate representation. The Surrey County Council were endeavouring to purify the River Wey, as he knew to his cost, and not very satisfactorily as far as things had gone; but at present they were doing their best, though their best had not come to much. He should not have ventured to speak upon this subject if it had not been that it was one he was conversant with during the whole period which he passed at the Board of Trade—a period on which he looked back with much pleasure—when he served under the noble Duke opposite; and it was a curious fate that—he should have kept silence if there were no other obligations to the contrary—his first duty in that

  1657
  House should have been to oppose him. When the Thames Conservancy was first established it was not only a movement in London, but it was a movement which pervaded the country to take the management of the great harbours out of the hands of the Municipalities and to place them in the hands of persons who should represent the trade. He was glad to say that in order that he might dissociate himself from certain wild schemes that the County Council or Bodies of that sort should undertake the management of the Lower River. Everything pointed to a very different solution entirely—namely, a separate Board which should manage the Lower Thames navigation, and a Board which should control the Upper Thames, in which the interests were quite different. He remembered well the Upper Thames being placed in the hands of the Thames Conservancy. The circumstances were these. The Upper Thames was in the hands of Commissioners, a helpless, numerous body, who, in consequence of the claims of mill owners and claims of railroads, had become hopelessly insolvent. They applied to the Conservators of the Lower River to undertake their task, and he had no complaint to make of the way in which they discharged their duty; but he had no hesitation in saying that if the London County Council had existed at that time, and if the other County Councils had existed, the Upper River would not have been placed in the hands of the Thames Conservators. When the Thames Conservators got hold of this Upper River what did they find? They found a hopelessly insolvent concern. The navigation did not pay; the tolls would not pay for its maintenance, and they looked about them and made an arrangement with the Water Companies. The Water Companies paid them certain sums, not for the purchase of water, which the Conservators had no right to sell, but in consideration of the sums paid them, which, of course, came out of the pockets of the consumers, the ratepayers of London, that sum amounting now to about £80,000 a year. He should like to know how much of it had been spent on purifying the water of the Thames?—for that was the consideration for the large sum which they were to receive. He did not say that they had misused that sum, but he said that it had
  1658
  not gone exactly as it might have done for the benefit of the water consumers of London. He made no charge against the Thames Conservancy. Their accounts did not enable them to pull them to pieces. He merely asked what had been done really for the purification of the Thames? He should say a very small amount. What were the interests of the Upper Thames? First of all, there were the riparian owners; secondly, there was the navigation, which had become so small as to be almost neglected; thirdly, there was the fact that the Thames was the great play place for those living in the Valley of the Thames, and for Londoners especially—that was a very large London interest; fourthly—and by far the largest interest—the fact that the Thames afforded the largest part of the water which the inhabitants of London consumed and paid for—that was out and out the largest interest. It was to the interest of the Thames Conservancy to keep that water pure. It was a curious fact that on the Thames Conservancy there was not one person who represented the water consumers of London. There were the persons who represented the navigation of the Lower Thames, and very properly represented them. There were the nominees of the Government Department, who no doubt did their duty, but, as he testified, were originally appointed with a view to navigation and trade. Thirdly, there was the City. Now, that might be said to represent London, but it did not represent the County of London or the inhabitants of London. The inhabitants of the City of London—the permanent inhabitants who used the water—were 37,000 as against upwards of 4,000,000. A curious thing was that the City itself did not consume the water of the Thames. It consumed the Now River water, which did not come from the Thames at all. Therefore this greatest interest—far and away the greatest interest in the Upper Thames—was totally unrepresented on the Thames Conservancy; and he defied his noble Friend to say that there was any interest at all comparable to that of the water consumers of London. Consider what the interests were. What were the interests of riparian proprietors? The interest of a person who lived below him was that the water should be pure. He knew very well

  1659
  that on the Wey the Surrey County Council were endeavouring to purify the stream. They were all glad to put their own drains into the river, but they wished to prevent those above them from putting their drains into the river. That was, on a great scale, the case with London. London was at the foot of this great river, and the riparian proprietors had the natural desire to act in a selfish way and to drain into the river; and the natural interest of the water consumers of London was to prevent those drains going into the river. But then they were told that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander; the London County Council turned their sewage into the Thames, and, therefore, the Essex and the Kent people had the same claim as against the riparian proprietors above. That was true, he thought, to this extent—that the Thames Conservancy had done good service by protecting the navigation of the river in connection with the old Metropolitan Board of Works; and he wished to see the Thames Conservancy so re-constructed as to make a powerful body representing navigation able to hold their own against the City or Councils, whatever they might be. But there was this enormous difference between the river below and the river above—Essex and Kent did not drink the water of the Lower Thames as London drank the water of the Thames which came from the upper part. Surrey did not drink any of the water which London polluted with its sewage. All the water that Surrey drank came from above London. That was, upon the grounds of the purity of the water alone, a most important consideration. But then, it was said, what would putting four persons upon the Thames Conservancy Board do to protect the purity of the water? There were many things that they could not do. They could not give them money for the purpose; they could not extend the jurisdiction. If the Thames Conservators were ever so willing to do their duty, their jurisdiction was limited—their money was limited. Their jurisdiction did not extend more than 10 miles from the place where any effluent entered the Thames, and a great many of the effluents were very different 10 miles out. Their jurisdiction did not extend above Guild-
