Sitting of 1 June 1893

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL (by Order).— (No. 343.)

    SECOND HEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill be now read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.
    That the Petitions already presented against the Bill, and any Petitions presented by the London County Council against the Bill, three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit. and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions.
    That the Committee have power to send for papers, persons, and records.
    That Four be the quorum."—(Mr. Benn.)
    Question put, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL (by Order).

    INSTRUCTION TO COMMITTEE.
    MR. EDWARDSsaid, he had on the Paper a Motion affecting this Water Order, which was included in a Provisional Order dealing with two other Water Bills. His objection to the Provisional Order passing in its present
    1724
    form was that if the opposition to one of the Water Bills happened to be successful it would involve the loss of all three Bills. It was, therefore, desired that the Llandrindod Bill should be put into a separate Order. The promoters of the Bill had issued a statement against that course being taken; but that statement went into the merits of the Bill itself, which he did not propose to deal with that day, preferring to leave that for a subsequent opportunity, which would arise if his proposal were agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to divide the Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill into two portions, one comprising the Llandrindod Wells Water Order, the other comprising the Maidenhead Water Order and the Newington Water Order, and to report them separately to the House."—(Mr. Edwards.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexpressed his surprise at the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, there being no one present, consequently, to inform the House what course the Department advised should be taken on this proposal.
    MR. EDWARDS: I ought, perhaps, to have said that the Board of Trade offer no objection to it.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was anxious to know the exact position of the Board of Trade in refer-once to it. This Provisional Order contained three Bills. On the Second Reading the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Mr. Edwards) objected to one of the Bills. He was perfectly within his right in doing so; but the President of the Board of Trade very naturally told him that that was not the proper time to object, and that the place to discuss local matters of that kind was before the Select Committee. The Second Reading was passed after a Division by a considerable malority, and the Provisional Order had now been referred to a Select Committee. He did not quite understand what was the object of his hon. Friend in making this Motion. If the Government thought it well that the Provisional Order should be separated, and the Llandrindod Bill dealt with by a Select Committee, he could quite understand that that would be a legitimate course to take. But he understood that what the hon. Member wanted to do was to get the Provisional Order

    1725
    separated, so that on the Third Reading he might maintain his objection to the Llandrindod Bill. That, he submitted, was not a fair, nor was it the customary, way of dealing with these local matters. The hon. Member and his friends ought to have petitioned against the Bill, in order that their objections might be dealt with by the Select Committee. But they had not done so. Now, he wanted a clear understanding as to what the Department responsible for the Bill desired to have done; and, in order to secure that, he would formally move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR,)said, he thought he could satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. He could quite understand the desire that the Llandrindod Order should be dealt with separately; and if the Motion, which he believed under the circumstances to be a reasonable one, were adopted, he proposed, under the Standing Order, to move that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee as an opposed Bill, in order that the objections might be there investigated. He should not allow it to be taken as an ordinary unopposed Bill, as that would probably be unfair to the persons concerned.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,)explained that the President of the Board of Trade was detained on Public Business: but he was authorised to state that the Government concurred in the course which had been indicated by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Their intention was that the Bill should be duly investigated upstairs, and they would deprecate any such course being followed as the right hon. Baronet seemed to think possible under the Resolution. As one or two hon. Members felt strongly about this Bill, it was desirable that it should go before a Select Committee, which would have power to take evidence upon it.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: If that can be done I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion. I understand, however, that no Petitions have been presented against the Bill; and I will ask you, Mr.
    1726
    Speaker, if under those circumstances the Bill could, as suggested, be sent to a Select Committee?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I have no doubt that the course indicated by the Chairman of Ways and Means is one which can be adopted.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: If the right hon. Baronet has any doubt, I am quite prepared to consent to the Motion for Adjournment in order that he may be satisfied.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I have no wish to delay the Bill. I am quite content with what has been said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to divide the Water Provisional Orders (Mo. 2) Bill into two portions, one comprising the Llandrindod Wells Water Order, the other comprising the Maidenhead Water Order and the Newington Water Order, and to report them separately to the House.—(Mr. Edwards.)

QUESTIONS.

  SPECIAL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the issue of special service pensions has been suspended; and, if so, why, and when it will be resumed; whether he is aware that over 600 cases have been investigated and prepared; whether, in view of the urgent needs of the applicants, he will take steps to at once resume the issue; whether the issue of such pensions to residents in the Colonies has been prohibited; and, if so, why; and whether he will consider the expediency of issuing a warrant which will cover all such cases, and so save the loss of time and the amount of investigation-involved in the present system?
  MR. LENG: I will, at the same time, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now state what number of special pensions will be granted during the current financial year to the Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans in infirm health and indigent circumstances?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPELL-BANNERUMAN,): I am glad to say that we

  1727
  have been able to add to the sum already available for the special pensions for the Crimea and Indian Mutiny a further amount of £5,000. This will enable the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital to deal with the more urgent cases among the applications which have been received. I am not disposed to insist upon the exclusion of claims from men resident in the Colonies; but naturally cases at home will have some priority. The pensions being subject to these limits it is not advisable to deal with them by Warrant.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: How many additional cases will be dealt with under this extra grant?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The £5,000 will provide for 371 pensions; and when all are given it is 'estimated that 400 cases will remain undealt with. That is including the vacancies under the previous sums.

  CHAPLAINS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SQUADRON.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many Protestant Chaplains are attached to the Mediterranean Squadron, how many men they have each under their charge, and what their salaries are; whether it is the case that there is only one Roman Catholic Chaplain attached to the squadron, and that he has about 1,000 men under his charge; what his salary is; whether he lives on shore and only visits the ships occasionally, the men being scattered in different ships, and his work being thus very difficult; what provision there is for the ministrations of the Roman Catholic Chaplain while the ships are cruising; whether the present Chaplain is of Maltese nationality, and whether he is aware that there is a strong desire amongst the sailors for a Chaplain of their own nationality; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of appointing additional Roman Catholic Chaplains of British or Irish nationality?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): There are 13 Chaplains on the Mediterranean Station (including Malta Dockyard), whose total salaries amount to £3,084, or an average of £237 a year each. The total complement of the ships
  1728
  is 8,721, about 80 per cent. (i.e. 6,976) belong to the Church of England. A Roman Catholic Priest at Malta receives £80 a year for ministering to the Roman Catholics of the ships in that port, and also to the prison. He resides on shore, but Malta Harbour presents no difficulty as regards visiting ships. Another Roman Catholic Priest receives £40 a year for ministrations at the Naval Hospital at Malta, and the Roman Catholic Priest at Gibraltar is paid by Capitation Grant. The total number of Roman Catholics in the Mediterranean Squadron is about 750. When ships are in port elsewhere than at Malta, where facilities exist, on Sundays arrangements are made for lauding the men to attend Mass. Since the appointment of the present Roman Catholic Priest at Malta, who is a Maltese, the Admiralty have become aware of the existence of a wish among the Roman Catholic officers and men of the Squadron to have a Chaplain of their own nationality, and consideration will be shown to this desire when an opportunity occurs. There is no intention of appointing additional Roman Catholic chaplains in the Mediterranean.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask what the hon. Gentleman means by the words "when opportunity occurs?"
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: In the case of a vacancy arising.

INOCULATION AGAINST ANTHRAX.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a statement, published in The Pioneer Mail, of Allahabad, that M. Pasteur has expressed, through the Secretary of State, his willingness to send out one of his experts, with the object of introducing vaccine for the prevention or mitigation of anthrax into India; whether he is aware that Pasteur's vaccine for anthrax has been officially declared, in a Report of the Local Government Board of London, "perfectly ineffective" for the purpose proposed; and whether it is true, as stated in The Times of India, that two animals have been "flayed alive" before a public audience in Calcutta; and, if so, whether there are any means of restraining such proceedings in future?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir; M. Pasteur's offer to send out a qualified investigator has been accepted by the Government of India. The Secretary of State cannot trace the words quoted by the hon. Member from a Report of the Local Government Board. As to the alleged flaying alive of animals, the Secretary of State has no information, nor has he been able to find a statement quoted in The Times of India. The attention of the Government of India was called last Autumn to the desirability of legislating on the lines of the English Act of 1876 for restricting experiments on living animals.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will further inquiry be made with respect to the flaying alive?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Yes, Sir.
SIR H. ROSCOE: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether it is not a fact that the Report referred to in the question is 11 years old; that since that time Pasteur's system of inoculation against anthrax has been so much improved that many thousands of animals have been successfully inoculated in France and other countries, with the result that the cattle plague is now rapidly disappearing from places where it had been prevalent for years?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The Report in question is, I believe, 11 years old. As representing the Local Government Board, I have no official knowledge of the statements made by the hon. Member; but I believe, from personal inquiry, that they are correct.

QUACK MEDICINE ADVERTISEMENTS.
MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can take any steps to prevent the face of the country being disfigured by the advertisements of vendors of quack medicines and unguents?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I share the
1730
views of the hon. Member with regard to the inartistic results of the practice in question; but I have no power to interfere in the matter, and I cannot say that I am surprised that owners and occupiers of agricultural lands should, under existing circumstances, be unable to resist the temptations offered to them by advertisement contractors.
MR. BOULNOIS: If the farmers take to cultivating crops of pictorial and other advertisements, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of bringing in or supporting a Bill in order that the amenities of rural scenery may be preserved?
MR. H. GARDNER: I am not prepared to admit that the power of the Board of Agriculture extends over the face of the country in that way, nor am I sure that such a duty would properly fall within my province.

COLOUR SERGEANT SLEAP.
MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of J. F. Sleap, late colour sergeant of the 4th V. B. Royal West Surrey Regiment, who was dismissed the corps after 28 years' service; whether he was guilty of any serious infringement of the Volunteer Regulations, or was only absent from the Easter Manœuvres on account of temporary ill-health; whether he is aware that Colonel Haddon has had inserted in the regimental orders that Mr. J. F. Sleap should be recommended for honorary rank and permitted to retain his uniform, and why was this order cancelled without any explanation being given; and whether he is prepared to grant a Court of Inquiry, so that the whole question may be investigated?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the case that Mr. Sleap was dismissed by his Commanding Officer from the corps in question after having served 28 years in it. The power of dismissal rests absolutely with the Commanding Officer, as is laid down in Section 21 of the Volunteer Act of 1863, the words of which are these—
"The Commanding Officer of a Volunteer corps may discharge from the corps any Volunteer, and strike him out of the muster roll, either for disobedience of orders by him while doing any military duty with his corps, or for neglect of duty, or misconduct by him as a

1731
member of the corps, or for other sufficient cause, the existence and sufficiency of such causes respectively to be judged of by the Commanding Officer."
Colonel Haddon, in the first place, called upon Mr. Sleap to resign, and intimated his intention to recommend that Mr. Sleap should have leave to retain his rank and uniform; but, on Mr. Sleap refusing to resign and incurring dismissal, this recommendation was not made, and the order was withdrawn. This is entirely within the discretion of the Commanding Officer. I should have been glad if Colonel Haddon had seen his way to make this recommendation in the case of a non-commissioned officer of so long service, whose dismissal did not imply any imputation on his character. Courts of Inquiry are only allowed in very special cases. They are not in the nature of a Court of Appeal, but are merely intended to ascertain the full facts of a case; and as, in this instance, there is no doubt as to the facts, no occasion arises for inquiry.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very explicit answer. But do I understand that the War Office can afford no means of redress to this colour sergeant? Is he aware that the feeling in the corps is so strong that for months it was found impossible to induce anyone to accept promotion in order to fill his place?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Everything done by the Commanding Officer was perfectly regular and in accordance with the Regulations.

SIR GERALD PORTAL'S MISSION.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the British East Africa Company that the unfortunate position in which it finds itself is due, amongst other things, to the indefinite postponement of the consideration by Parliament of railway construction, to which, assuming the survey to be satisfactory, the previous Government was pledged; and whether there is any record of this pledge in the Foreign Office; if so, whether Her Majesty's present Advisers intend to give effect to it? I wish also to ask a further question, of which I have given private notice— whether any communication has been
1732
received from Sir Gerald Portal confirming the statement published in The Times of to-day from its Correspondent in Uganda, that the Soudanese troops have been enlisted in Her Majesty's-Service, and that Captain Macdouald has been appointed Resident; also whether the telegram in The Berliner Tageblatt is correct in stating that Sir Gerald Portal has hoisted the British flag and proclaimed a British Protectorate over Uganda; and whether it is competent for Sir Gerald Portal to do that, or to take any steps which would involve this country in the assumption of a Protectorate?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): No information whatever has been received by the Foreign Office since the arrival of Sir Gerald Portal in Uganda either as to the truth of the statements alluded to by the hon. Member or otherwise. As to the Instructions to Sir Gerald Portal, they are before the House, and hon. Members are as well qualified to pronounce an opinion as to their scope as is the Government. With regard to the question on the Paper, the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to this statement; but there is no record of any such pledge beyond what is contained in the Correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Treasury which has been laid before Parliament in Blue Book Africa No. 2, 1892. In answer to the last line of the question, I have to say that the Report by Captain Macdonald of the survey of the route from Mombasa to the Victoria Nyanza has been received by the Treasury, and was presented to Parliament yesterday. No decision upon it will be taken till Sir Gerald Portal's Report has been received and considered by Parliament.
MR. STOREY: I think the hon. Baronet might have given a more specific answer to that portion of my hon. Friend's question which refers to the competency of Sir Gerald Portal to hoist the British flag in Uganda, or to take any steps which would involve this country in the assumption of a Protectorate. Is it the opinion of the Foreign Office that under his Instructions it is competent for Sir Gerald Portal to do these things?
SIR E. GREY: The Instructions given to Sir Gerald Portal gave him considerable latitude, especially in Clause 8; but I should think that the hon. Member can form his own opinion as to the scope of the Instructions. I have only to say that this question of their exact scope was very fully discussed on the Address in the early part of the Session, and it was then stated that any arrangement which Sir Gerald Portal may make will be provisional until his Report has been considered by the Government.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Surely the hon. Baronet can say whether it is the opinion of the Foreign Office that the Instructions given to Sir Gerald Portal allow the hoisting of the British flag and the assumption of a Protectorate?
*SIR E. GREY: These are the words in the Instructions—
"A Mission to Central Africa cannot, of course, be conducted according to ordinary precedent; the infrequency and difficulty of communication may require a latitude beyond what is usual; and in entrusting to you these important duties Her Majesty's Government reckon with full confidence on your meeting with firmness and caution every occasion that may arise."
In the absence of any news from Sir G. Portal, as to what he has done and why he did it, it is impossible for me to say more as to the scope of those Instructions.
MR. LABOUCHERE: This is a most important question. Do I understand that, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, Sir Gerald Portal's Instructions do allow him to hoist the British flag in Uganda and to assume a Protectorate over that country?
SIR E. GREY: I can say nothing about the opinion of the Foreign Office on the subject until we have heard from Sir Gerald Portal.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman what will be the decision of the Foreign Office on the point after they have received information from Sir Gerald Portal, but whether his Instructions authorise him to do what he has done?
SIR E. GREY: I have already said that what Sir Gerald Portal does will be provisional until his Report has been considered. What he does must be contingent upon the circumstances and condition of things which he finds in Uganda, and until we know what they are I can say no more.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Are we to understand that under certain conditions Sir Gerald Portal has a right to hoist the British flag in Uganda, and to assume a Protectorate ever the country?
[No answer was given.]

IRISH INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Inspectors of Weights and Measures in Ireland have received any remuneration for their services during the past financial year, in accordance with the Inspector General's Circular of 3rd July, 1891; if not, what is the cause of the delay, when the ex-officio Inspectors will be paid, and if the shares will be distributed as in 1892?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The ex-officio Inspectors of Weights and Measures have not yet, I understand, received their remuneration for the financial year to March 31 last, the reason for the delay being due to the settlement of certain preliminaries. The claims are now being investigated, and the Inspector General expects that payments will be made before the end of the present month.

MOONLIGHTING OUTRAGE IN CLARE.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the attack on a farmer named John Collins, whose house at Cree North, in the County of Clare, was attacked upon the night of Monday, May 22, by a band of disguised moonlighters, and several shots fired into it, whether shortly previous to this outrage notices had been posted in the district, signed "Captain Moonlight," threatening Collins with death if he persisted in exercising his legal rights against his under tenants; have any arrests been made; and what steps have been taken to render Collins and his family protection?
*MR. WILLIAM KENNY: At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a threatening notice, signed "Captain Moonlight," had been posted on Collins' door some time before the out-

1735
rage; whether he is also aware that Collins has recently been obliged to take ejectment proceedings against his subtenants, and had obtained decrees for possession of some small holdings; whether this outrage will appear in the official Returns as an agrarian one; and if any arrests have been made in connection with it?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed that it is true that an outrage of the nature indicated took place on the night of May 22, and that about a fortnight previously a threatening notice was received by Collins. No report of this notice was made to the police until after the attack on his house. Collins has taken proceedings against two of his sub-tenants, but has not, so far, obtained decrees. No arrests have yet been made; the police have taken steps for affording adequate protection to Collins and his family. The outrage referred to has been recorded in the official Returns as agrarian.
*MR. W. KENNY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the place at which this outrage was committed is not 30 miles outside the disturbed area which he recently referred to?
MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot answer that without notice.

THE CASE OF JOHN CARRON.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-laud upon what Report his Excellency acted respecting the Memorial presented to him praying for a remission of the sentence recently imposed upon John Carron by the County Monaghan Justices at Clones Petty Sessions?
MR. J. MORLEY: I very much deprecate putting questions of this nature. As stated in reply to a previous question on this subject a Memorial largely signed on behalf of John Carron was submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, who had also received in the usual course a Report from the Magistrates in Petty Sessions which showed that the assault was a wanton one and committed by Carron on a quiet, inoffensive man. In view of all the circumstances of the case the Lord Lieutenant decided that the law must take its course.
MR. DANE: May I ask if it is the usual course in Ireland to invite the convicting Magistrates to report?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman himself been condemned several times in this House for not consulting convicting Judges?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Lord Lieutenant took the best possible means of getting full information. It is a matter entirely for his discretion.
MR. DANE: Did his Excellency consult the Constabulary Authorities?
MR. J. MORLEY: Without wishing to be discourteous to the hon. Member, I must respectfully decline to answer further questions of this nature.

TITHE COLLECTION IN CARDIGANSHIRE.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there are now in Cardiganshire more than 100 orders to be carried out for the collection of tithe, but that it is impossible to carry them out because the Standing Joint Committee and Chief Constable refuse adequate police protection, trusting to the policy of moral suasion, whereby the intended proceedings are made public, and a force of only four men is sent to protect the bailiff; whether he is also aware that this policy was tried in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, and failed, but that, since the policy of secrecy and of sending a large police force has prevailed, there has been no difficulty in collecting tithe in these two counties; whether he is aware that members of the County Council are present at the proceedings in Cardiganshire, and that, on the 29th of December last, Mr. Morgan Evans, the then Chairman of the County Council and Standing Joint Committee, advised the crowd to do all in its power to prevent the carrying out of the law; and whether he will take steps to compel the Local Authorities to provide adequate police protection, in order that the law may be carried out, and violence prevented?
MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS: Is it not a fact that distresses have been carried out much more

1737
smoothly and that the peace has been better preserved in Wales since the custom of sending large police escorts has been discontinued?
*MR. REES-DAVIES: And is it not a fact as regards Pembrokeshire that since the Act of 1891 it has been the custom for a small force of four police-constables, at the most, with occasionally a Superintendent to accompany the bailiffs in these cases, whereas prior to that date large forces were employed without effect? Also, can the right hon. Gentleman say if the failure to collect tithe is due not to the inadequacy of the police escort, but to the opinions entertained by the Welsh people as to the injustice of the impost?
*MR. SPEAKER: That is entirely out of Order.
MR. S. T. EVANS: May I ask whether that portion of the question on the Paper is in Order which says it is impossible to carry out the tithe collections because adequate police protection is refused, and the Standing Joint Committee and Chief Constable "trust to the policy of moral suasion"? Is not that argumentative and controversial?
*MR. SPEAKER: It may be disputable to say that the Standing Committee trust to moral suasion instead of other forces. I think that part of the question had better be left out.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): With respect to the questions put by the hon. Members behind me, and with regard to the second paragraph of the question on the Paper, I have not sufficient information, nor, so far as I know, have I the means of obtaining sufficient to enable me to give a satisfactory answer. I believe it is the fact that a large number of orders for the collection of tithe rent-charge in Cardiganshire have not yet been carried out. I have no reason to believe that the difficulty has been caused by the refusal of the Standing Joint Committee and Chief Constable to give adequate police protection to the bailiff. It is more probably attributable to the fact that the recent Act (as I am advised) does not empower the police to secure entry for a bailiff seeking to levy distress for tithe rent-charge on
1738
persons occupying their own farms. I have no information with regard to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question. With regard to the third paragraph, I have received a telegram from Mr. Morgan Evans denying the truth of the statement there made, and vouching the Chief Constable in support of his denial. I have on more than one occasion impressed upon the Chief Constable the necessity of giving adequate police protection to the bailiff, and I have no reason to think that the Chief Constable does not fully recognise his duty in this respect.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether, as these difficulties do exist in Cardiganshire and do not exist in Glamorgan and Pembrokeshire, owing to the fact that a different system prevails, he will take steps to secure that the same amount of protection is afforded in Cardiganshire as in the other counties?
MR. ASQUITH: That question involves an assumption and an argument, with neither of which am I prepared to deal.

THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence that has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and Foreign Powers with respect to the position of this country in regard to the Triple Alliance that was entered into in 1887 between Austria, Germany, and Italy, and particularly in regard to any declarations made to Italy which might have induced her to enter into that alliance; and whether any pledges or assurances were given directly or indirectly by the late Government, in any official Correspondence now in existence, implying that in case of Italy being involved in a war with France, owing to her having joined the Triple Alliance, Italy may expect any interference on the part of this country to save her from the possible consequences of defeat?
*SIR E. GREY: It would not be in the public interest to publish any Correspondence that may have taken place in previous years with reference to the Triple Alliance. In answer to the second paragraph, I can assure the hon. Member

1739
that no pledge unknown to the House has been given as to the employment of the Naval or Military Forces of the Crown. The actual position of affairs seems to have been very fairly explained by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester in an answer given in the House on June 4, 1891; and there has been no change nor any Correspondence since then.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I understand there was a Correspondence, which the hon. Baronet declines to give?
*SIR E. GREY: I said it would not be in the public interest to publish any Correspondence that may have taken place. That is exactly what was said in previous years by my Predecessor in reply to similar questions.

BALLANOCH PUBLIC SCHOOL.
MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland why the Scotch Education Department have refused to declare the Ballanoch Public School a centre under Article 21 of the Scotch Code, which would entitle it to a grant of 10s. instead of 4s.; whether Her Majesty's Inspector has passed the school as "good," subject only to some improvements which have been duly executed; and whether he is aware that the school rate in that locality is now abnormally high, being nearly 2s. in the pound?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The question of re-organising this school as a centre under Article 21 was brought before the Department in 1888, and the proposal was refused on the ground that the school staff was insufficient. More recently the request was renewed, but it was felt to be inexpedient to re-open the question at a time when the organisation of centres for Secondary Education is under the consideration of the County Committee. The premises have not been reported as good, and Her Majesty's Inspector has stated that no improvement will render them permanently satisfactory. According to the last Return the school rate in the district was 1s. 10d.

GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Govern-
1740
ment to give effect to the second recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Greenwich Age Pensions (1892) by legislation during the present Session?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: The question of giving effect to the recommendation is now under the consideration of the Treasury.

THE ATTACK ON THE SCOTTISH RIFLES AT ALDERSHOT.
CAPTAIN GRICE-HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 1st Scottish Rifles bore with perfect forbearance and discipline the two attacks made upon them, their barracks and officers' quarters, by the men of the Cavalry Brigade at Aldershot on 1st and 2nd May; will he explain on what grounds 1hey have been removed from their barracks to others in the North Camp, at a great expense to the married people and officers, while the Cavalry Brigade, the authors of the disturbance, have been brought back to the same quarters they occupied before they organised the attack; and whether, if this is the case, he will see that immediate steps are taken to have the good name of the Scottish Rifles cleared from any stigma of offence which the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the battalion feel is laid upon them by reason of this removal?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the fact that the Scottish Rifles, in the regrettable outbreak of May 1, bore the attacks made upon them with forbearance and good discipline; and no stigma has been laid upon the regiment by their removal, of the reason for which they are perfectly well aware. That reason is easily explained. It was obviously undesirable after what had occurred that the Cavalry regiments and the Scottish Rifles should remain quartered in immediate proximity to each other. The Cavalry regiments must of course be accommodated in barracks with stabling; when, therefore, they were brought back from being under canvas, these regiments were quartered in the Cavalry Barracks; but each regiment has changed its barrack and occupies a different one from that occupied before, while the Scottish Rifles in the North Camp are entirely separated from them.
CAPTIAN GRICE-HUTCHINSON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the fact that this regiment does feel that in the public view it has been disgraced by being removed in this way, he will take any steps to assure this gallant and distinguished regiment that it is not disgraced? Could not something be done in the form of a letter written by the Commander-in-Chief to the Colonel of the Scottish Rifles— to be read on parade—which would remove the stigma, which I assure the right hon. Gentleman is felt deeply?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My information is that the regiment are perfectly well aware that there is no slur upon them. The officer commanding stated that to them before the removal took place.
MR. MACFARLANE: If the necessity for the removal of the regiment was due to the attack upon it why not charge the expenses of the removal against the Cavalry Brigade?
An hon. MEMBER: Is it not a fact that the 20th Hussars were sent under canvas as a punishment?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Certainly.

OPEN DRAINS IN ARMAGH.
MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware, as President of the Local Government Board, that certain open drains in Armagh have boon allowed to remain a nuisance and a danger to the public health for many years; that the Poor Law Guardians decided that the responsibility lay with the Town Commissioners, whilst the latter threw it back on the Guardians; and that thus this nuisance is permitted to remain close to a large educational institution, causing blood poisoning and similar diseases; and, if so, what steps, if any, will be taken for the prompt abatement of this dangerous nuisance, so that the lives of those in the locality may not be further exposed?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board have been informed by the Executive Sanitary Officer of the Armagh Union that the existence of the nuisance complained of having been recently brought under the notice of the Rural Sanitary Authority the necessary
1742
steps have been taken to abate the nuisance, and the work of cleaning the drain will be put in hand at once. It appears that the drain has been in good sanitary condition until a recent date.

BOYCOTTING IN CORK.
MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two families, named Davidson and Connor, occupants of evicted farms at Ballyclough, County Cork, are the victims of boycotting and intimidation; that the arrival of the children of these men at the local national school is made the signal for all the other children to leave the school and march through the village, singing such songs as "God save Ireland "; that these boycotted children have to be protected by police when going to and returning from school and during some of the school hours; and that the parents of those children have been denounced by the local branches of the Irish National Federation for their occupation of evicted farms; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to put a stop to this system of persecution of little children?
MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the parish priest has condemned these acts of violence in unmeasured language?
MR. J. MORLEY: I believe that he has. As to the question on the Paper, I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. The efforts of the police have prevented a renewal of these disgraceful disturbances since May 12, since which date it appears that no children except the O'Connors and the Davidsons have attended the school. Prosecutions have been directed against some of the most prominent disturbers of the peace in connection with this disgraceful matter.

THE ANGORA TRIALS.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in reference to the arrest and trial of Pastor Thoumaïan and others the British Vice Consul in Angora has sent in the Report he was instructed to make on the subject; whether the Turkish

1743
Authorities have satisfied themselves of Pastor Thoumaïan's innocence, and ordered his release; and whether he has yet been released?
SIR E. GREY: I am informed that the trials are in progress, and that M. Thoumaïan's examination has not yet come on. The Turkish Authorities, after some consideration, decided that they could not order the release of M. Thoumaïan without trial.

THE CASE OF HUGH DOHERTT.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a report in The Derry Journal of the prosecution of Hugh Doherty at Rathmullen Petty Sessions, County Donegal, before Mr. Orr, R.M., for not having his name on his cart; that Mr. Doherty proved that he had his name thereon in Irish letters, as he spoke and wrote Irish, but that nevertheless the Resident Magistrate imposed a fine of a shilling and costs; and whether, as some time ago a Donegal farmer had his application for a fair rent dismissed because his name, having no English equivalent, was given in the Irish form in the originating notice, the Government will ascertain what is the analogous practice in Wales and the Highlands, and instruct the police not to bring prosecutions such as that brought against Mr. Doherty, and remit the fine and costs?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that Hugh Doherty was summoned to Rathmullen Petty Sessions on the 5th May for using his cart on the public road without having his name and residence printed thereon. The case was proved in the ordinary way before the Resident Magistrate and two local Justices, and a fine of one shilling and costs imposed. Doherty did not, I learn, prove he had his name, or any name, on the cart in either English or Irish letters, nor did he produce any evidence to that effect. He appears to have stated in an incoherent manner that his name was on the cart in Irish characters; but the prosecuting constable proved there were no letters of any kind to be seen on the vehicle when found. The Irish Land Commission state they have no knowledge of any application to have a fair rent fixed having been dismissed for any such reason
1744
as mentioned in the second paragraph of the question.
MR. BARTLEY: Arising out of the question, may I ask whether, in justice to the Irish nation, the Prime Minister will introduce a clause into the Government of Ireland Bill enacting that the Debates in the Irish Legislative Assembly shall be in Irish?
[No answer was given.]

HOURS OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
MR. CHANNLNG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any further Returns as to hours of labour of railway servants exceeding 10 or 12 hours respectively have as yet been ordered for any month since December 1891; and whether, in any future Return, the form of the Returns will be modified so as to afford clearer information as to the more serious cases of overwork?
MR. MUNDELLA: No further Returns have been ordered at present, and I propose to await the passing of the Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Bill before deciding upon future action. if my hon. Friend will favour me with his suggestions for the amendment of the form of Return they shall be carefully considered.
MR. CHANNING: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to any decision will he consult practical railway men?
MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly; I shall take the best advice I can get.

BLOOD POISONING FROM VACCINATION.
MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to an inquest held at Uttoxeter on the 17th of May, concerning the death of Thomas Henry Nash, a child nine weeks old, and the verdict of the jury that death was attributable to pyœmia or blood poisoning from vaccination?
SIR W. FOSTER(who replied): The Local Government Board have applied to the Coroner for a copy of the depositions in the case, and next week I shall be able to answer the question.
MR. HOPWOOD: I will put it down for Tuesday.

CLASSIFICATION IN THE DOCKYARDS.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the decision of the Government with respect to the system of classification in Her Majesty's Dockyards?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply to this question.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I must remind the hon. Member that this is the third time I have put the question and got a similar answer. On the last occasion he said a decision would be come to before Whitsuntide. Cannot he say something definite now?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I cannot say more than that the question is under active consideration at this moment.
MR. KEARLEY: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to 'i Is it a question of weeks or of months. Shall we know before the end of the Session?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I should hope in a very short time.
MR. KEARLEY: Then it is a question of weeks?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state on what grounds the Treasury consented to extend the appointment of Sir F. Burton, the Director of the National Gallery, now aged 76, till next year; and whether, in this case, as well as in the numerous other cases in which the Treasury have sanctioned a departure from the Order in Council of 1890, which lays down the age of retirement as 65, they have duly considered the hardship that is inflicted on the younger men in the Departments involved, through the stoppage of their promotion consequent on the retention above them of officials beyond the limits of the working age laid down by the Order?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The object of the provision for compulsory retirement at 65 was to prevent inefficiency in the Public Service owing to age, and not to provide promotion for
1746
younger men. Sir F. Burton is retained because the period of five years for which he was re-appointed has not yet expired.