  1660
  ford, and the water below Guildford was like dirty soap-suds. That could not be cured. What could be done was to put members of the County Council on the Thames Conservancy, and to see that the Thames Conservancy should do all they could to consult them and to help to prepare the necessary measures which the new Board might propose. There must be a new Board constituted, after Lord Balfour's Commission had reported, to inquire and prepare the measures for that purpose. He felt very strongly upon this point, because he knew that in the London County Council and amongst the members of the London Council there was a very strong feeling indeed about it. Nothing would give cause for deeper regret than any feeling on the part of the London County Council or of their constituents that their interests or their feelings did not receive full consideration in that House. He should regret that most deeply as a member of both; and he should regret it the more because he knew very well, from his personal knowledge of some of the Members of the Committee that had decided this point, that such an impression would be entirely unfounded.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MOTLEY)said, he would detain the House but a very short time. They had listened to two interesting and somewhat lengthy speeches which appeared to him to make a very strong case for an inquiry into the constitution of the Thames Conservancy. But the point which was really before the House did not seem to be much affected by them—indeed, if he might take for example the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Hobhouse), it seemed to him that the noble Lord's own argument was very much stronger in favour of the conclusion at which the Committee had arrived than of the Amendment which he had moved. The question was whether the House was prepared to cancel the decision at which the Committee had arrived. He believed their Lordships very rarely took that course, and then only when it was quite clear that the evidence which could be adduced had not been adduced, or that by some accident a decision had been given contrary to the evidence. Nothing of the kind had occurred in the present case. The Committee had been most

  1661
  patient; it had listened to the whole of the evidence; it had had the whole case before it; and he ventured to think it would be a mistake if their Lordships, having only an ex parte statement, should reverse the decision of the Committee, arrived at after a full consideration of the question, and having heard the arguments for and against the representation of the London County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board. Of course, there might be other grounds for modifying a decision which had been arrived at by the Private Bill Committee. There might be public rights and private interests which might override the decision which the Committee might rightly arrive at. He did not himself think—and he thought the House would agree with him—that any such case had been made out on the present occasion. He was inclined to think the London County Council ought to be represented on the Thames Conservancy Board, and he thought it was highly probable that other Bodies should be represented upon it; but for one of the Bodies, which asked representation upon that Body by a Bill of its own, to introduce representatives upon that large and important Body, and so to upset the equilibrium of that Body, seemed to him to be altogether a wrong principle. It seemed to him, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had stated, that it was a case which called for public inquiry. The whole of the constitution of the Thames Conservancy might fairly be inquired into; and then the case of the London County Council, and of other Bodies which required representation upon it, would be fairly considered. He might add one further argument in this direction, and it was that since 1867, when the Thames Conservancy was created, the constitution of that Body had been altered by Public and not by Private Acts. He would only venture to urge upon the House the extreme undesirability of disturbing a decision of its Committee deliberately arrived at in a case like the present, which was clearly a matter which ought to be dealt with by public and not by private legislation.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, and having regard to the evident feeling of the House, he should not think it right to put
  1662
  the House to the trouble of dividing; but if he might, he would strongly urge the noble Earl the Leader of the House (the Earl of Kimberley) to move the Government to speedy action, or at least to speedy consideration of the subject, with a view to that general inquiry which he gathered from the noble Duke was the most adequate mode of dealing with this case.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYcalled attention to the Administration of Justice in Ireland, and particularly to the proceedings during the present Assizes in Clare and other counties. He said it would be in their Lordships' recollection that some 10 days ago the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) moved the Adjournment of the House of Commons in order to discuss the Charge of the learned Judge of Assize at the recent Assizes for the County of Clare. He himself considered that the Adjournment was most important and necessary; but the Debate that ensued was by no means of a satisfactory character. He must confess that he viewed with no surprise the action of Her Majesty's Government. On that occasion they pursued that policy for which they had been remarkable during the year they had been responsible for the government of Ireland. They pursued a policy of evasion and concealment. He ventured to think that the Chief Secretary must have known that when a Charge of such importance as that delivered by the learned Judge at the Clare Assizes was published the Unionist Members in the House of Commons and the Unionist Members of their Lordships' House would lose no time whatever in raising a discussion on a Charge of so important and serious a character. But when the hon. Member for South Tyrone raised the discussion on this Charge the Chief Secretary declared that, having had no notice, he was not in a position to discuss the question fully, and, if the expression might be used, he virtually de-