PLACEMAN AND PENSIONERS IN THE HOUSE.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state when the Return of Placemen and Pensioners having seats in the House of Lords and House of Commons will be presented to this House?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Returns from one Department are not yet complete, but I hope that the whole will be ready in a few days.

H.M.S. "PHAETON."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what ground the relief of H.M.S. Phaeton which has now been in commission in the Mediterranean for over six years, is now a fourth time postponed, and that of the Undaunted has been substituted for it?
*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SIHTTLK-WORTH,): The suggestions in the question are not in accordance with the facts. The Undaunted is ordered home before the Phaeton because she has been longer in commission.

THE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Report of the Tuberculosis Commission, which was expected early in May, has yet been issued; whether his Department intend granting compensation to the many owners who have suffered severe financial loss through the confiscation exercised to protect public health; and whether it is the intention of the Government to provide a fund in order to end the present system?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Report of the Tuberculosis Commission has not yet been issued, and I must remind the hon. Member that in my reply to his question on March 17 last I stated that I was informed that it was expected that the microscopical investigations which were being made on behalf of the Com-

1747
mission would be completed and the Reports of the three sub-inquirers be in the hands of the Commission before the end of the present mouth; that the deliberations of the Commission thereon would follow; and that their Report would be presented as soon as possible afterwards. The Government are not prepared to make proposals to Parliament until the Report of the Commission is presented.
MR. FIELD: When may the Report be expected?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: If the Local Government Board were the Commission I should be able to fix it.
MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Commissioners the desirability of reporting as quickly as possible?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have asked the Commissioners over and over again, and their answer is that they will report when they have completed their inquiries.
MR. FIELD: Is there no way in which this Commission can be compelled to do its duty?
[No answer was given.]

THE EXTRA POLICE FORCE IN CORK
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution passed by the county at large Presentment Sessions for the County of Cork applying for the reduction of the extra police force for that county; whether he is aware that eight of the nine Magistrates and cesspayers who assented to the Resolution are Unionists, and the Chairman, Mr. Savage French, J.P., is a prominent member of the Cork Landlords' Union, and that the Chairman observed that he did not see the necessity for any extra police at present; and whether, in view of this Resolution, and of the peaceful condition of the county, steps will be taken for the reduction of the extra police force?
MR. J. MORLEY: It appears from a local newspaper report that at the Cork Presentment Sessions held on May 21 the Magistrates and ratepayers drew attention to
"the charge for Constabulary for the half-year to March last, with a view to the reduction of the Force at the earliest possible period if the. state of the county would permit."
1748
I have no knowledge of the political opinions of the gentlemen who carried the Resolution, though, of course, it is quite possible the hon. Member's surmise in this respect is correct. It is true that the condition of the county is generally satisfactory and peaceful. But, as already stated by me, there is an area which does not bear favourable comparison with the rest of the county; and the local Constabulary Authorities, taking into consideration the nature of the duty to be performed by the police over so extensive a county as Cork, cannot at present recommend a reduction in the extra force.

THE NATIONAL SPORTING CLUB.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the exhibition of boxing at the National Sporting Club on Monday last; and whether the police intend to take proceedings against all or any of the persons concerned?
MR. ASQUITH: The police cautioned the manager of the club and the principals that they would be held answerable for any disorder, or any illegal act, as is always done on such occasions. Nothing occurred to warrant the interference of the police; there was no disorder, nor, so far as the police are aware, any illegality. If evidence is forthcoming to show that the exhibition was of an illegal character, proceedings will, of course, be taken.

FRANCE AND SIAM.
MK. CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the recent action of French troops in occupying Siamese posts upon the Mekong River; whether they have invited or received any explanation on the matter from the French Government; whether the French claim to all territory lying upon the left or east bank of the Mekong River is recognised by Her Majesty's Government; and whether Her Majesty's Government consider those proceedings of the French inimical to the political or commercial independence of Siam?
*SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government have received Reports from different quarters with regard to the recent action of the French troops on the Mekong. They have not thought it desirable to address to the French Government any request for explanations on the subject, and the French Government have not as yet offered such explanations. So far as Her Majesty's Government know, the French have not distinctly intimated what territory they claim on the east of the Mekong, and in the present state of the question Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to express an opinion as to the effect which these proceedings may have on the political or commercial independence of Siam.

CLERKS IN THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT.
SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs propose to recruit the First Division staff of their Secretary's office by direct appointment from outside the Service; and whether he will direct that the recommendations of the Ridley Commission in favour of filling First Division vacancies in the Revenue Departments by promotion from the Second Division shall be put into force in the Customs Department?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: One Upper Division clerkship has been added to the Secretary's office of the Customs, which it is considered necessary to fill by the appointment of one of the successful competitors at the recent Class I. examination. The action taken does not appear to me to be inconsistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments.

WALSALL BLUECOAT SCHOOL.
MR. TALBOTI beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to whether the Walsall Bluecoat Schools are practically higher grade schools for the town of Walsall; and, in the event of this being the case, whether he will re-consider his refusal to sanction the imposition of fees under Section 4 (1) of "The Elementary Education Act, 1891"?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The school in question is not a higher grade school in any greater degree than many others in which education is completely free. There is no sufficient evidence that it would be for the educational benefit of the district to allow the school to charge fees under the section of the Act named.
*MR. J. G. TALBOT: Did the right hon. Gentleman get the information that this was not a higher grade school from local sources?
MR. ACLAND: I inquired carefully into the case. I had all the evidence before me, and I came to a decision on that evidence.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AT HENDON.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is true that there has recently been a serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia at Hendon, in the Metropolitan District; and how long a period has elapsed since the last outbreak of the disease in that district?
MR. H. GARDNER: Yes; I regret to say that it is the case that a somewhat serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia has been reported from Hendon, 10 animals on a dairy farm there having been found to-be affected with the disease. The cattle in contact have been slaughtered, and the usual precautions taken, and we are making careful inquiry with a view to discover the source of infection. No previous case of pleuro-pneumonia has been reported in the Metropolitan Police District since October 1 last.
MR. FIELD: Will the Government take steps to try the efficacy of inoculation against pleuro-pneumonia?
MR. H. GARDNER: I must have notice of that question.

DISEASE AMONG CANADIAN CATTLE.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the arrangements which have been made by the Board for the examination of the lungs of the Canadian cattle which are landed in Great Britain?
MR. H. GARDNER: The arrangements made for the examination of the lungs of Canadian cattle landed in Great Britain are embodied in an Order made

1751
by the Board of Agriculture on the 17th ultimo, a copy of which I shall be happy to supply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Order is being carried out by the Inspectors at the various ports where the cattle are landed, with the assistance of a staff of Commissioners specially engaged for the purpose. I may add that the Order was published in the London Gazette of the 18th ultimo, and that the usual steps were taken to give publicity to its provisions, in accordance with the undertaking I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee.
MR. CHAPLIN: Would it be convenient to the right hon. Gentleman to say what has been the result of the inquiry up to the present time? Does it point to the sanitary condition of Canadian cattle, or whether they confirm the continued existence of pleuro-pneumonia in that country?
MR. H. GARDNER: I must ask for notice of that question.

THE INDIAN CURRENCY COMMISSION.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say whether the Report of the Commission on Indian Currency has yet been completed; and if he is now able to name a time within which the Government will be able to lay it upon the Table?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I understand that the Report of the Commission was signed yesterday. It will be necessary to obtain the opinion of the Indian Government upon it, but no time will be lost, either by the Indian Government or by Her Majesty's Government, in coming to a decision upon that point.
MR. CHAPLIN: I assume that the Report will be laid on the Table before any action is taken in the matter?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I believe so, but I cannot say definitely.
SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: Is the statement correct in the newspapers that the Report is unanimous?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot answer for any statements in the newspapers.

INVERGORDON WATER SUPPLY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a special
1752
meeting of the Invergordon Borough Commissioners, in The People's Journal of Saturday, 13th May, at which the Borough Surveyor's Report with regard to the foul water supply was considered, from which it appears that the sewer-drain going through the Nonikiln burying-ground and the sewer-drain of Nonikiln steading and house runs into the water which supplies the town, and that on a recent Sunday the state of the water was such with sheep dip, &c., that many in town were rendered sick, and quite a number lost their dinners, the water being almost thick with filth; whether he is aware that this state of matters has been in existence during a lengthened period; whether the County Medical Officer of Health has made inquiry into the state of affairs; whether he has reported thereon; if so, will the Report be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether immediate steps will be taken to deal with the matter?
SIR G.TREVELYAN: Upon inquiry, I find it to be the case that upon a recent Sunday the water supply of Invergordon was undrinkable through sheep dip having been poured into the source of supply. The water supply of the burgh has apparently been subject to pollution from the causes mentioned by the hon. Member during a lengthened period. The County Authorities are not responsible for the purity of the burgh water supply and no complaint has been received by them until after the Sunday in question; but on receiving complaint the District Sanitary Inspector at once issued notices requiring removal of the nuisance, and, if necessary, prosecutions will follow. The County Medical Officer has twice visited the place and approved of the action taken. The Police Commissioners have intimated to the Board of Supervision that they are about to borrow for the purpose of improving their water supply; and, meanwhile, they have received an assurance from the tenant of Nonikiln that he will do his utmost to prevent the recurrence of the special contamination by sheep dip. It is also understood that the tenant is prepared to divert the drain from his house and with it any matter proceeding from the churchyard. Since the question was on the Paper, I have written to the Board of Supervision on the matter, and have been informed in reply that the Engineer

1753
employed by the Board to report with a view to the proposed loan has been requested to examine the source of supply and to suggest means for the purification of the water.

THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government has decided on the action to be taken on the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission; and, if so, when he proposes to announce it?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am not in a position at present to make any statement as to the prospects of legislation in connection with this question; but the Government do not lose sight, and are not likely to lose sight, of a question so important.

MEMORIAL FROM CUSTOMS CLERKS.
SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury Minute, dated 26th April, 1866, is still in force; whether he is aware that the Board of Customs have refused to permit the Clerks of the Second Class in the Customs Departments in the Outports to forward to the Lords of the Treasury, according to the terms of that Minute, a Memorial which was submitted to the Board of Customs on the 6th January, 1893; and whether he will be prepared to submit such Memorial to the Lords of the Treasury for consideration, and to protect the memorializes in the exercise of their rights secured to them by such Treasury Minute?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Minute is still in force, and I am in a position to inform my hon. and learned Friend that the Board of Customs have now given permission to the clerks in question to forward their Memorial direct to the Treasury.

THE SINKING OF THE "DOGGER."
COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if steps have been taken to cause a careful inquiry to be made into the disastrous casualty that occurred to the steam trawler Dogger, of Hull, which vessel, while engaged in trawling off the coast of Holland on 24th April last, was run into and sunk,
1754
the crew of nine men being drowned, by the German barque Thekla, of Hamburg?
*MR. MUNDELLA: The Doggerbank is missing with all hands, and her owner alleges that the German barque Thekla caused the disaster. I am advised that as the Thekla is now on a voyage to Chili with all the witnesses of the alleged collision on board no evidence is for the time available, and any formal investigation in this country would be useless at present. But I am strongly of opinion that the fullest information as regards the cause of the loss of the Doggerbank should be obtained, and I have taken every means to obtain such information, and have communicated with the Foreign Office and asked that the matter may be brought under the notice of the German Government without delay.
COMMANDER BETHELL: Will the Government take further steps to secure this information?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have already communicated with the Foreign Office with that object.

BOYS' TRAINING SHIPS FOR IRELAND.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government intends to send a training ship to Cork Harbour, as it was formerly used as a suitable place, and would be beneficial to a number of boys and the neighbourhood generally?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty will accede to the requests made to them by the Corporation of the City of Belfast, the Harbour Commissioners of Belfast, and the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast, to place a training ship for the Royal Navy in Belfast Lough; and whether, in view of the fact that Belfast is by far the largest port in Ireland, that a suitable berth for a training ship has been offered by the Harbour Commissioners, and that a ship in Belfast Lough will conveniently serve both Irish and Scottish candidates for the Navy, their Lordships will give a favourable consideration to the request made, in the event of their not having; already decided to accede to it?
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a strong public feeling exists in the South of Ireland in

1755
favour of the establishment of a training ship in Cork Harbour; is he also aware that a large number of lads annually join the Navy from the South and West of Ireland, even though compelled to make their way to English ports for that purpose; and whether, under these circumstances, and also in view of the fact that Queenstown is the headquarters of the Royal Navy in Ireland, the Admiralty will consider the advisability, in the interest of the Service, of complying with the desire which has been so unanimously expressed on this subject?
MR. FLYNN: At the same time, I will ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping in favour of establishing a training ship in Cork Harbour; and what action the Naval Authorities intend to take in the matter?
*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There is no present intention of increasing the numbers of boys' training ships. Should any need for increase arise, the relative advantages of Cork, Belfast, and other places in the United Kingdom as stations for training ships will be considered.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no training ships in the whole of Ireland, although both England and Scotland possess some?
*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: That is so; but, as I have already stated, should there be any occasion for an increase in the number of boys' training ships, the claims of suitable stations in Ireland will be considered.
MR. FLYNN: And will the Admiralty take into consideration questions of economy in selecting the site?
*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Certainly, all such circumstances will be taken into consideration.
*MR. WEIR: And will the authorities consider the desirability of placing a ship at Stornoway?
[No answer was given.]

TORPEDO CONTRACTS.
*MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an order has been given within the last three months to Messrs. Whitworth and Co. for a considerable number of air
1756
vessels for 18-inch torpedoes; and whether private tenders were invited; if so, was the lowest tender accepted; if not, will he explain on what grounds?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): An order for forgings for air vessels for 18-inch torpedoes was recently given to Messrs. Whitworth and Co. Tenders were invited in the ordinary way, and that of Messrs. Whitworth was accepted in view of the reliability of the forgings previously supplied by them, and the better rate of delivery offered, although there was a small difference in price between them and another firm.
*MR. WEIR: Were the tenders invited by public advertisement?
MR. WOODALL: The number of firms capable of supplying these forgings is well known, and invitations were sent to all of them.
MR. FORWOOD: Is it the custom, when inviting firms to tender, to accept the lowest tender?
MR. WOODALL: Not necessarily.

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT TN NATAL.
MR. H. L. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the grant by Order in Council of responsible government to the Colony of Natal, any change will be made in the relations between Natal and Zululand, and what powers the Ministers responsible to the Natal Legislature will have over the Zulus; and whether the Governor of Natal will exercise an independent authority in Native affairs?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. BUXTON,): My hon. Friend will see from the Natal Papers recently laid before the House of Commons (they were distributed on the 17th), that the Bill which was approved by Her Majesty's late Government, and which has now been passed by the Colonial Legislature, does not affect Zululand, which is a Crown Colony entirely distinct from Natal in its constitution. He will also see from the same Paper that that Bill does not contemplate any change in the present position and powers of the Governor as Supreme Chief of the Natives.

FLAGS ON LICENSED PREMISES IN IRELAND.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the 6 and 7 William IV. c. 38, s. 8, uses the words that a publican shall not display any sign, flag, or symbol, colour, decoration, or emblem, whatsoever, "except the known and usual and accustomed sign of such house," he will have a test case from Deny submitted to Petty Sessions, and a case stated thereon to the Superior Courts, with a view to decide whether this section imports that it is lawful to fly a particular flag from licensed houses but forbids others?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Government have no power to call on the Magistrates to state a case for the Superior Courts in the event of the decision being in favour of the prosecution. This can only be done by the defendants.
MR. T. M. HEALY: It was done in the case of the Lord Mayor of Dublin?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am told that it can only be done by the defendant.
MR. T. M. HEALY: But under the Coercion Act, when the Lord Mayor of Dublin was acquitted, the hon. Member for Dublin University, who conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Government, demanded a case, although there was an acquittal.
MR. J. MORLEY: I will inquire further.
MR. CARSON: As I have been personally referred to, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that in all cases the Attorney General has a right to demand that a case shall be stated. It was under the ordinary law that I insisted on that being done in the case referred to by the hon. Member for North Louth.
MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot answer a legal question of that kind without consulting the Attorney General of the present Government.