1663
clared that a mine had been sprung upon him. For one moment he would diverge, and would point to the contrast between the conduct of Mr. Morley and that of his predecessor, the present Leader of the Opposition. Time after time the Adjournment of the House was moved at a moment's notice in order to attack Her Majesty's then Government; but Mr. Balfour never failed to repel the attack made upon him, and to repel it in a manner that gave satisfaction to his friends and dire and litter discomfort to his opponents. But Mr. Balfour had one advantage which Mr. Morley had not: he was able to quote as his motto, "Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just;" and he ventured to say that not even Mr. Morley would dare to say that, with regard to his administration, he could erect such a motto. He knew that during the administration of the late Unionist Government there were many incidents that occurred of a regrettable character; but there was not one single action of the Government or of the Irish Executive 6f which they were ashamed, or the discussion of which they tried to evade as Mr. Morley had done. As to concealment, they carried that even further. The other day the late Solicitor General attempted to carry on the Debate on the County of Clare; but with the sanction, he presumed, of Mr. Morley, who wished to throw dust in the eyes of the English people, the discussion raised by Mr. Carson was closured. Under these circumstances, he thought he owed no apology to their Lordships for bringing before them the condition of the County of Clare and the prostitution of the law there as shown by the Judge of Assize. The recent Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson was of a most extraordinary and peculiar character, because it bore out almost to the letter the Charge of his predecessor at the Assizes in March last. He had the honour and privilege of knowing Mr. Justice Gibson, and he could say from his own knowledge—and he defied contradiction from any of the many Members of the House of Commons who knew Mr. Justice Gibson when he was a Law Officer, Solicitor General and afterwards Attorney General—that it would be impossible to find a Judge of more moderate and temperate sentiments than that Judge. In his opening address to the Grand Jury
1664
of the County of Clare Mr. Justice Gibson said—
"It was impossible to escape the conclusion from reading the Returns that there was a widespread system of intimidation and of crime which led up to terror. His Lordship was afraid that intimidation was not only the intimidation of prosecutors and witnesses, but it might be found to infect and invade the jury-boxes; but, whether this was so or not, it reached a very formidable situation where prosecutions would be rendered abortive, because of the hardihood of criminals. It tended to relax—his Lordship did not say it did relax—the efforts of the police, and in those few cases in which prosecutors would be willing to come forward prosecution would be made impossible, for who would prosecute where he knew that instead of bringing his oppressor or attempted assassin to justice he would only infuriate the passion of the parties, and that his prosecution of them would make it certain that he would be attacked again? They were sometimes told that nothing' could be done where prosecutors would not prosecute; but when he knew that the prosecution could not succeed, it was a sad and scandalous state of society where the law could not be enforced. It might be better that there should be no law than a semblance of law."
The forecast of the learned Judge was singularly accurate. The Assizes showed that there was no want of conviction in cases of an ordinary character, but that there was a want of conviction in cases of agrarian crime. There were two of such cases; the first was a case of resisting the Sub-Sheriff, in which six men were charged. There was no evidence for the defence. The jury found a verdict of "Not Guilty," upon which the learned Judge said—
"I am afraid that verdict is a great scandal in the administration of justice."
If that case had been tried in another county before a jury who had not been intimidated and terrorised there could be no doubt that these men would have been convicted and brought to justice. In the other case five men were prosecuted for alleged unlawful assembly. Again, Mr. Justice Gibson, in his Charge, said there was a conclusive case against the defendants in respect of unlawful assembly. The jury retired, and another case was taken. They returned into Court with a verdict of "Not Guilty." Mr. Justice Gibson asked—
"Is the present case the same as the last?" Mr. Adams (the clerk).—"Yes, my Lord." Mr. Justice Gibson thereupon said—"What is the use of going on with it? There is no use, as far as I can see, in continuing this. We are engaged in a solemn comedy at present. What is the use of wasting time with them if they are all the same? Mr. Murphy said—"Perhaps this is

1665
a better jury"; but Mr. Justice Gibson said—"Such a travesty of justice is perfectly melancholy. I will take a full note of this case. I will only say that a great responsibility rests on someone for this."
The responsibility rested with Her Majesty's Government, and with no one else. They had been warned time after time, and they had at last found out that the law was absolutely prostituted in the County of Clare; but they had gone out of their way to disregard those warnings. He himself had, at the opening of the Session, drawn attention to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant, supported by a vast majority of Magistrates, had passed a resolution calling upon the Government to revive the clauses of the Crimes Act which they had relaxed without consulting anybody, and especially the people living in the County of Clare, although they had consulted their present allies who were keeping them in Office. The learned Judge, at the last March Assizes, said that he was constrained to arrive at the conclusion that a certain system of intimidation was degenerating the whole framework of society in the County of Clare. It had reached the jury-box and it had reached the witness-box, and he concluded—
"In mercy to the jurymen themselves, in mercy to those men who, as I have seen in this Court, stand between terrorism and their own consciences, and for the sake of security to life and property in this county, some means must be found, and I trust will be found, to remove the administration of the Criminal Law altogether out of the county."
A more solemn warning was never given to any Government. But Her Majesty's Government had had more recent warnings than that. On June 13 last, at Quarter Sessions, Judge Kelly said he did not think such a state of things existed in any other country in the world. It was the fault of someone; but who was to blame he did not know. Trial by jury was a farce. Mr. Morley in the House of Commons treated the remarks of the Judges in a manner almost insulting. Judge Kelly was thought very highly of in the South of Ireland, and, knowing the condition of County Clare, was stating his experience when he spoke, and if Mr. Morley continued to denounce and insult the Judges in Ireland, then he would be doing everything in his power to render assistance to criminals. He would go further, and say that if Her
1666
Majesty's Ministers had half the courage of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland there would not be this disgraceful state of things in that country. He did not think anyone, after these statements of the Judges, and after this prostituting of the law, could have any doubt that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to revive the clauses which they suspended at the dictation of their Irish allies, and certainly that clause which enabled them to change the venue of a trial. How much longer were the Government going to carry on this farce, for farce it was? They had set the most pernicious example; they allowed jurymen to utterly to ignore their oaths in open Court; they allowed crime proved and detected to go unpunished, and through their action criminals of the worst class might rely upon committing crime with impunity. It would be far better that the Government should cease to prosecute than allow the present state of things to continue, for they were only stultifying the law and incurring an absolutely useless, expenditure. It was no answer to say that crime was no worse in County Clare now than it was when they took Office. If the Government knew the county to be in an unsatisfactory condition when they undertook the government of the country they should not have relaxed any of the powers that would have enabled them to bring criminals to justice. He admitted that the county was never in a perfectly satisfactory condition, but it never was in such a bad condition as it was at the present time. He gathered from Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge at the last Assizes that very serious moonlighting outrages had been classed under the head of intimidation; and that was confirmed by a resolution of the Grand Jury entering a most emphatic protest against the way in which crimes were entered and classified. In that resolution the Grand Jury said—
"We are of opinion that many crimes of a serious character have been minimised by being entered under the head of intimidation."
He wanted to know why these White-boy offences should be described in a misleading manner as intimidation? Answering a question as to that, the Chief Secretary said—
"I wish, once for all, to state that the classification of offences in Ireland is performed by

1667
the same persons who have performed the duty for many years past, and precisely on the same principle."
But in a letter he had received from Colonel Turner, late Divisional Magistrate, it was said—
"In spite of what Mr. Morley stated, there has been a grave departure from the practice which prevailed under the late Government as to the designation of serious crimes, firing at the person, and into houses. Those were never put under the head of intimidation."
It was the duty of the noble Earl opposite either to deny the statement of the Judge and the Grand Jury, or to defend the action of the Government in concealing serious crime under the head of intimidation. Dealing with the state of Kerry, he maintained that when the Government took Office they found that county in a peaceful and law-abiding condition, and in support of that statement he would quote the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien at the Summer Assizes of 1892. Therefore, upon the Government must rest the responsibility for the moonlighting which now existed in Kerry. The same might be said of Limerick. Absolutely peaceful when the Government entered on the administration of Irish affairs, that county had degenerated into a lawless and disgraceful condition. The Charge of the learned Judge showed that while the cases returned for trial were only 4 as against 10 in the last corresponding period, the number of cases specially reported had increased from 36 to 53; and he went on to say he was much struck by the fact that in a very large proportion of those cases, some of them of a most serious character, no persons had been made amenable, and he concluded by saying "whatever be the cause the result is lamentable." He had shown that the law was prostituted in these three counties, because juries would not dare to convict. What steps did the Government propose to take? Were they going to permit this scandalous state of affairs to continue, with the result that crime inevitably must increase, because every criminal knew that he could commit crime with impunity? The Chief Secretary had stated the other day in the House of Commons that if he were persuaded of the necessity, no matter what the mortification might be to himself, he would not hesitate to revive the clause with regard to change of venue. What further persuasion did
1668
the right hon. Gentleman want? The country was crying out to the Government to take steps to bring about a change in the lawless condition of these three counties. The Government had the power, and he would give them credit for having the will, but they had not the courage to put an end to the present state of things. They knew that if they offended in the slightest degree that body of men who kept them in power their termination of Office would speedily arrive. Ministers were now truckling to the men whom they once imprisoned without trial, and who had denounced them more violently than they did the Members of the late Government. He declared honestly, solemnly, and conscientiously that he would rather beg his bread in the streets of London from that moment to his dying day than hold Office under conditions so contemptible, so hateful, and so degrading. But the day was not far distant when the Government would have to appeal to a tribunal far higher than Parliament—that of public opinion, when they would find that the cause of those wretched people who had always stood by them would appeal to the English electorate, and he believed the English electorate would show that they regarded the victims of the boycotters and the moonlighters as the victims of the Government, who would not raise a finger to save them. He had been accused of using violent language in their Lordships' House; but he declared he had never done so in a Debate of a political and controversial character, for he was not so narrow-minded as not to give every one of his fellow-men credit for the principles he held; but this was not a political or controversial matter. It was the prostitution of law and the encouragement of crime in Ireland. There was no man with a spark of manliness or human kindness in his breast, no matter to what Party he belonged, who did not look with horror at the outrages perpetrated in the County of Clare, with disgust at the prostitution of the law, and with contempt on the Government for not endeavouring to stop such a state of things by reviving those clauses which, in a moment of temporary aberration he would call it, they had determined to drop. On behalf of his noble Friends

1669
from Ireland, and of himself, he endorsed every word said by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons in his appeal to the Government on this subject. He promised, if the Government revived the power of change of venue, that he would never taunt them with being tardy or inconsistent. On the contrary, he would recognise the fact that they were attempting to shed light on those black spots that existed in Ireland, and doing their utmost to restore law and order in a part of the country which had been described only recently by the Chief Secretary as a disgrace to civilisation.