DUNSHAUGHLIN UNION CONTRACT.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the officer who held a sworn inquiry at Dunshaughlin Union into the alleged illegal voting of George Murphy, J.P., and John Wilkinson, J.P., upon a contract in which they
1758
were financially interested, has reported to the Local Government Board; and whether the facts alleged were proved; and, if so, what action the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Report of the Inspector who conducted the inquiry referred to has been submitted to the Local Government Board, and it is clear from this Report that the ratepayers of the Union will gain by the acceptance of the tender of the Dunsany Company for the Union meat supply, and that nothing was adduced at the investigation to slow that the Guardians who hold shares in the Company do so from any other motive than to keep down the prices of articles consumed in the district. The gentlemen named in the question are shareholders to the amount of £5 and 10s. respectively; and, assuming that the Company paid a dividend of 10 per cent., which has never yet been exceeded, the yearly interest due to Mr. Murphy would be 10s., and to Mr. Wilkinson 1s. It further appears that the Company has been in the habit of declaring a bonus to its customers. The last bonus declared was at the rate of 1s. 6d. in the £1 on the amount purchased by each buyer; and it is evident, therefore, that the ratepayers will gain by the acceptance of the tender. Under all the circumstances, the Local Government Board are of opinion that the present is not a case in which they should initiate proceedings for the statutory penalties, but that it should be left to the trader whose tender was rejected, or to any other ratepayer, to do so.

PROMOTION AMONG THE EDINBURGH TELEGRAPHISTS.
MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the discontent which prevails among the telegraph clerks in Edinburgh, especially those of the Second Class, with reference to slowness of promotion, uncertainty of prospects, and other causes; and whether he will personally inquire into these grievances with a view to their redress?
*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): An application was made in January last by 10 of the telegraphists of the second

1759
class at Edinburgh on the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and a reply was sent to them on the 14th February last. I have already given careful attention to the organisation of the Telegraph Service, and have made known my intention to adhere to the lines settled in 1890. I regret, therefore, that I am not prepared to depart from that decision. I may add that no officer in the Second Class at Edinburgh has yet reached his maximum, and it will take nearly four years before the senior officer will do so. The last telegraphist promoted was getting 32s. a week, and, therefore, was in receipt of 8s. below his maximum when his promotion occurred.

TIPPERARY BARRACKS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to supply the vacancy now existing in the barracks at Tipperary, which has been empty almost since the removal of the 1st Battalion of the East Surrey to Malta last February; and whether it is intended to have a regiment sent early in June, as the traders are anxious to have the military in the place?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is proposed to move the 1st Battalion Seaforth Highlanders from Fermoy to Tipperary in the summer. There are three companies of Infantry at Tipperary —namely, one Company of the 1st Battalion Manchester Regiment, and two of the 1st Battalion Seaforth Highlanders.

BUTTER RATES AT CORK.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great. Southern and Western Railway Company are charging 4d. per firkin more than last year for single firkins sent from Ennis to Cork and intervening stations; and whether he will make any representation to the company on the subject?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have been in communication with the Railway Company, and have received a further letter and two more telegrams on the subject, which I shall be happy to show my hon. Friend. The information, however, is still incomplete.
MR. W. REDMOND: I shall put the question again next week.

THE MEDITERRANEAN SQUADRON.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the defective state of some of the men-of-war of the Mediterranean Fleet; whether it is a fact that the guns and gun carriages of some of the ships composing that Fleet are in such a condition that with some of their 6-inch guns they can only fire half-charges of 24 lbs.; whether in firing these guns with a reduced charge of 36 lbs. accidents have ensued; and whether it is proposed, and, if so, when, to put these guns and mountings into a condition that will enable them to be fired with their full charge of 48 lbs.?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There is only one ship in the Mediterranean to which the question is applicable in any degree, which is the Phaeton, and arrangements were made some time ago to bring her home and replace the guns and mountings with those of new pattern which are ready for her.

LAND GRABBING IN IRELAND.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Sarsfield Branch of the Irish National League, reported in The Limerick Leader of May 26, at which a resolution was adopted stating that the Sarsfield Branch of the Irish National League, having warned by resolution all persons connected with the grabbing of Miss Morrison's farm that if they persisted in retaining possession of the same they would be denounced by name and circulars sent throughout the country branches branding them as land grabbers; and that, such persons having disregarded the warnings, nothing remains but to-publish the names of the grabbers, which are: "Messrs. Wheatley and Joynt, Starr-Bowkett Society, and Mr. Bate-man, butcher, Roche's Street;"and also-to the editorial comment of the same newspaper on the meeting to the effect that if, after repeated protests in a quiet manner, parties refuse to conform to popular opinion, they have only themselves to blame for any consequences that may accrue; and if the Government intend to take any action under

1761
which these intimidatory proceedings may be stopped and their authors punished?
MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the newspaper paragraphs referred to, which are correctly set forth. The local police do not anticipate that these references will have any evil effect on the persons named; but the case will be carefully watched, and any steps which it may be deemed necessary to take in their interest will be promptly taken.

THE NORTH SEA LIQUOR TRAFFIC CONVENTION.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Hoard of Trade whether, when he informed the House that the French Chamber of Deputies rejected the Bill for carrying out the North Sea Liquor Traffic Convention of 1887, on the ground of an alleged opposition of Great Britain to French influence in Egypt, be was aware of the date of the alleged opposition; and whether he can state in what year or years the alleged opposition took place?
MR. MUNDELLA: I was, of course, perfectly aware that the allusion to English opposition to French influence in Egypt made in the Report of the Commission of the French Chamber of Deputies was introduced by a reference to occurrences in the time of King Louis Philippe; but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by examining into the allegation.

THE APPROACHING ROYAL MARRIAGE.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, having regard to the general desire of Her Majesty's loyal subjects to give expression by personal presence to the national satisfaction in the approaching marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York with Her Serene Highness the Princess Victoria May of Teck, and the necessary limitation of the route to be traversed by the wedding procession, he will consider the desirability of promoting much-needed employment by causing stands to be erected, either by the Office of Works or a lessee, within the railings of the Green Park from Walsingham House to Constitution Hill,
1762
and devote the large sum certain to be realised by the sale of places to the Samaritan Funds of St. George's and Westminster Hospitals, or other charitable objects?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I have considered the suggestion of the hon. Member, and have come to the conclusion that it would not be a legitimate use of the Royal Parks to turn them to account in the manner proposed even for the purpose of making money for charities.

SIR T. BRADY'S PENSION.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the terms of the communication made by the Treasury to Sir Thomas Brady relative to his pension upon deprivation of office; and what reply, if any, has been received from him?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Such communications are confidential, and I can say no more than that it is the intention of the Treasury to ask Parliament to vote a substantial sum in addition to the full pension for which the Superannuation Acts provide, in consideration of the services rendered by Sir Thomas Brady.

THE SCOTCH MINT.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in accordance with Article 16 of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England, the Scottish Mint at Edinburgh was to be continued; and if, as the Scottish Mint no longer exists, he can say whether the Government intend to carry out and maintain Article 16 of the aforesaid Treaty?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: The provision in Article 16 of the Treaty of Union for the continuance of the Scottish Mint at Edinburgh was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1867, and the Article as now in force only provides that the coin shall be of the same standard and value in Scotland and England alike.

METROPOLITAN GAS ACCOUNTS.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state when the accounts

1763
of the Metropolitan Gas Companies for 1892 will be laid upon the Table?
MR. MUNDELLA: The Return to which my hon. Friend refers has been received from the printers to-day, and it shall be laid on the Table at once.

SHIPS' SIDE LIGHTS.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a copy of an Opinion of Counsel (Sir Walter Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Walton, Q.C.), on the subject of the legal liabilities in connection with the Side Light Regulations issued by the Board of Trade, and pointing out that the Regulation which is new is inconsistent with other Regulations, and would work unfairly to foreign vessels in British Courts; and whether he will now re-consider the whole question, with a view to establishing uniformity in the Regulations?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have received a copy of the Opinion referred to, and I have decided to refer it to the Law Officers of the Crown. On receiving their Report I will consider what further steps may be necessary.

LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
MR. HARTLEY: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, pending the consideration of the Financial Clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill, he will undertake that no more money shall be advanced from the Imperial Exchequer to enable Irish tenants to purchase their holdings?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian): The Government have no power and no intention to interfere with the sale of land in Ireland under the Laud Purchase Acts.

PRIVATE RAILWAY WAGONS.
MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade under what Parliamentary powers the Railway Companies claim the right to force on the traders the new Regulation they have issued with respect to the repairs and renewals of private railway wagons; whether he is also aware that the private owners of wagons look upon the Regulations as impracticable, and if attempted to he enforced likely to cause heavy loss to them as traders with-
1764
out achieving any satisfactory result; and whether he will confer with the Railway Companies on the subject?
MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the Railway Companies have thousands of wagons of their own which do not comply with these Regulations; and whether, in seeking to enforce the Regulation upon private owners, they are not displaying an undue preference in their own favour? Will he take steps to prevent that injustice?
MR. MUNDELLA: Under Sections 117 and 118 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, carriages are to be constructed according to Regulations, and such Regulations are to apply to all carriages running on the railway. Provision is also made for arbitration in the event of dispute between a Company and the owner of a carriage "as to the construction or condition thereof." Last year the Board of Trade drew the attention of the Secretary to the Railway Association to a letter of complaint from the Association of Private Owners of Railway Rolling Stock, and furnished that Association with Sir Henry Oakley's reply. The Board of Trade have no powers bearing on the question.

CLERKS OF THE CROWN OR PEACE IN IRELAND.
MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Departmental Report relative to the allowances to be paid to Clerks of the Crown or Peace in Ireland for the carrying out of the Local Registration of Title Act has yet been received; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay; and have any, and what, steps been taken to expedite the presentation of such Reports by the Treasury Officers in Ireland?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I hope to receive the Report next week; but I should explain that the unavoidable delay which has occurred has in no way affected the officers interested, as the allowances will date from 1st April and are not payable till 1st July.

KILKEE POST OFFICE.
MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as he is not prepared to place a post office at Doonaha, Comity Clare, he will consider the feasibility of some arrangement by which the letters of the inhabitants of that place could be conveyed to Kilkee Post Office?
MR. A. MORLEY: Arrangements are being made for the letters for Doonaha to be conveyed from Kilkee by mail cart, as desired, and the hours of service will be so fixed as to afford an interval for reply by return of post. It is also intended to place a wall letter box at Doonaha Cross.

THE IRISH POSTAL SERVICE.
MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what number of letters, newspapers, and parcels were received during the years 1890, 1891, and 1892 from Great Britain for distribution in Ireland, and the number received from Ireland during the same period for distribution in Great, Britain?
MR. A. MORLEY: No detailed records are kept of the number of letters, newspapers, &c, distributed in any given part of the United Kingdom in the manner suggested by the question; and it is not, therefore, possible to give the precise information asked for by the hon. Member. To keep such records would be a very costly and laborious proceeding, and would necessarily involve delay in the transit of correspondence. An estimate can be formed of the number of letters, &c. posted and delivered in Ireland in a year: but this would not give any indication of the destination of the letters or of their place of origin.

THE TROOPTNG OF THE COLOURS.
MR. REES-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to enable hon. Members of this House to witness the trooping of the Colours?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The ceremony of trooping the Colours in honour of the Queen's Birthday is entirely controlled by the Brigade of Guards. Neither the War Department nor the Military Authorities within that Department have any share in the
1766
management of the arrangements, including the issue of tickets. I am informed that, within the available limits, tickets have been issued to hon. Members of the House applying for them; and I hope that in this way the same facilities will he afforded to hon. Members as on previous occasions.

THE PROGRESS OF THE HOME RULE BILL.
MR. MACFARLANE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask him whether he is aware that there are now 90 Amendments to Clause 3 of the Government of Ireland Bill upon the Paper, and that the Leader of the Opposition has publicly intimated that the chief object of the Amendments is to destroy the Bill; and whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any steps to render this or any other legislation possible?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I hesitated for a moment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman opposite an opportunity of explaining.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me now. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has just asserted that I had stated in public that the object of the Amendments was to destroy the Home Rule Bill. That is undoubtedly the fact; but I did not say that the method by which they were to destroy the Bill was by accumulation of numbers. The way in which we trust to destroy the Bill is by bringing propositions before the House which the House will accept, and which the Government will think inconsistent with the further progress of the Bill.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not propose to answer the right hon. Gentle man, except that I may be permitted to say that I think he is a little sanguine, judging from what has occurred thus far, in his expectation that the House is about to adopt a formidable number of Amendments which will be inconsistent with the progress of the Bill. That does not require prolonged reference from me. In answer to my hon. Friend, I may say that I am not surprised that he feels some disappointment and, perhaps, a little impatience at the slow progress that is being made with the Bill. The answer

1767
I make is this—that although, perhaps, I am a little discouraged in the matter of time, yet, like my hon. Friend, I rely very much upon the good sense and equity of the House and its consciousness of what is due and necessary to its own dignity; and, in these circumstances, it is our desire and intention to proceed with the Bill as we have proceeded with it—that is to say, by doing all we can to shorten discussion by explanation, by conciliation, and by concession, where it may appear to us to be consistent with he objects of the Bill and with the regular and practical consideration of its various provisions.
MR. MACFARLANE: Alter the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to be allowed to lead the exact words be used, taken from The Times of May 8. He said that he would vote for everything that would improve the Bill and, above all, everything that would destroy the Bill.

THE LATE THOMAS HOLLOWAY'S WILL.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the will of the late Thomas Holloway, which is said to be an illegal will; whether be is aware that a previous will left a large sum of money for a convalescent home for the poor of London; and whether be will instruct the Public Prosecutor to full v investigate the matter?
MR. ASQUITH: I have no authority to interfere in cases of disputed wills, the validity of which must always be decided by the proper Courts of Law. It is not the duty of the Public Prosecutor to investigate such questions, except upon materials showing a breach of the Criminal Law. If in any case such materials are laid before him he will give them full consideration.

STATUTE LAW REVISION.
MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Statute Law Revision Bill has been before the House for a very considerable time, and that the Second Reading of that Bill is still delayed; whether he is aware that the sixth and seventh volumes of the Revised Statutes and the triennial
1768
volume of the Index is delayed in preparation and publication by the delays in the passing of the Statute Law Revision Bill; whether he is aware that for more than 30 years past these Bills have been passed by common consent as non-contentious measures; and whether, in view of the fact that a Committee of both Houses have examined the Bill and passed it, as well as the House of Lords, and that the Bill is drawn in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee which sat last year, he will appeal to hon. Members to pass the Bill without further delay?
MR. W.E. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that the Government had no power to secure the passing of the Bill in the face of opposition, although they shared most earnestly the hon. Member's desire that the Bill should become law without further delay.

THORNHILL LEES NATIONAL SCHOOL.
MR. OLDROYD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the case of a boy, named Sykes, a pupil in the Thornhill Lees Church National School, for whom a free place was claimed by his parents on the re-opening of the school after the Christmas holidays, and who attended without payment of fee until 8th May last; whether he is aware that the boy was then sent back for his fee, and for the arrears from January last, with an intimation that the arrears might be paid by instalments; whether a free place can be claimed in cases where tacit consent has been given for so long a period; and whether the managers of schools are within their legal rights in demanding payment of arrears under such circumstances?
MR. ACLAND: My attention has been called to this case. The Managers of a school which has the right to charge fees are within their legal rights in re-imposing a fee on a scholar who has been for a time admitted without payment, and in refusing to admit him if he does not pay the fee. But it has been decided by the Courts of Law that Managers have no legal claim in any case to payment of arrears of fees, and the Department would consider that the exclusion of a child for non-payment of arrears was a contravention of the

1769
Education Acts. A claim for completely free education may be made on behalf of this as of any other child under the Act of 1891, and the Department would then be bound to secure the provision of a free place for him accordingly.

THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has, since the 18th May last, ascertained what modifications have been introduced in the bolt and bolt-head, and also in the magazine, carrier or hopper, of the Lee-Metford magazine rifle, Mark I. pattern; if so, will he state in detail what these modifications are, or produce these parts of the rifle for the inspection of hon. Members of the House who have grave doubts as to the efficiency of Mark I. pattern, which is now in the hands of the troops?
MR. WOODALL: As the hon. Member is aware, the Mark I. rifle was modified in certain details, and all the arms of that improved pattern now in the hands of the troops are known as Mark I. Star. The modifications which resulted in the Mark II. model are chiefly in the bolt, spring, magazine, screws, and bolt-head. They are, however, of a character which it would be difficult to make intelligible in answer to a question in the House of Commons; but if the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, or any other hon. Member desirous of information, will visit the War Office, the construction of the rifle and the various improvements which have been effected in it shall be explained by competent officers.

A NEWCASTLE EMLYN ASSAULT CASE.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the discharge of the prisoners Griffiths and Thomas, for the attack on Robert Lewis, by the Cardiganshire Magistrates, at Newcastle Emlyn, before the evidence for the prosecution had been heard, on the ground that beating a man on the head is not "wounding" if the skin is not actually divided; whether he is aware that neither of the two Magistrates who came to this decision is a lawyer; whether the Treasury have taken any opinion on the legality of this decision; and whether
1770
any steps are being taken to bring the offenders to justice?
MR. ASQUITH: I understand that, in this case, the offence charged being wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, it was contended for the defence that no actual wounding had been proved by the prosecution. The Bench held that the objection must prevail, and the prisoners were discharged. With regard to the second paragraph, I believe that neither Magistrate is a lawyer—not an uncommon case—but no doubt they had the assistance of their Clerk. With regard to the third and fourth paragraphs, I understand that the matter is now being considered by the Public Prosecutor.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the clerk to the Magistrates is a well-known Nonconformist whose sympathies are with those opposed to the tithes?
An hon. MEMBER: And are not the bulk of the Welsh Magistrates members of the Church of England?
MR. ASQUITH: I believe so.

ARMY PAY AUDITS.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would explain why, although the whole of the pay for pensioners issued on 1st October, 1892, was audited by 11th March, 1893, the pay for the Army Reserve issued on the same day was not audited till the middle of May, 1893; and whether it would be possible to adopt a plan by which the accounts of one quarter are audited before the issue of pay for the following quarter, in view of the fact that the existing plan causes great inconvenience, and sometimes even loss of money, to officers engaged in the issue of Army Reserve pay?
MR. WOODALL: The difference of the dates of the completion of the audits of these two classes of accounts was due to exceptional circumstances; the examination now goes on pari passu. There would be some difficulty in adopting the plan suggested by the hon. Member, owing to the date at which the accounts are received from the Post Office, by which Department the payments are made; but inquiry will be made as to whether the rendering of these accounts cannot be expedited.

MOTION.
  CRIME IN IRELAND—STATE OF COUNTIES CLARE, KERRY, AND LIMERICK.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the unchecked growth of serious crime in Ireland, and especially in the Counties of Clare, Kerry, and Limerick, and the failure of the Irish Executive to take any adequate steps for its abatement."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order, may I ask whether on Tuesday last on the Vote on Account hon. Gentlemen had not then a full opportunity ["No, no!"]—had an opportunity— of which they had given notice before Whitsuntide of raising this question? The notice was given before Whitsuntide that after the Recess, on the Vote on Account, they would draw attention to this question, and that not having been done on the Vote on Account, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if this can be considered to be a matter of urgent public importance?
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On the point of Order, inasmuch as I had given notice of the Motion to deal with this question on the Vote on Account, perhaps you will allow me to explain that I was unable to do so because of the discussions which came on before the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Department, and because the Vote was closured.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: As to what the hon. Member has just said, it is true enough; but then progress was reported with the Government of Ireland Bill at 11 o'clock on the night before last expressly with the view to this topic being discussed.
    MR. SPEAKER: Of course, as this subject was not discussed it is competent to bring it forward. As to the circumstances stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it will be for the House to judge when I ask the House to give leave to bring on the matter.
    *MR. SPEAKERthen called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 having accordingly risen,
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER, in moving the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, said, he did not feel he owed any apology to the House for introducing the subject, though he owed some apology for the fact that the treatment of the subject had not been put into the hands of someone more competent to deal with it than himself. The only qualifications he could claim were that he knew well that portion of the United Kingdom about which he wished to-speak; he was most deeply concerned in its welfare, and he felt very deeply the importance of the matter he should bring before the House. An hon. Member who sat near him took a different view, and in reference to this Motion had stated that he and his friends were bored by the reiteration of these facts regarding the commission of crime and outrage in the South and West of Ireland. But the matter he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) should bring forward was a matter which, in his judgment, constituted the very primary duty of the House of Commons, and was infinitely more important than the dead-alive discussion which was taking place upon the already-defunct Home Rule Bill. It related to the protection of the lives and happiness of Her Majesty's subjects. These things were very real, and there was a special reason why some hon. Member from Ireland should bring them forward. There were very few districts represented in the House of Commons whose Members would not be ready in a moment to bring forward what he had to bring forward if it related to any district in England, Scotland, or the North of Ireland. If such horrors occurred in any of the districts he had indicated they would find the Members who represented them would be the first to bring them forward in that House;. but not on one single occasion had any hon. Member representing any one of the districts concerned in the Motion and which had been steeped with this persecution to which he should have to refer come forward and spoken in that House in the interests of those of Her Majesty's subjects who were subjected to this detestable persecution. If it were the fact that the Constitutional

    1773
    Representatives of these persons did not consider it their duty to bring this matter before the House, it was a reasonable, fair, and just thing that some other Member connected with Ireland, who was not immediately responsible for these districts, but who was connected with them by ties and associations and know ledge, should do what he could from time to time to give voice to these dumb persons who were unable, by their Constitutional Representatives, to speak to that House and remind it and the people of Great Britain what was the suffering that was continuously being inflicted upon these unhappy persons. The hon. Member for North Kerry the other night stated that it was not the business of a Member of that House to act as a private detective; and, as far as he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) could understand, he was to take no active or practical part in the diminution or discouragement of crime.
    MR. SEXTON: That is an addition made by the hon. Member to what I said. I would ask him to be good enough to confine himself to what I stated.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, he had given the practical upshot of what he understood the hon. Member to say; and, as a matter of fact, there had been no executive step taken in that House, or—with a few brief exceptions, he could name on the fingers of one hand—out of that House by hon. Members representing these districts to put a stop to the abominations against which he protested. It was not an unknown thing that hon. Members representing constituencies in which there had been serious and prolonged outbursts of crime should think it their duty to go into their own constituencies and use all their influence and talent, and the great position conferred upon them, to abate and put a stop to such occurrences. In the case of the saw-grinding outrages in Sheffield, there was no person more prompt, in his endeavours to bring an end to that unhappy state of affairs than the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Roebuck, who then represented Sheffield. Again, it would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that it had been attempted by hon. Members of that House on a very recent occasion by their own writing, influence, speeches, and presence, to try and allay passion and diminish violence in the constituency
    1774
    he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) had the honour to represent. The precedent was not, therefore, a new one, and when he said it was part of the duty of an hon. Member to take some share in trying to allay disturbance in a district he represented in that House he was not asking for an extreme or unusual display of vigilance, or the exercise of a duty unknown to that House, In asking that hon. Members who represented those counties should take steps to try and allay disorder there, he was not asking them to do anything unknown in the annals of that House. If hon. Members did not consider it their duty to do so, it became incumbent upon those who were acquainted with the facts to lay them before the House. When right hon. Gentlemen on the Front-Government Bench made the great change in their policy with regard to Ireland, some hon. Members hoped that there would be compensation in the shape of a Treaty, like that of Kilmainham, under which hon. Members would undertake, at the instance of the Government, to go down and see that outrages in the South and West of Ireland were controlled and put a stop to. For a time it seemed as though there would be a temporary lull in the commission of outrages in those parts of the country, which would have been some reward, though an altogether inadequate reward, for the action of the Government. There had been a brief cessation of crime, but that cessation had ended. He did not want to put the matter too high or too strongly; but he desired to make it clear to hon. Members who differed from the Party to which he belonged that there was a definite and substantial reason for bringing up this subject again. He would ask those hon. Members to give a friendly ear to the pleadings of those who spoke through him, and to whom the fact that this crime and persecution wont on from day to day, and was neither new nor strange, did not make life more tolerable in these counties. Since the last Debate in the House crime had increased, was still increasing, and would, in all probability, continue to increase. A time came when the point of saturation was reached, when crime had done its work, and when the gang who committed it had got what they wanted, and the law of the land was superseded by the law of the gang who

    1775
    had obtained supremacy in those counties. When that, time came the necessity for outrage ceased, and outrage became stationary. He believed they were within measurable distance of that point of saturation when there would be a diminution or cessation of crime for which the Chief Secretary for Ireland would claim the credit. That would mean that thousands of things would occur in these counties which would never get into the Police Returns or come to the cognisance of hon. Members in this House. Men and women would gravely say they could not do this or that because So-and-so, the head of this or that dissociation, would object. He wanted the House to interfere before the point of saturation was reached, to say that they would now take cognisance of the fact that, crime was increasing and would seize this opportunity of putting a stop to its increase. The Chief Secretary had, he was sure unwittingly, somewhat misled the House, for he had continued in the present Parliament to make a distinction which was real and definite at one time—namely, the distinction between agrarian and non-agrarian outrages in Ireland. It was formerly said that these agrarian outrages were the result of a definite policy in regard to land in Ireland, and that, therefore, they could not be put in the ordinary category of offences against the law.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I bog the hon. Member's pardon. I said the practice had been to classify outrages in that way. I made no change in the classification, although I agree with the hon. Member that it is not a perfect classification.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORNTERsaid, of course, he entirely and absolutely accepted the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. What he desired to make clear was that there was a time when that classification carried weight; but. that that time had passed, and nearly all crimes in common had now obtained the protection of the organisation which had formerly protected agrarian crime alone, so that it was at present as impossible to get convictions in the case of non-agrarian crimes as it was previously in the case of agrarian crimes. It was, therefore, his intention to deal with all crime in these particular counties on the same
    1776
    footing, because he would submit that punishment for all crime whatever was in those counties absolutely dead and unenforceable. There was one distinction as between the régime in the past and that of the present, and that was that for the first time, with one brief interval, in the history of the last 20 years, the persons against whom these outrages wore committed now felt and believed that they were deserted by the authorities in this country, and that those who were responsible for the administration of the Executive in Ireland were under the control of those persons whom, rightly or wrongly, they identified from their past experience with the authority that had inflicted these outrages upon them he was far from suggesting that there was any fundamental ground for that belief. What was the justification in the minds of the persons concerned for this belief? A justification did exist, for they saw that in this House the Government depended from day to day for its political existence upon a Party which had been at the bottom of these crimes for years past. This was not a matter in dispute, but a mere common statement in plain English of a plain fact, and when the people in Limerick, Tipperary, and Clare——
    MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to say that a Party in this House has been at the bottom of these crimes for years past?
    *MR. SPEAKER: If I had put that interpretation on what I heard I would certainly have called the hon. Member to Order. He did not, however, say, "A Party in this House." [Cries of"He did."] I would certainly have called the hon. Member to Order if he had said anything of that kind.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to say that I distinctly heard the hon. Member say, "A Party in this House." [Cries of "Order!"]
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have ruled on the point of Order.
    MR. W. REDMOND: On a point of Order I beg to say most respectfully that I distinctly heard the hon. Member say those words. [Cries of "Order!"]
    *MR. SPEAKER: The words that reached my ears were, "A Party that was at the bottom of these crimes." If

    1777
    the hon. Member had said a Party in this House I should certainly have called him to Order, and the House would have taken a very severe course.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Most respectfully, Sir, with reference to what you have stated—namely, that you would have called the hon. Member to Order if he had asserted that any hon. Member of this House was cognisant of crime, I beg to say that the hon. Member has stated that of me in The Times newspaper.
    *MR.ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, what he intended to convey was an expression of the feeling in the minds of the persecuted people in Ireland who saw that the Chief Secretary was now under the Parliamentary control of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those hon. Gentlemen were associated in their minds with the organisation which was first the Land League and afterwards the National League; and they remembered the statement of the Prime Minister that crime dogged the footsteps of that Association. Whether the belief of these people were correct or not, it existed; and it was natural that they should feel that there was a sinister bearing in the facts as they saw them. This differentiated the case of these counties before the right hon. Gentleman took office from the case of these counties now. He was sure the Chief Secretary was anxious that there should be a diminution of crime in these counties; but he must be aware that he had not taken those steps which would be most, calculated to reassure the persons who felt themselves in danger by his action in the House or out of it. Since the beginning of the Session the attitude of the Chief Secretary had been consistently such as to discourage and dishearten every loyal man in Ireland. There had been many occasions on which this fact had been brought under the notice of the House. The first incident in the Session was the statement by the Chief Secretary that there had been over 700 illegal seizures by the officers of the law in Ireland. If that statement had been proved it would have set the whole country-side on fire, and it would have made the administration of the law in the affected counties absolutely impossible. The Chief Secretary made the statement on his official responsibility, but it turned out to be a mere cock-and-
    1778
    bull story. From beginning to end it had never been substantiated; but it did its work. It discouraged everyone who thought that the law had been justly and adequately administered by the right hon. Gentleman. There was, next, the case of the unhappy man Mr. Blood, who had committed no crime against God or man, but who had simply done what was not only his right, but his duty. He had refused to harbour in a house belonging to him a man whom he and the bulk of the community regarded as an assassin. He said to the father of the man that if he continued to allow his son to live with him he should no longer continue the bounty which he gave him. What was the answer of the Chief Secretary in that case? Everybody knew the odium which had been most unjustly attached to the carrying out of the process of eviction in Ireland; and when the Chief Secretary was asked what was the cause of Mr. Blood's persecution, he said it was because Blood had taken part in an eviction. There was nothing like an eviction in the case, and there was no justification for that cruel thrust. There was another example, on which a series of questions had been asked in the House. To all the questions one stereotyped answer had been given—"The facts as stated in the question are correct." When the House realised what that answer meant they would realise his feeling in the matter. The case of Thomas Barry was an example of the animus which dictated the answers, and of the way in which the good intentions of the Chief Secretary were conveyed to those who were persecuted in Ireland. Thomas Barry was a Poor Law Guardian. In a speech he denounced two persons for signing a Petition against the Home Rule Bill. The Chief Secretary was asked whether this was the fact, and whether, in his opinion, the denunciation did not constitute a threat? The right hon. Gentleman soon found an ally. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) jumped up to ask whether it was not the fact that the speech in question was made at a meeting for the promotion of a Poor Law Election. Even if that had been the case it did not matter two straws.
    MR. SEXTON: As usual, the hon. Member misrepresents the case. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
    MR. WILSON NOBLE: I rise to ask whether the hon. Member is in Order in saying that another hon. Member misrepresents the facts "as usual"?
    MR. SPEAKER: I see nothing of which I can take notice.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the words he had used on the occasion referred to were that Mr. Barry did what he had a perfect right to do, and that at the public meeting, the two persons in question being candidates for the office of Poor Law Guardian, he stated that they had signed a Petition against the Home Rule Bill, and, therefore, ought not to be trusted by the electors.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, the statement he had just made was absolutely correct, but that whether the meeting were a meeting of the Federation, or a meeting to elect Guardians, his point was unaffected—it did not matter two straws whether the speech was made at a meeting of the Federation or not. The Chief Secretary at once said that he had no doubt that the statement of the hon. Member was correct. The next question he asked was whether, as a matter of fact, the houses of two persons had not been burnt; and whether these two persons were not those who had been denounced by Thomas Barry? Then, again, two of the right hon. Gentleman's allies sprang to their feet to ask how the right hon. Gentleman could know anything about it, seeing that no names were mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman, however, knew perfectly well who the men were, and he frankly told the House that he was informed that the persons whose houses were burnt were the persons who had been denounced by Barry for signing a Petition against the Home Rule Bill
    MR. J. MORLEY: How was I informed?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, he did not know who the right hon. Gentleman's informant was; but the information was precisely the same as his own; and he did not doubt one informant more than the other. Then he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, pending the proceedings taken to reimburse the two men for the loss of their burnt premises, Barry was not going about and telling the people of the district to resist inch by inch and to the end the claim for com-
    1780
    pensation which was to be brought before a competent tribunal?
    MR. SEXTON: And why not?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman replied that he could not answer the question because the matter was sub judice. His point was that the defending party was making use of public meetings to compel the competent Court to withhold compensation from the injured persons. There was one more question asked—whether it was not the fact that Thomas Barry had been previously convicted? The right hon. Gentleman would not answer. He said it was hard to go back upon the bad, unhappy past of this man, if there had been a bad, unhappy past. He then asked whether it was not the fact that one of the convictions of Barry in the past had been for precisely the same offence of boycotting? The right hon. Gentleman could not deny it. If the right hon. Gentleman felt bound to answer questions in this way, and to give the cover of his protection to the persons who were concerned in these outrages, then he must not be surprised if the victims lost the full value of the protection which he was certain the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to give them. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman hated crime; but the Parliamentary position in which he found himself was a very difficult one. It would be said by some hon. Members that he had no right to bring forward this question unless he was able to show that there had been a serious increase of outrage since the time when the House last considered the matter. He could positively prove that that was the case. The last Debate in the House on the subject was in March. He had details, unfortunately most incomplete, of the occurrences which had taken place since that date. Many cases were not reported, either through the newspapers or through the police. In Clare alone there had been no less than 17 serious outrages committed since March 2. And to that catalogue he had to add another case that had occurred since the matter was brought before the House. These were not matters which could be regarded lightly, and, for his own part, he had never looked upon threatening letters lightly. Not every threatening letter was followed by crime, but there were very few crimes which were not