LORD INCHIQUINentirely endorsed every word the noble Marquess had said. As a landlord resident in Clare he was familiar with what was going on, and he declared that serious outrages were rapidly increasing. The official Return for the month of June contained 28 cases, half of which were serious outrages, although they were placed under the head of "intimidation." In one case one of his own tenants was fired at in the road when driving with a relative to a fair. It was broad daylight at the time, and there were 30 or 40 people on the road. Yet not a single person had been arrested, and when the men fired at got to the fair, they denied that any shots had been fired at them, because they were afraid of what might happen if they told the truth. This case was described in the Return as "intimidation by firing." Some of the most serious cases which were occurring were outrages upon dumb animals. Last month there were three cases where hair was cut off the tails of cattle. Mr. J. Morley appeared to think that a very small matter so long as the tails were not cut off altogether; but, as farmers knew, to cut hair off the tail meant a serious loss to the small farmer. In several cases the cattle had been actually mutilated. He also complained of the inactivity of the police, which he thought might be due to the uncertainty existing as to their future position. An eviction took place on his own estate, where a tenant owed over six years' rent. The police knew that threatening notices would be posted in the district, but took no means to watch, and by 6 o'clock the next morning hundreds of such notices as he held in his hand had been posted all over the neighbourhood. The
1670
police tore them down, but within half-an-hour they were re-posted, the police knowing nothing about them. If the present system of official classification of crime was to go on, it would be a charge of attempted murder if a man behind a hedge fired at another and hit him, while if he fired at and unfortunately missed him it would simply be a case of "intimidation." He spoke feelingly on this subject, because he and others had to travel about the County Clare at all times, and they never knew when they might be fired at. He appealed, therefore, to noble Lords opposite, on behalf of those who had to go about the county, and ask them to give consideration to the request of the noble Marquess.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, this is by no means the first Debate we have had on this subject. I have had the task of answering the noble Marquess on more than one occasion upon the condition of Clare, Limerick, and Kerry, and I shall endeavour to do so now precisely and clearly. He says that the action of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, when the recent Motion was made for the Adjournment of the House of Commons in order to discuss Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge, was merely a continuation of the policy of evasion and concealment on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I must entirely repudiate that charge, and tell him that we have no desire to evade or conceal anything. Our sole desire is to get at the truth, and if we have to admit, as we do, that there is a serious state of affairs existing, we hope by the measures which we are taking that that serious state of things may be put an end to. My right hon. Friend had no notice of the Motion for Adjournment, and I think he was justified in refusing to go at length into the subject. Not only had he not received all the Reports connected with the Assizes, but some of the Assizes had not even taken place; and, therefore, it was not a policy of evasion and concealment—it was the policy of getting the fullest possible information—which induced him to refuse to go at length into the subject. The noble Marquess has alluded to various Judges in Ireland, many of whom, like him, I know; and he has referred to an

1671
old acquaintance of mine, Mr. Charles Kelly, the County Court Judge for the County of Clare. I am ignorant of what my right hon. Friend said which made the noble Marquess state that the Chief Secretary had insulted the Judges. I am sure my right hon. Friend had no intention to insult the Judges, and I should be extremely surprised if anyone can prove that he has insulted them. When, however, Judges' Charges to Grand Juries are taken up and made the subject of political attacks in this place or in the other, it is very difficult in all cases to avoid criticising those Charges. That may be the reason which has given a foundation to the very serious charge made by the noble Marquess; but I maintain that whatever may have been done has not been done with a view to insult Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland, but to elicit the exact facts of the case, and to combat some statements made in those Charges, all of which have not been accurately reported. The noble Marquess, towards the end of his speech, drew what I should call a fancy picture of the position of Her Majesty's Government. He said that in all these cases the Government were at the beck and call of a certain class of Irishmen who have been guilty of crime, and were truckling to them. I entirely repudiate anything of that sort; we do not truckle to anybody. We are as anxious as the noble Marquess himself to restore peace and order in these counties of Ireland. My noble Friend, Her Majesty's Lieutenant in the County of Clare, for whose position I have the greatest respect, and with whom I sympathise in his relations to that county, has made to-night some statements to which I will briefly refer; but not having the actual cases before me as to those statements, I cannot at present deal with them very fully. He referred to outrages on dumb animals, and he attacks my right hon. Friend for, as he seems to think, disregarding them. But anyone who is acquainted with my right hon. Friend as I am will know and will understand that he dislikes and loathes these outrages, and holds them in as great condemnation as any noble Lord opposite.
LORD INCHIQUIN: I was referring to instances of cutting off the hair from animals' tails, not to the outrages.
EARL SPENCER: I certainly understood my noble Friend's statement to go further than that, and to impute carelessness in this matter to my right hon. Friend. My noble Friend goes on to make a very serious charge. He says that the police are not doing their duty in County Clare. From what I have seen of the Reports from that county my belief is that they are doing their duty as faithfully and loyally now as they ever did before. They are not, as it has been suggested, under the delusion that Her Majesty's Government wish to tolerate crime, and they are doing their utmost to put down crime now, just as much as hitherto. One of the characteristics of the Royal Irish Constabulary is that they have always done their duty under the most difficult circumstances. My noble Friend illustrates his point by pointing to notices which have unfortunately been posted up, I imagine, upon his estate, and he asks, Where were the police at the time those notices were put up? Any one who has had to do with the administration of justice in Ireland will know that there is the greatest possible difficulty in dealing with these cases. The ruffians who are engaged in this class of offence know probably more of the movements of the police than the police know about the movements of those persons. They watch till the police have got to a safe distance and then put up the notices complained of. It is much to be regretted that the police cannot be omnipresent; but I think they have been doing their duty with great vigour in the county. I now come to the general question and, for a moment, I should like to refer to the terms of the noble Marquess's notice, which are, indeed, considerably wider than the speech which he has made—
"To call attention to the administration of justice in Ireland, and particularly to the proceedings during the present Assizes in Clare and other counties."
I am not blaming the noble Marquess, because I think he wished to spare your Lordships' time. I will follow that notice more faithfully than the noble Marquess. It was well said by the Lord J President upon a former occasion that it is necessary in judging of a policy not to confine your view to small districts but

1673
to look at what is going on in different parts of the country. Taking the Charges of the Judges in other parts of Ireland they are by no means unsatisfactory. In Queen's County and Roscommon, for instance, there were no cases of importance; in Cavan the learned Judge congratulated the Grand Jury on the satisfactory state of the district; and in King's County, Longford, Leitrim, and other parts very much the same expressions were used by the Judges in charging the Grand Juries. Now, if I go farther South, I admit that in Tipperary the Reports are not so satisfactory; but, at the same time, there is nothing extremely alarming in the Charges of the Judges at those Assizes. When we come to Limerick there are, I frankly admit, more serious cases; but even there it does not appear that the Judges found fault with the juries, though there are, no doubt, a certain number of cases there which have not been made amenable. We hope, however, that these are in the category of those spasmodic outbursts of crime to which reference was made upon the last occasion, inasmuch as there have been no agrarian moonlighting outrages in those parts since April 23. I think that is very satisfactory. Coming to County Kerry, I find that the greater part of that county is in a satisfactory condition, as the learned Judge of Assize himself stated. No doubt there are some districts in the county—more particularly those adjoining Limerick—where the state of affairs is not so satisfactory. The Assizes have now concluded, and in one very important case of moonlighting with firing, near Castleisland, the jury convicted two of the most noted men in that part of the country. That is a satisfactory sign, and we may hope that the wave of crime which has of late years passed over Kerry has now subsided, and that we may once more see that county in a state of peace and order. That conviction is all the more important, because the part where it was obtained was, at the time when I had the honour to represent Her Majesty in Ireland, and always has been, one of the most disturbed districts in the whole of Ireland. With regard to Clare, I merely repeat what I have said more than once in this House, that Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied with the
1674
state of that county. Its condition is not satisfactory, and the Government wish a great change to be made in that county, and the way in which justice is carried out there. I quite admit that Mr. Justice Gibson, at the late Assizes, condemned very severely the action of some of the juries. I would, however, venture to point out that there were three cases of special significance. They were of an agrarian nature. One of them was a very bad case, in which the jury acquitted the prisoner apparently upon the very plainest evidence. I admit that, and I consider it points to a serious condition of things. Of the other two cases, one was in connection with a very notorious estate as to which, unfortunately, a strong feeling prevailed in various parts of the country; and those who are responsible for the administration of justice in Ireland are of opinion that in almost any part of Ireland—even if the venue had been changed—there would have been a difficulty in obtaining a conviction in a case about which so much popular feeling prevailed throughout the country. The third case was tried before at the Winter Assizes at Cork, where the jury had disagreed. I admit it is worse now, because the jury acquitted; but I learn on the authority of the Crown Solicitor that the identification of the prisoner in this case was by no means clear. Those are the three principal cases, and, while we admit that the state of the county is not satisfactory, we maintain that the Irish Government would have gained nothing in two out of these three cases by a change of venue. Unfortunately, in that county, and in a small portion of the County of Limerick, there has been a great reluctance on the part of many persons to give evidence. That affects the inquiry before the Magistrates, which, in every case, whether you change the venue or not, must be held in the particular county; and the unwillingness to give evidence prevents the case being brought to trial. Change of venue would have no effect whatever upon this. Now, my Lords, I will state the position in which the Government stand in regard to this question of change of venue. The noble Marquess quoted some words from memory, with respect to what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in

1675
another place, but what my right hon. Friend told the House of Commons was that the Government were watching the crime in this black area, including parts of Limerick, Kerry, and Clare, with the most vigilant and solicitous eye, and that if he were persuaded that the power of change of venue and for securing special juries would put an end to this state of things, which he, in common with all, deplored, he declared that no amount of things which he had said in the past, and no sense of mortification at having to unsay them, would prevent him from taking the steps which certain opponents of the Government were pressing upon him to adopt. Now, my Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I repeat that, and I say that in all cases where Her Majesty's Government consider that by changing the venue they will succeed in restoring law and order in any particular district they will take the necessary steps to enforce that exceptional process of law. We, however, have not been encouraged in enforcing special provisions in this direction by past experience from the results that followed the action of the late Government. I have been twitted before by the noble Marquess for raising questions of tu quoque. I am saying this not for the purpose of attacking the late Government, but in order to show that with all their experience, with all their power, and their desire to avail themselves of the exceptional powers which the law gave them, the late Government were not able to restore peace and order in the County of Clare, and that, in fact, the condition of that county was worse under the administration of the noble Marquess's Government than it has been since the present Government came into Office. I desire to say that we think exceptional powers of law should only be resorted to when the absolute necessity for putting them into force has been shown upon the clearest and most precise evidence. What we desire to do is to restore the confidence of the people of Ireland in the law and to obtain support for the law from all classes of the community, because it is only by that means that we can hope to secure the good government of the country, and until that is done we consider that good government is not established in any part of the Queen's