    1781
    preceded by threatening letters. The class of crime in County Clare to which he referred included the shooting at men at night, the burning of hay, the burning of houses, firing into houses, attacks on houses by moonlighters, and horse-stabbing—and that reminded them of a very melancholy case in regard to which they had had a very unsatisfactory answer from the Chief Secretary—a case in which a woman's husband was brutally murdered in County Clare. A horse was stabbed, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was because this unhappy lady had dismissed a man in her employ. But the real reason was that her husband had been murdered, and for that reason alone she was persecuted. He now came to Kerry, and the catalogue was very black and serious there. It included two tons of hay burnt, a moonlighting attack on a farmhouse, a horse poisoned, a house fired into in daylight, a cow killed, damage done to farm railings, a moonlighting attack, a heifer killed, a cow killed, a bullock killed, a cow killed, a moonlighting attack on a house by masked men, two large hayricks burnt, a house fired into at night, one bullet lodging in the wall near the place where two women were sleeping. He now came to Limerick, and in some respects the state of the case there was the most serious of all. The list of crimes included the following:—A house burnt down, nine tons of hay burnt, four tons of hay burnt, a house fired into, a house fired into by moonlighters, a house burnt, house attacked, and so on. He did not pretend that this catalogue was exhaustive of the outrages that had boon committed during the time referred to, but it was simply a list of such crimes as had reached him. And what he desired to point out was that though there was nothing new in the black catalogue relating to the Counties of Kerry and Clare, the increase of crime in the County of Limerick was new. Clare had always been what might be called an abnormal county; the same statement in a different way could be made in reference to Kerry, but Limerick had for a long time been free from crime; and when he said that between the date when the present Chief Secretary took office and the present time there had been 17 serious cases of moonlighting in this County of Limerick alone against one in the corresponding period of the preceding 12 months, hon. Members
    1782
    would realise the sort of thing that was in his mind when he brought this matter before them. In the County of Limerick the number of cases of crime had increased during the period he had specified from 1 to 17; in Kerry it had increased from 5 to 12, and in Clare from 10 to 19. Weil, what was it the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was doing to meet this increase of crime? The right hon. Gentleman had over and over again thrown up his hands, and said—"What can we do? We are doing everything you can suggest." The House had been frequently told that there was no efficacy in the measures adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when Secretary for Ireland. He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) denied that statement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had prepared three efficacious weapons, and of those the present Chief Secretary had deliberately deprived himself. He had said—
    "I will not use secret inquiries and change of venue and special juries; and the reason," he said, "I will not use them is, not because I am less opposed to crime than you are, but because these instruments have failed in the hands of those who used them before, and because I believe that they would fail if used now and in the future."
    He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) contended that these instruments had not failed in the past, and would not fail in the future. Secret inquiry had not failed. In the County of Kerry, in four cases of murder, the principals had been brought to the gallows, and the participators had been brought to justice and sentenced to periods of imprisonment by means of secret inquiry. He admitted that in the County of Clare it had not resulted in securing convictions, but it had produced an effect quite as important. The Chief Secretary ought to have told the House of this result. He could go down to-morrow to the Chief Constables of Ennis or Tralee, who could give him the names of at least 300 men, known to be concerned in crime, who had been compelled to leave their counties because these secret inquiries had been set on foot and were having their effect in making these men known to the police. It was unfortunate that in his comparisons between the past and the present, which he had indulged in ad nauseam, the right hon. Gentleman had not given the House

    1783
    one single allusion to this very cardinal fact in the situation, the result of which was that the crime in those counties came down by leaps and bounds. True it was that crime had oscillated up and down slightly; and it was not fair to compare crime of one year with crime of the preceding year. It was necessary to compare the crime which took place before the measures of the late Chief Secretary were taken with the crime which took place afterwards. It would then be found that those measures had been largely efficacious in freeing the country from crime. In Clare crimes went down from 141 in 1886 to 58 in 1890 and 94 in 1891. In Kerry crimes went down from 209 in 1886 to 56 in 1890 and 68 in 1891. In Limerick crimes went down from 80 in 1886 to 30 in 1890 and 17 in 1891. These were important figures, but he did not mean to say that this result was brought about solely by the power of holding secret inquiries. The other powers contained in the Crimes Act, which were concurrent with it, also had effect. There was, for instance, the power of change of venue. The Chief Secretary passed the matter over, but it had been eminently successful. In Clare alone, in 30 cases affecting 69 persons, 32 persons were convicted. In 44 cases in Kerry, affecting 87 persons, 46 convictions were obtained. In 41 cases in Limerick, affecting 65 persons, 28 convictions wore obtained. It could not be said that these people were unfairly tried or that anything but justice was meted out to them; and, therefore, what had been done in the past could be done now and in the future. When the right hon. Gentleman deliberately deprived himself of these instruments, he was, pro tanto, contributing to the lawlessness in these three counties. He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) had before him the figures showing the results of the Courts held in these counties, which showed that they had been most successful. In Kerry, in 1887, there were 19 Courts held and 32 convictions obtained; in 1888, 41 Courts and 96 convictions; in 1889, 24 Courts, and 23 convictions; and in 1891, three Courts — all that were required — and four convictions. In Clare, in 1887, there were 19 Courts held and 37 convictions obtained; in 1888, 46 Courts and 134 convictions; in 1889, 10 Courts and 50 convictions;
    1784
    and in 1891, nine Courts and eight convictions. He was not blind to the fact that a large number of persons who ought to have been convicted were not convicted, and to that extent he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) was prepared for the exposure and censure of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. But that was a calamity he deplored as much as the right hon. Gentleman could, and he maintained that, to a large extent, these Courts were successful. In a few days or weeks the Assizes in Clare, Limerick, and Kerry would be coming on. What would be the use of trying prisoners at those Assizes? Everybody knew, and no one better than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that it would be an absolute waste of time to try them there; for two reasons: In the first place, past experience showed that convictions were not likely to be the result of such trials, whether the cases were agrarian or non-agrarian. There was also the additional fact that the persons who were called on to serve on the juries and to act as witnesses in these counties had been continually and deliberately commanded by persons belonging to that Party in Ireland supporting the present Chief Secretary to commit perjury in the jury and witness-boxes. Jurors and witnesses were exposed to terrible outrage, and were threatened for performing their duty according to their oaths. Cases of this kind had been published in the papers, and it was not to be expected that men in these counties, with the slack hand of the Secretary for Ireland affording them no protection, would come forward and take all the risks of doing their duty when they knew very well the fate that would wait upon them as a result. He should be told that all this was the natural outcome of the system that prevailed in the country. But was that the fact? It was not beside the mark to remind hon. Members that this was not the outcome of the system of law under which the Irish people as a whole lived. He found that last year the number of agrarian crimes committed in Clare was 57, in Limerick 56, and in Kerry 61; while in Antrim, including the City of Belfast, it was one, in Down it was five, in Londonderry none, and in Armagh two, although these districts were under exactly the same system of government as the others. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, could not con-

    1785
    tend that there was anything in the existing condition of things in Ireland that naturally produced those outbreaks of crime. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had done all in his power to put down what was practically becoming a reign of terror in those districts, and he had taunted the Members of the late Government with having themselves reduced the police force of County Clare. But at that very time the right hon. Gentleman held in his hands the actual words of the Grand Jury, in which they asked for an increase of the police force of the county. The late Government had tilled up many vacancies, and had brought up the police force to within 15 of its former strength. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was perfectly aware that he might increase the police force of the district as much as he pleased, and that any steps he might take in that direction would be utterly ineffectual, unless he supplemented them with further action. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take that farther action. He asked the right Gentleman whether he would not make use of some of those weapons that still remained in his hand in order to put an end to the deplorable state of things which he himself admitted existed in these districts. The right hon. Gentleman had said that crime was confined to a very small area in Ire-laud. He ventured very respectfully to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. He had gone over the localities in which these crimes and outrages had been committed, and he had found that, so far from their being confined to one locality or centred round one spot, they were distributed over an area of 40, 50, or 60 miles, and over the length and breadth of the three Counties of Kerry, Limerick, and Clare. Even if the crimes centred round one place, it would be all the more desirable to make some effort to put an end to the plague spot and to crush out the crime of which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the existence. He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) acknowledged the difficulties under which the right hon. Gentleman laboured, and he hoped he had not spoken lightly or disrespectfully of the work the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken, but he know there must be times when the Chief Secretary was as sick of this state of things as anyone else,
    1786
    and it was to be hoped he would determine that, however bad this state of things had been in the past, it was, at any rate, his duty now to adopt whatever measures were necessary to protect the lives and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not complain of the action of the hon. Member in calling the attention of the House to the condition of certain parts of Ireland, but I do think that both the House and the Government have a right to take exception to the conduct of the hon. Member in not having availed himself of the opportunity that was offered to him, and deliberately offered to him, for bringing this subject —which is not an unimportant one— forward on Tuesday night. Up to 11 o'clock that night we were engaged in discussing a variety of matters of third-rate importance.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am glad the hon. Member for South Tyrone assents to that statement. At 11 o'clock that night we adjourned the Debate to enable an hon. Member to bring forward a subject of which he had given notice before the Whitsuntide Recess. There is one other thing I must complain of—namely, that the hon. Member has been guilty of a want of good faith and sincerity in describing these as matters of urgent public interest, when really one-half of his speech was directed to old matters which wore discussed and disposed of in the course of the five or six Votes of Censure brought forward against the Irish administration of the Government before the Easter Recess. My defence or reply to the hon. Member will be shorter but not of a less substantial character than the hon. Member's attack. What was the hon. Member's point? It was that, because there has been a change of Government and a change of policy, the moonlighters of Clare and Kerry ought to have at once become the supporters of law and order. The hon. Member says he had hoped that our accession to the Irish Government would have led to a cessation of crime and outrage. He gave a reason for it exactly

    1787
    opposite to what Members of the late Government gave for expecting a, decline of crime in Ireland. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite stated their belief that crime would decrease in Ireland, because those who were in working alliance with the Government now, and who had hitherto taken no part in the repression of crime, would have every motive to restrain the disorder and crime that prevailed. Her Majesty's Government are not at all ashamed to avow that a working alliance has been formed between themselves and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. But the hon. Member who brought this subject forward said that that alliance is the reason for the prevalence of disorder an Ireland. The hon. Member said that the comparisons which the present Government made ad nauseam between the amount of agrarian crime in Ireland that prevailed after their accession to Office and that which existed under the administration of the late Government was unsound, because there were many kinds of non-agrarian crime which might have an agrarian significance. Well, I admit that there are many kinds of non-agrarian crime which are almost as significant of a had state of social order as the prevalence of agrarian crime. I go with the hon. Member to some extent on that matter. I do not undervalue the figures which show an increase of non-agrarian crime, but the Committee must not lose sight of the fact that it is the figures of agrarian crime which, after all, are of the first order of importance. What are the facts as to these Counties of Clare, Limerick, and Kerry? I should like the House to know that the quantity and volume of agrarian crime in Ireland, which began to decline under the late Government, has continued to decrease under the present Administration.. The number of agrarian outrages since I came into the office of Chief Secretary, excluding threatening letters — which have been excluded from all my categories—compared with the number in the corresponding period of 1891–2, shows a decrease of 31, and that decrease has not been attended by any increase in virulence of type, for there has not been a single agrarian murder in the whole of Ireland since the accession of the present Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the comparison between the first six mouths of this year and the first six months of last year?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have not arranged the figures in that way. I have taken the figures from August 27, 1892, when the present Government came into Office, and have compared them with the figures for the similar period of 1891–2. During the earlier of those periods there was, I believe, one agrarian murder as compared with none in our period. The hon. Member referred to the maiming of cattle in Clare—a peculiarly foul and cowardly form of outrage. What has happened in respect to that? In this class of crime there has been a fall from 38 to 19, showing that these outrages have been only one-half as frequent under the present Administration as they were in the time of the late Government. So much for the general case all over Ireland. I now pass to the particular counties which the hon. Member has referred to. It is quite true that in Clare, Kerry, Limerick, and North Cork there has been an increase in the number of offences, which are unscientifically classified as moonlighting offences.
    An hon. MEMBER: Whiteboy offences.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; Whiteboy offences committed at night. I suppose they are called "moonlighting," because when the offences are committed at night that name strikes the imagination more, but I should be glad if the more correct classification were recognised. I feel it would be difficult to get people interested in crime in Ireland to adopt it. There are two plague spots in which these White boy offences have shown that which I trust is but a passing and temporary recrudescence. One of those areas is in Clare, within about 10 miles of Ennis; the other is included in the wild districts of Kerry, Limerick, and North Cork, where night raids have been of recurring prevalence at any time during the last 10 years. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that even in those parts the figures mean a general rise of disorderly spirit. There has, in fact, been a decline of agrarian crime in the Counties of Cork, Kerry, and Clare. We will take the County of Clare. It is