1676
dominions. We admit—I do clearly and distinctly—that there are cases which can only be met by exceptional laws, but, at the same time, we maintain that the necessity for those exceptional laws must be clearly established before they are resorted to. If you adopt exceptional laws you only increase the opposition and irritation which, unfortunately, exist in many parts of Ireland against the laws of the country. That is our deliberate opinion, and we do not desire to change from the attitude which we have taken with regard to the adoption of exceptional laws, unless it is shown to be absolutely necessary, and unless, by doing so, we are sure of success. Now, I should like to refer for a moment to the condition of Ireland generally, because I submit that in discussions of this sort relating to particular districts we ought not to shut our eyes to what is going on in the country generally. If we take all Ireland from the 23rd January to the 30th June, 1893, the total number of agrarian outrages was 316, or 153 excluding 163 cases of threatening letters; but from August, 1891, for the last year of the noble Marquess's administration, there were 368. That is to say, there were more agrarian outrages then in all Ireland than there are at the present time, the cases of threatening letters being 192. That shows that the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to law and order in the whole of Ireland is by no means unsatisfactory. Coming to Clare from the 23rd April, 1892, to 30th June, 1893, the agrarian outrages were 68, excluding threatening letters and notices, 33; non-agrarian outrages 117, excluding threatening letters 77. From the 23rd August, 1891, to 30th August, 1832, the total agrarian outrages, including threatening letters, were 78, excluding them 39. Therefore the number of agrarian outrages in Clare during the last year of the noble Marquess's administration was larger than those in the first year of our administration. I do not wish to lay great stress upon it, but that was the case. I only wish to say, in conclusion, in reference to the statement that has been made that this subject has not been brought under the notice of the House for the purpose of making a political attack upon Her Majesty's Government, that this question with regard to the condition of County

1677
Clare has been brought forward over and over again since Her Majesty's present Government have been in Office by those who had not a word to say with regard to the still worse condition of the county when the late Government were answerable for the administration of Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: We always have raised the question, but you would not.
EARL SPENCER: Certainly I would not raise them, because I did not wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government with regard to the administration of the law; but there might have been other Peers and right hon. Gentlemen elsewhere who had no feeling of that sort, and why should not they have raised the question as to the state of Clare then just as much as the noble Marquess is raising it now?
LORD ASHBOURNE: We were doing our best to improve the condition of the country.
EARL SPENCER: I say, therefore, that the object of continually raising this question at the present time is, undoubtedly, to a great extent a political one. I am, moreover, afraid that these constant Debates upon the state of County Clare will most seriously affect the administration of the law in Ireland. These Debates will certainly not encourage Irish juries to do their duty and to find verdicts according to their consciences or Irish witnesses to speak the truth, when they are told that their lives will be endangered or threatened and their property destroyed. Your Lordships must remember that the reports of the Debates in this House are not confined to English or Dublin newspapers, but that they find their way into the most distant parts of Ireland, and that they become well known to all those who are, unfortunately, connected with agrarian crime in Ireland, or with the administration of justice in that country. They excite those who take unlawful means to prevent justice being properly administered, and they deter honest men from doing their duty. I cannot help lamenting that the effect of these discussions is to weaken the arm of the law in Ireland. Before I sit down I should wish to point out that the classification of crime in Ireland has undergone no change since the present Government came into Office, and therefore that, if
1678
the present classification is defective, it was equally defective under the noble Marquess's administration. In classifying offences the police have followed the rules and principles laid down for many years past; and, notwithstanding the authoritative dictum of my old friend Colonel Turner, I assort that no change in reference to classifying cases of intimidation has taken place in this system. I do not mean to say that in some of these cases you might not argue that crimes should be classified in a different way; but it is a very serious thing to alter the form of Returns unless you find some grievous error in them. Unless that is the case you destroy the value of all statistical calculations if you alter the form of Returns. That crimes have been classified as intimidation when the offence was intent to murder or to do bodily harm I do not believe for a moment. I can only repeat what Her Majesty's Government's intentions are with regard to crimes in Ireland. They are of opinion that up to the present time they could not with any advantage change the venue in any particular county. They are doing all they can to keep down crime in these unfortunate black spots, and the latest reports, even from Clare, express some hopes that the worst is over and that already there are signs of improvement.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the noble Earl had promised to answer fully the statements and facts brought forward by the noble Marquess, but he would ask their Lordships to decide whether the noble Earl had given the full, clear, and satisfactory answer he had promised. The noble Earl had hardly referred to the Judge's Charge at the late Assizes, though that had been strongly put forward by his noble Friend who raised the question. The noble Earl asked why Members of the present Opposition did not raise these questions when the late Government was in power. It was very clear why they did not. Because there was no necessity. The country was at that time improving every day.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No, it was not—not in the least.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that if Clare was in an unsatisfactory condition then, which they denied, the Government of Lord Salisbury

1679