    1789
    not my fault that I am obliged to go through some of the figures which I have already given upon former occasions. In County Clare, upon which the hon. Member lays most stress, there has been seven years' steady decline in agrarian crime. The figures are 52, 48, 32, 30, 33, 33, and, in our own period, 27; so that the figure is now six below that at which it stood when the late Government thought they were quite safe in removing from County Clare some of the most operative portions of the Crimes Act. The agrarian crime in the County of Clare is now 20 per cent. lower than it has been at any time since 1886. It is true that there has been a rise of non-agrarian crime in that county from 46 in 1891–2 to 64 in 1892–3. That, I admit, is an important fluctuation, but exactly similar fluctuations took place in 1889–90 and the following year, when the number of these crimes in Clare rose from 41 to exactly the figure it is now—namely, 64. The offences which the police authorities with some reluctance have classified as moonlighting rose from 10 in 1891–2 to 20 in 1892–3; but it should be noted that these are local in character, the area being some 10 miles from Ennis, and 18 of the 20 occurred in three places —Corofin, Ennis, and Tulla. There has been a considerable decline in agrarian Crime and certain fluctuations in non-agrarian crime in Kerry. In Kerry the cases of agrarian crime had gone down from 22 to 20, whilst cases of non-agrarian crime had increased from 55 to 61. Therefore, putting the two together, there has been a total increase of 4 in the cases of crime. I think that those who are conversant with Irish affairs will agree with me that 'this is not a very serious change. Moonlighting offences show a rise of from 7 to 13, but they all took place in one district. Agrarian crime in the troublesome County of Kerry has never been so low since 1876. Taking both the East and the West Ridding, and com-billing the agrarian and the non-agrarian cases, the figures are 111 in 1891–2, and 102 in 1892–3. I come now to the County of Limerick, which I admit is, in some parts of it, in a state very far from satisfactory, as there has been an increase under every head. But, after all, except under one head, there has been no cause for anything like great
    1790
    anxiety. There has been an increase in agrarian offences from 11 to 15, and in non-agrarian offences from 25 to 51, whilst the cases of moonlighting have increased from 1 to 19. Here, again, the increase is confined almost exclusively to a not very large district adjoining the district I have already referred to. But let the House mark this—that, out of these moonlighting cases, 7 occurred in a single week in last April, and since the 23rd of April there has not been a single moonlighting outrage in the county. From the 23rd of April to the 28th of May Limerick, as far as moonlighting goes, shows a completely clean sheet. Does not this show that these rushes of crime are not to be ascribed to the failure of any method of government?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, he thought there had been several cases of moonlighting in the County of Limerick since the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. On the 17th of last month some hay was burnt, and on the same date a horse was attacked by moonlighters, and shots were fired.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Our figures are, at least, as much to be relied upon as those of the hon. Member; and, therefore, until the hon. Member can prove his cases, I shall insist that my figures are correct.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Perhaps I may give my authority. It is The Limerick Leader, a paper which, I think, represents hon. Members opposite.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I did not know that the hon. Member thought that a paper representing hon. Members opposite was a good authority. At all events, I prefer to rely upon my own figures.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It does not represent us at all.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Return from the 1st to the 27th May in the County of Limerick is a nil Return.
    MR. W. REDMOND: The Limerick Leader is as good a paper as The Freeman's Journal.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Well, there is this extraordinary fact—that you had seven or eight moonlighting rases in the County of Limerick in a week, followed by a complete cessation of that class of offences. Does not that show that this was merely one of those rushes of crime which did occur in Ireland, have occurred

    1791
    there, and which for some time, whatever form of government you have, are not likely to come to an end? If the House is going to judge the Government by fluctuations in offences, it must realise how these fluctuations have occurred in the past. In 1892, there were 15 moonlighting offences in Limerick in July, in August there were 3, in September 16, in December 14; in January, 1893, there were 3, in February 13, in March 9, and in April 22. Well, the state of things is undoubtedly unsatisfactory in Limerick, and I have admitted on several occasions that in Clare the condition is not satisfactory, whilst in North Kerry it is not what we desire to see it. But when the hon. Member says that all this has been brought about by a change of Government and by a feeling on the part of the people in these counties that they have got a Government in power which does not care whether crime is committed or not, I must point out that there is no foundation for such an assertion. With all due respect to the hon. Member, I cannot but think he knows that the disorganisation, as far as it prevails in Clare, is an old matter, whilst I have shown that in Limerick it is one of those temporary rushes which have occurred before, and which we may hope, under vigorous, firm, and proper measures, will disappear. He Says that we cannot resort to firm and vigorous measures, because we have no Crimes Act. Let us look at that point for a moment. The hon. Member read a great number of figures as to the convictions obtained in the Summary Jurisdiction Courts; but he forgot to tell the House that the late Government dropped the clause by which the Summary Jurisdiction Court was constituted. As I pointed out in the former Debate on this subject, when the late Government revoked the Proclamation which placed Clare tinder that provision of the Crimes Act, they drew the teeth of the Act. At all events, it was the late Government and not us that was responsible for the dropping of that power. Then with regard to change of venue there may be circumstances in which change of venue may secure the doing of justice which otherwise could not be done. We have change of venue in England, and there are provisions in the Irish law for change of venue.
    MR. CARSON: Not under such conditions as exist at present.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Well, we will see about that. The object of change of venue is to secure the conviction of the prisoner. Yes; but the weakness of the Government and of the police in the County of Clare is not that they cannot get prisoners convicted; the great difficulty is to get your prisoner. The reason they cannot arrest men is that people are afraid of giving evidence. That is not affected by change of venue applied to a prisoner when you have got him. I quite admit that people will not give evidence because they are afraid of the intimidatory public opinion around them. Before you can send a prisoner for trial you must have him brought before local Magistrates, and committed by such Magistrates after the hearing of evidence. I should like any lawyer to explain how change of venue would decrease this difficulty.
    MR. CARSON: There were seven prisoners at the last Clare Assizes.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I will just add this. If I thought a change of venue would have the effect which the hon. Member, contrary to the experience of the last 10 years, says it would have, and would clear Clare and Kerry of these ruffians, does he suppose that because I have said again and again that either change of venue or exceptional legislation is undesirable in Ireland, I should refrain from pressing on my Colleagues in the House the advisability of making a change? Well, as I have said, there are some unsatisfactory conditions in these counties; but there is reason to believe that they are of a temporary and passing character. All the authorities concerned are doing their duty to the full, and I am glad to hear the expression of the hon. Member's opinion that the police are working just as energetically and as faithfully under the present Government as they worked under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman. Every step is being taken in reference to personnel and method that experience, judgment, or sense of responsibility can induce us to take, and the hon. Member has shown no justification for the serious step he has thought fit to take in moving the Adjournment of the House.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he thought he could convince the House that it had not been misspending its time that afternoon, for since the Debate commenced he had received a telegram from Ennis which probably the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had heard nothing about. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman had told the House nothing about it, and had stated that there had been no murder in Clare. The telegram he had received read as follows:—
    "About noon, to-day, Weldon Moloney, solicitor, of Dublin, agent to Moloney trustees in this county, was fired at and wounded near Tulla, close to where Perry was shot."
    Therefore, if there had been no murder, there had been an attempt to murder that very day, and it was no fault of the criminals that their hands had not been stained with murder. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman stated in his speech what had taken place within seven miles of Ennis that afternoon? The right hon. Gentleman had said that this question ought to have been raised on Report of Supply. Well, hon. Members were prevented from raising the question on the Vote on Account, in the first place, because they were shut out by other Members who had precedence; and, in the second place, because the Debate was closured. With regard to Report of Supply, the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) had asked the Prime Minister whether he would adjourn the Debate on the Government of Ireland Bill a little before midnight, so as to allow time for a brief discussion on education on the Vote on Account, and the time was occupied with this subject. He was not going over the weary catalogue of crimes further than this. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had declared that, from his information, there had been no case of moonlighting or agrarian crime in County Limerick since April 23rd. He would give four cases, with the names of the people and the nature of the outrages, which had occurred in the county since that date, and would ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into them. On May 2nd the house of John Walsh was fired into, and on May 17th hay belonging to Mary English was burned and a cowhouse belong to Mary Richard-
    1794
    son was destroyed, and the house of Owen Hegarty was fired into.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had already explained that the police classified as moonlighting offences only offences that occurred at night. Those which the hon. Member had given occurred in the daytime.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman gave the House the impression that the County of Limerick had been free from crime since the date he named. These crimes were simple ruffian ism, and the official classification had no bearing upon the point. Leaving the crime itself, he asked, What had the right hon. Gentleman done since Mr. Justice O'Brien declared that property and life had no protection in the County of Clare? Since he came into Office the right hon. Gentleman had removed the County Inspector, a tried and efficient officer, who had the whole of the strings in his hands. He had removed the Head Constable, a man who knew every rascal in the County of Clare. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt with crime in Clare by removing the police officials who knew all its ramifications and putting in their place men who knew nothing about it—he meant that they had no local knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the change of venue was of no use, that the difficulty was to catch the criminal. That was only half the truth. The right hon. Gentleman knew that change of venue had been of great use. He knew that in Kerry three murderers had been tracked down by means of the secret inquiry and convicted by means of a change of venue. There were criminals at the last Assizes in Clare and Limerick, but they wore not convicted because the jurors were afraid to do their duty. He would read a few sentences of the teaching that jurors had received in the past—
    "We look to the Irish jurors this winter to teach this cowardly, cut-throat Gin-eminent of ours a lesson never to be forgotten. The Irish jurors can do it. and we dare swear they will. Our Irish jurors are the one barrier that stands between us and absolute and undiluted despotism. What a paradise of tyrants the island would be if it were not for juries. … The jury system is on its trial this winter. Every juror that is sworn or challenged is on his trial. Let him show what of manhood he has in him. We are not of those who hide our meanings under metaphors, transparent or opaque. The Govern-

    1795
    ment means to try a number of innocent men this winter, and it dares hope for a Verdict of guilty, The hope is an insult to Irish jurors. Let there be no beating about the bush. We don't want and we won't wait to hear the unintelligible jargon of an indictment, the long, reckless rigmarole of constabulary evidence, the solemn platitudes of prosecuting counsel and prosecuting Judge. We know the whole story by heart, and so does the country. Hurley, Saunders—fortsmen, and Tully have already appeared before the bar of Irish public opinion, and already in every honest Irishman's heart the verdict of 'Not Guilty' has been pronounced. The Judge has no hold on him (the juror); the whole power of the British Constitution has no hold on him. He is responsible only to his own conscience and to his country for his verdict. He tries and is tried, and as he judges others he shall himself be judged."
    That language was written in a paper edited by a man who sat on the opposite side of the House at that moment. And if jurors dared to do their duty, and brought in verdicts the justice of which had never been questioned, the panel was published and sent all over Ireland, in order that the jurors should he marked and their businesses destroyed. What right had they to wonder that these poor Clare farmers, with cattle to maim, hay to burn, and houses to be fired into, had not the courage which the Chief Secretary himself had not got? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. The Assizes were coming on. There were men in custody for serious crimes in Clare, Limerick, and Kerry. Was the right hon. Gentleman going through the old farce of sending those people to he tried by Kerry, Clare, and Limerick jurors? If so, he was practically an accessory to these crimes. The Chief Secretary had often said that secret inquiry had failed. He could not take up that position now. A Return had been issued that morning giving the result of every secret inquiry that had taken place tinder the Act of 1887. It was quite true that in the three cases in which a secret inquiry was held in County Clare it failed, but that did not mean that it produced no good result, because he had it on good authority that contemporaneously with the sitting of those secret inquiries many men of bad character left County Clare and left Ireland. What were the facts as to the operation of the secret inquiry in the Counties of Kerry and Limerick? In the County of Kerry seven inquiries were held, four cases being murder cases, and
    1796
    in only one did the inquiry fail. In three-out of the four murder cases conviction and execution followed the inquiry. What, then, was the use of the right hon. Gentleman's getting up and saying that the power of holding a secret inquiry was a failure? In the only case in which it was put into operation in the County of Limerick it was successful in producing evidence sufficient to bring the criminals to justice. Then there was the question of special jurors. He could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman had no affection for them. What had been the result of trials by special jurors? In almost every case from Kerry in which the venue was changed and the trial took place before special jurors conviction took place. When the right hon. Gentleman had such powers at command, he had no right to stand up at the Table and say that the Government were doing all that they could to put an end to these crimes. The method of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with crime was curiously illustrated by an answer he gave that day when he brought under the right hon. Gentleman's notice the case of the Sarsfield Branch of the National League. In that case a man entered into possession of what was called an evicted farm. The National League and the National Federation met in the City of Limerick and passed resolutions denouncing the man by name, by which they declared that unless he gave up the farm and conformed to popular opinion his name would be sent by circular all through the county and the South of Ireland, and a newspaper article declared that if the man did not take that "quiet warning" he must take the consequences. What did that mean? It meant that that man was marked out for popular displeasure, that he was to be ruined in his business. All the right hon. Gentleman said was that he did not think from the information he had that the case was likely to turn out serious, but that the police were keeping an eye on it. If that man was shot, what would be the good of the policeman's eye? Had any body of citizens the right to meet in that public and unabashed way and denounce a man and hold him up to this punishment? If they had not that right, why did the Chief Secretary sit there and allow it to goon? In this part of Ireland life was practically intolerable to a large number

    1797
    of people. A man went to a fair and quarrelled with some one over the price of some beasts; he was probably shot on his way home. [Cries of "Oh!"] Oh! There was nothing more probable. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Islington had no right to be disorderly.
    *MR. LOUGH: I have no intention of being disorderly. The hon. Member made a statement about the probability of a man, who had disputed about the price of a beast in a fair in Ireland, being shot on his way home. An hon. Member behind me said it was perfectly true, and I turned round and said that it was not true, as I had bought and sold more cattle at fairs in Ireland than the whole of the Members on the Bench on which he was sitting had ever bought or sold there.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member evidently did not find it a very profitable business, because he left Ireland long ago.
    *MR. LOUGH: That statement, like many which come from the same quarter, is perfectly untrue. I have not left Ireland; I spend part of every year in Ireland. I have a house in Ulster, and I question if the hon. Member who has challenged me, and who represents an Ulster constituency, has got as good means of knowing the facts as that gives me.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he would resume his argument. He asserted that the state of the counties under discussion was a disgrace to the Government of the country. The Government could, if they chose to exercise the powers they possessed, make an end, in a mouth, of the present state of things, and everyone of these rascals could be hunted out of Ireland, if they were not brought to justice. This was not agrarian crime not non-agrarian crime. It was sheer ruffianism, and for the Chief Secretary to have any scruple about applying the Crimes Act, or any other Act, to put down that ruffianism was unworthy of an English Minister.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he did not propose to stand between the House and the Division, which he supposed must come, for more than a moment, because it appeared to him quite evident that, although the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the condition of those counties might be great, their
    1798
    interest in postponing the Bill for the better government of Ireland was even greater. ["Oh!" and cheers.] He made that; statement advisedly, for this reason. The condition of Clare, as could be discovered by a study of the statistics of crime committed in that county, was to-day undoubtedly better than it had been for the last few years of the late Administration. When the late Government were in power, they had no Debate about the condition of Clare, although it was undoubtedly worse than at the present time. However, he would only say a few words, for the reason that he had been referred to in connection with the condition of the county which he represented by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment. He differed from the hon. Member for West Belfast and those who sat round him. They were opposed to him on the broad political issues of the day. They believed in the present system of governing Ireland, while he had all his life been a strong believer in the necessity of Home Rule. But he asked whether it was not possible for hon. Members representing Ireland, Unionists as well as Nationalists, to discuss the great questions of the day with reference to Ireland without descending so low as to accuse some of them, in so many words, that they wore in direct sympathy with crime and outrage in Ireland? He had attacked Unionist Members bitterly for the past 10 years for their political opinions; but he had never charged any one of them with either sympathy with, or the responsibility for, outrages and murder. When outrages had been committed in Ulster, and when these outrages had been denounced by hon. Members from Ulster, he had accepted their denunciations, because he thought it would be a most unworthy thing to charge a fellow-countryman with a thing so base as sympathy with crime. The most irritating circumstance in a matter of this kind was the tone adopted by Unionist Members. The hon. Member who had last spoken referred sneeringly to what was called "the Union of Hearts." He did not know whether or not it was desirable, in the opinion of those hon. Members, that the old feeling of bitterness between Englishmen and Irishmen should cease; but he could assure Englishmen in all parts of the House who