did everything in their power to alter that state of things. That was the reason why no member of the present Opposition rose to ask such a question as this. The noble Earl said that these discussions discouraged juries. It discouraged them a great deal more to get no sort of protection from the Government. But this discussion was raised after the fact. The juries had already given their decisions, and had therefore shown that they had been intimidated. The noble Earl said that the Government was prepared to take measures, and to change the venue if it became necessary, and that all they wanted to do was to get at the truth. What steps were they taking to that end? They were simply letting things slide in the hope that they would improve; and they did not improve. He maintained that it was necessary to change the venue. At the recent Assizes at Clare the Judge made the most serious Charge to the Grand Jury. He said that the proceedings were a perfect farce because the juries were so intimidated. That being so, was it not time that some steps should be taken by Her Majesty's Government? The Chief Secretary said in another place that Clare was at present a disgrace to civilisation. If that were so, surely some steps should be taken to enforce the law. The real fact was that" the Government were tied and bound at the heels of Mr. Sexton's Party, and dare not use the powers in their hands. No one knew better than the noble Earl how beneficial a change of venue would be in Clare. The Government talked a great deal about their sympathy with the law-abiding classes, but they did nothing to show that sympathy in a satisfactory manner. Though the Chief Secretary had declared that Clare—a county for the government of which he was responsible—was a disgrace to civilisation, he made no single proposition for remedying that state of things; and, as a member of the Cabinet, the noble Earl was as much responsible for it as the Chief Secretary. What form of crime or terrorism, what kind of Charge from a Judge, would make the noble Earl think that it was necessary to do something for the law-abiding people of the country? As at present administered in Clare, the law was distinctly against
1680
the law-abiding. If they took the law into their own hands and administered lynch law, as was sometimes done in the wild Western States, they would certainly be tried and convicted, while the criminals enjoyed immunity. Even if men were caught red-handed, the juries would return them not guilty. Why did the Government throw away the powers which they found ready to their hands? Though the noble Earl expressed great doubt of the value of the change of venue, two of his Colleagues—Mr. Campbell-Bannerman and Sir G. Trevelyan—had in times past expressed a very contrary opinion. If the noble Earl thought there would be any use in changing the venue so that these criminals might be brought to justice, why did he not do so? The noble Earl had indignantly repudiated the idea of truckling to anybody, and had said that the Government were taking measures. He should like to know what those measures were, for they had not heard of any. It appeared to him that the reason why the Government were not prepared to take measures to change the venue and to enforce the Crimes Act in Clare was that such a course was objectionable to the Irish Party who supported them in the House of Commons, and at whose dictation they were prepared only last week to destroy the splendid Constitution of this Empire. It was not to be wondered at that they would not take measures to change the venue or enforce the Crimes Act in Clare when they knew that Mr. Sexton and his Party would object to their doing so. He believed that Party would spare Her Majesty's Government no degradation to which they could possibly subject them to in the present, and that in the future, if they took such measures, the so-called union of hearts would be turned into deadly antagonism against the present Treasury Bench, which, if any Home Rule Bill were to pass—which God forbid—would be made more dangerous, because power would be given to Ireland to assist any attacks that might be made upon the shores of England, and to inflict the most vital injury in the very heart of her Parliament itself.
LORD SHANDassured the noble Earl that nothing in the way of political interests was in his mind in the few observations he would make. Having

1681
been long connected with the administration of justice in Scotland, he would point out that the power of changing the venue was constantly used there, and had for at least a century been part of the Common Law of that country. The change of venue operated not only to procure convictions, but it was also very often favourable to the accused. He sympathised very much with a learned Judge entering a circuit with the knowledge that he was merely playing a part. It could easily be imagined what his feelings would be. He could not understand why the power of changing the venue should not be exercised in Ireland, for as it was constantly exercised in Scotland it could not be considered to cast any stigma upon Ireland. The Government were bound to respect the views of the learned Judge who went on circuit in the County of Clare, and ought to take into their serious consideration his opinion as to the necessity of the change of venue in that county. As to the statistics showing that crime in the rest of Ireland was decreasing, he thought that was not an answer to people living in Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. The simple question the Government had to consider was what was necessary to be done in those particular counties. It ought to be sufficient for Her Majesty's Government that a large number of the community considered that the adoption of this course would alter the discreditable fact that juries were acquitting prisoners when their guilt had been made absolutely clear.

COMPANIES (CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 178.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, this Bill was introduced to your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. It is a very simple one. There was a recent decision of the Courts which has rather taken the public by surprise, to the effect that although a company might have been apparently incorporated with due regularity, yet if it were afterwards shown that any mistake had been made, the company did not
  1682
  come under the Companies Acts, and the ordinary proceedings in relation to it could not be taken. The object of this Bill is to provide that a certificate of incorporation shall be conclusive that the company is duly and properly incorporated, I have submitted this Bill to the learned Judges who decided the case to which I have alluded, and they consider that the proposed change in the law is advisable. I therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, agreed to.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 190.)
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 176.)
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la; and to be printed. (No. 202.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 203.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Five o'clock