    1799
    were anxious by Home Rule or some other means to establish a better state of feeling between England and Ireland in the future than had existed in the past, that it could not be brought about by adopting the course of stating, almost in so many words, that a large section of Irishmen were in sympathy, direct or indirect, with outrages which had been condemned by all Parties in the country. If the Irish Members or any of them were responsible, by word or action, in the slightest degree, for any crime committed in Ireland, why had they not been made amenable? Many of them had been imprisoned under the Coercion Act, but not one of them had ever been made amenable to the law, simply because it could not be done, for there were no Members of the House more free from crime and outrage than the Nationalist Members. He was not going to justify any crime which had been committed in his constituency. He had stated repeatedly that these outrages were of an infamous character, and ought to be put down by every person who had the means of doing so, for those crimes were injuring the Irish people, and every man he knew in his constituency agreed with him in the matter. But though they might sneer at the statement, he would repeat that with evictions and notices of evictions outrages increased in Ireland; and he would say, further, that were it not for the Nationalist Representatives who came there year after year and voiced on the floor of the House the grievances of the Irish people, and forced from the Legislature Land Act after Land Act which had brought peace and contentment to the Irish people, there would have been 20 outrages for every one which had unfortunately occurred during the last 10 years in Ireland. He declared that, so far from the Nationalist Members encouraging outrage in Ireland, their actions in the House of Commons had restored the country to a condition of peace and tranquillity greater than it had ever enjoyed for many years. He wished hon. Gentlemen who pinned their faith to the present policy of the Government with regard to Ireland to note the fact that with all the anxiety of Unionist Members to display the condition of Ireland as black as possible, they had only been able to find something to complain of in three counties
    1800
    out of the whole of Ireland. That proved that the general condition of Ireland was thoroughly satisfactory. With regard to the three counties in question, it should be mentioned that other figures besides figures of crime could be quoted. He found, for instance, that in Clare for the quarter ending March, 1893, no less than 209 notices of eviction had been served under the 7th section of the Land Act of 1887. He did not say that these notices of eviction were a justification for the outrages in Clare, but they were a reason for these outrages; and he would like to know what would be the effect on even the most peaceable county in England or Scotland if the people were served right, left, and centre with these eviction notices as his people had been served in the County of Clare? The fact was that eviction and crime had always gone hand in hand in Ireland, and eviction and crime would continue to go hand in hand in Ireland, and the best way to put down crime in Ireland was by going to the root of the grievance, and put down evictions, for when the Irish counties were as free from evictions as the English counties they would be as free from crime as the English counties. Then, again, Clare was in a 20 per cent. better condition than it was in 1886; and he wished to know how, in face of that statement, it could be said that Clare was in an alarming condition? He would only say, in conclusion, that he was just as much opposed to crime and outrage as the hon. Member for West Belfast; but while he denounced the moonlighter, he would also condemn the landlords who showered eviction notices on the people and levelled their comes. It had been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast that if he only took the trouble he could have brought the malefactors in Clare to justice. That was a most unworthy assertion, and an assertion which he believed the hon. Member would feel in calmer moments that he had no right to make. He knew no more of these outrages and crime than the hon. Member for West Belfast himself. But he knew that the people of Clare had suffered harsh treatment— that they were now threatened with eviction; and he appealed to the Government, when they turned their attention to Clare, not to ignore the fact that the condition of the county was due to the

    1801
    serving of these notices, which had been so well described as "sentences of death."
    MR. CARSON: I only desire to intervene in the Debate for a few moments in consequence of some matters more or less personal to me introduced by the Chief Secretary. I think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely misapprehended the scope and the nature of this Debate, and I think, also, that he has given no answer whatever to the charges that have been brought forward against the Government by the hon. Member who moved this Motion. The matter in reference to which this Debate is conversant is the increase of agrarian crime that has taken place in these three counties in Ireland since the last discussion upon the subject in March last. The right hon. Gentleman is amply prepared with the statistics of Irish crime in 1892: but he has none to give the House in relation to that crime between March last and the present time, although he has been warned by us in this House, and by the Judges of Assizes in March last that there would be fresh outbursts of crime, unless steps were taken to prevent them in these particular counties. The right hon. Gentleman admits that since the present Government came into Office there has been an increase of moonlighting in Kerry from 10 to 20 cases, in Clare of from 7 to of 15 cases, and in Limerick of from 1 to 17 cases. That is a most alarming condition of affairs to anyone who knows the condition of the country, and the manner in which these crimes extend from one county to another. But the right hon. Gentleman says that, after all, these moonlighting cases have nothing to do with agrarian crime. Then, what kind of crimes are they? The right hon. Gentleman says they are not classed as agrarian crimes. But how is the classification made? The truth is that unless the police are able to obtain information that au outrage committed by moonlighters arose out of an agrarian dispute they return, it as being non-agrarian. Therefore these moonlighting outrages may or may not be agrarian cases, as the police have no information on the subject. Indeed, the probability is that nearly all these moonlighting outrages are agrarian crimes, although they are classified as being non-agrarian. In these circum-
    1802
    stances it cannot be successfully contended that the amount of agrarian crime has been reduced since the present Government came into power. In view of this state of things, surely we have aright to ask the Government what steps they are taking to put an end to moonlighting in Ireland? The light hon. Gentleman says—"We will not take your advice!" We then ask, "What are you doing?" and he is unable to give us any answer. There still stands upon the Statute Book an Act of Parliament giving the Government the power to change the venue of a trial which under the Constitution the right hon. Gentleman is bound to use if the necessity for it arises. The right hon. Gentleman says that a change of venue would be absolutely useless in these cases: but I think that the statistics adduced by the hon. Member for South Tyrone entirely disproves the right hon. Gentleman's assertion. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—and it is a serious question—can by find a single instance of a conviction in a serious agrarian outrage case in a local venue since the passing of Lord O'Hagan's Act in 1872? I assert that since that Act, relating to juries, was unfortunately passed for Ireland, there has not been, in a serious agrarian case, a conviction obtained in a local venue and before an ordinary local jury. What is the remedy against that state of affairs? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to assert in this House that there is no remedy in the case of agrarian crime? There are in the Cabinet, besides the right hon. Gentleman himself, two right hon. Gentlemen who have been Chief Secretaries for Ireland, one being the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and the other being the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, and both of them immediately after their return to this country from Ireland stated as the result of their experience that ordinary juries could not be trusted to give just verdicts in cases of agrarian crimes. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for War said—and his words are exactly applicable to the present condition of affairs in Ireland—
    "The key of the whole question was this; that in many parts of Ireland, for certain classes of offence, especially offences of an agrarian character, they could not trust the ordinary class of jurymen to do their duty partly from ignorance, partly from prejudice, but greatly

    1803
    owing to the system of terrorism under the National League."
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "They could not be sure, even with the clearest evidence, of being able to obtain a verdict."
    And he added—
    "The provisions for change of venue and special juries might very well he made the law of the land."
    I could quote also in exactly the same terms from speeches by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. I might even quote from a speech on the subject made by that right hon. Gentleman after the introduction of the Home Rule Bill of 1886. No doubt both of those right hon. Gentlemen have changed their opinions with regard to Home Rule; but their change of opinion cannot change their experiences while they held the high Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. In addition to this, I might quote the words of the Prime Minister himself. In introducing the Home Rule Bill of 1886, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible if a trial took place in a local venue to obtain a conviction, because the people who formed the local juries took a different view from other people as regards the criminality of agrarian crimes. Now, if these right hon. Gentlemen and the Judges of Assize take this view of the point, it is utterly ridiculous and futile for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to assert that changing the venue in such cases would be absolutely useless. I say that you may have your police; you may have your detectives; you may have your Resident Magistrates; but the whole machinery of the Irish Government will totter to its foundation unless criminal trials in Ireland are fairly conducted by a change of venue. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is a right to change the venue at Common Law. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to try it. My experience of these applications is that if you go before the Court and rely on the general condition of a county as reason why it would be impossible to obtain a fair trial the Court will say—"You must go to Parliament. Parliament has given the local venue for the trial of those cases." But even if the Court could be induced to change the venue at
    1804
    Common Law in certain particular cases of intimidation, the result, as you will find recorded in the Irish law cases, would be that the jury panel would be reduced to 24; and, inasmuch as the prisoner would have a right to challenge 20 out of that number, there would only be four jurymen left to try him. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear no more of this right to change the venue at Common Law. The right hon. Gentleman says you must catch your prisoner before you can try him; but if there is anything which more than another is the cause of the reluctance of the people to give evidence it is the fact that though they may give evidence the prisoner will not be convicted. Unless a prisoner is convicted the last state of the witnesses against him will be worse than the first; and, therefore, unless witnesses believe that the trial will be a fair one, they will decline to give evidence against a prisoner. On the other hand, you will have no difficulty in getting evidence if you show that your laws will not be paralysed, and that the evidence will not go for nothing. Therefore I do in all earnestness press on the right hon. Gentleman the great necessity there is for putting this power of changing the venue into operation. I certainly believe that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely sincere when he stated to the House that if there were a necessity for it he would be the first to take that course. Is there any necessity or not? And I want to know, if there is no necessity, what is the alternative the right hon. Gentleman proposes for the purpose of restoring law and order in this part of Ireland? I only wish to refer to one other matter. The right hon. Gentleman said it was hard to got evidence for the purpose of leading to conviction. But has the right hon. Gentleman or those who assist him been reading the newspapers in these districts for the past month? If he had he would read day after day, in Clare, Limerick, and Kerry, and other parts of Ireland, of these Land League Courts being set up again for the purpose of summoning farmers before them. I myself, within the past few days, have read accounts of such meetings in Clare. In United Ireland of the 19th May the right hon. Gentleman will find that parties had been summoned before these Land League

    1805
    tribunals, for the purpose of explaining their conduct and being held up to public odium. These are matters in the daily routine of the journals that represent certain opinions in the South and West of Ireland. They are not matters hidden away in the dead of night as moonlighting cases are. What has the right hon. Gentleman done in these cases? One case has been mentioned—that of Barry. What are the facts in that case? Barry denounced certain persons for signing Petitions against the Home Rule Bill, and the result of that was that their houses were burned. What steps did the right hon. Gentleman take in that case? The only matter the right hon. Gentleman stated in this House was that it was not fair to he going back upon the character of Mr. Barry. Is the meaning of that defence this—that because Mr. Barry has a bad character and has been convicted before, therefore when he commits a crime now he is to be let off? I think the right hon. Gentleman could lay his finger upon many cases reported in those papers which, as he has himself stated in reply to questions, very frequently led to crime in which, if the right hon. Gentleman consulted his Legal Advisors, the authors of these paragraphs and those responsible for their publication could readily he brought within the Criminal Law. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow this recrudescence of crime to go on and spread in Ireland until he finds it much more difficult to cope with than now.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the Government need no suggestion from me as to what the real object of this Motion is. Its object is, of course, two-fold. In the first place, it has wasted four hours of valuable time, on which I must congratulate the Mover of the Motion; and, in the second place, the object appears to be that the Conservative Party want to get the Liberal Party, who have denounced coercion at all times since 1886, to utilise the Bill which the Conservative Party passed in 1887 in order that thereby the Conservative Party might justify their action for the last seven years. In vain is the net spread in sight of any bird, and certainly I think the Government would be extremely wanting in ordinary sagacity if they did not see this. The object of this Motion
    1806
    is not so much concerned with outrages in the County Clare as with Party tactics in the House of Commons. From the way the stories are attempted to be palmed off on this House, my belief is that the Tory Party seem to think that any yarn is good enough for the House of Commons. We have just heard the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, with all the calmness of a lawyer, declare that in Ireland if you have a change of venue at Common Law you have a panel of 24, and that the prisoner has a right of 20 challenges. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Member, is there one word of foundation for the statement? How was Phelan tried for the murder of Boyd in the year 1880? Why did not Phelan challenge 20 jurors?
    MR. CARSON: I do not know why he did not.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, he did. And strange to say, there were the ordinary number of Common Law jurors left in the box. The reason is plain, because it is not true that the panel consists of 24 jurors, though it is true that the prisoner has the right of 20 challenges. I do not intend to go into the technicalities of the mutter now, but if any hon. Member looks it up he will find it in the books. I wish simply to expose and demolish as absurd——
    MR. CARSON: As a matter of personal explanation, I wish to say I was referring to a change of venue from one county to another, and not to a restricted trial in the Queen's Bench in Dublin.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to something I never heard of. If the hon. and learned Gentleman feels disposed to imagine a certain state of things, all I can say is that in my present position I am unable to deal with them. I should like to say one word as to the condition of Clare. I believe that the person most responsible for the condition of Clare at this moment is Mr. Justice O'Brien. There is no use in this House in trying to blink the facts. What is the position? You have in Ireland a set of political Judges. I go into the Queen's Bench in Dublin, and whom do I find confronting me? Mr. Justice Holmes, who sat upon that (the Treasury Bench) and proposed the Coercion Act; Mr. Justice Gibson, who

    1807
    is second in command; and Mr. Justice Madden, who also acted under the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland——[Cries of"Order!"]
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and learned Member is now perilously near the infringement of the Rule which says that you must not comment, except upon Motion in due course, upon the conduct of the Judges of the land, or impute to them, arising out of political circumstances, any bias in their conduct.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall carefully abstain from any infringement of the Rule. All I say is this, that here you have four gentlemen who have been Attorney Generals under this Coercion Act. And when they go down through the length and breadth of Ireland to declare at the Summer Assizes, or at the Winter Assizes, or at the Spring Assizes, that a particular state of things exists in the country, of course I cannot forget that I have seen these gentlemen at that Table. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and learned Member is not now doing the very thing you told him not to do?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member, as I said before, is going very near an infringement of the Rule, and I must ask him to faithfully observe the spirit of it.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall simply say this, that I admire the character of the English Judges, who never do anything of the kind. [Cries of "Order!"]
    *MR. SPEAKER: I must call the hon. and learned Gentleman to Order. I have appealed to him already, not in a very direct way he will admit; but I think he should observe the ruling I have made.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am very sorry, Sir, if I have infringed the ruling you have made. As this, therefore, appears to be so delicate a subject I think I had better pass from it altogether, reserving to myself when I pass beyond the doors of this House complete liberty of appreciation. I will therefore depart from this subject, which cannot very well be treated in this House except by hon. Gentlemen opposite who utilise the Charges of these Judges. So much upon that head. I would now like to give the House two or three grounds for the pre-
    1808
    sent condition of things in Clare. I believe that the present state of Clare is largely owing to the distribution of Secret Service money under recent Administrations. I will say this to Her Majesty's Government, that I believe no worse system could exist than the system by which you perpetually keep in your pay in a particular county or district a standing hired informer. If a man is to be rewarded for giving information—if you must reward a scoundrel who has taken part in crime for peaching upon his colleagues—then I say, having rewarded him, the use the Government have been making of him should then and there cease. What happens under successive Administrations 't You have kept in your pay in the County of Clare a series of ruffians so disgraceful that they were not even defended in this House by the right hon. Gentleman who then was at the head of the Government —men so disgraceful that their conduct when exposed in this House brought the blush of shame to the cheeks of even coercionist Members of Parliament. You have kept this class of men in your pay, and I say they have stimulated outrage, provoked outrage, and even committed outrage. A notorious case was the case of the murder of Head Constable Whelehan. It is well known and was proved in this House, under the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that Cullinane, the informer, had been put up for this job. It was not denied, it was known to the police that this outrage was going to take place, but unfortunately the person who suffered by this put up plan was not anybody but the unfortunate Whelehan himself, and the informer was compelled to tell the whole story upon the table. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has been attacked by the hon. Member for South Tyrone for having transferred a constable from County Clare to another county. What was proved about this Constable O'Halloran in this House? That he himself distributed ten pound notes to various people, with a view of getting information. The ten pound note that O'Halloran gave to one man was produced in this House by the then Member for the Division, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition saw nothing to blush at in it. I say that Her Majesty's Government

    1809
    should put an end to this system of using State informers in the County of Clare, and if they did so the encouragement of crime by informers would, to that extent, be ended. There is another suggestion that I would make to Her Majesty's Government. At the present moment, in the police force, it is only a particular sergeant, or a particular officer, who has any interest in the detection of crime. The general body of the Police Force at largo has no interest in the detection of crime. A particular sergeant is entrusted with the distribution of special rewards. He has the whole matter under his hand. The other members of the force are well-acquainted with these facts. They say, "It is no business of ours to bring criminals to justice." To that extent there is indifference amongst the police force as to bringing the proper means to bear upon the detection of crime. Above all, I think the state of Clare was brought about by an ineffective County Inspector. The removal of the County Inspector from Clare will largely tend to the improvement of the district if he is replaced by an efficient officer. I do not know who has replaced him, but I think the inefficiency of the County Inspector of Clare was the third great cause of the state of the county; and I am sure, if he is replaced by a better man, it will greatly tend to improve that district. There is another reason for the state of Clare, and that is the conviction of innocent men. Take the conviction of the brothers Delahunty, one of whom was notoriously an innocent man. The two brothers were convicted together. One of them went down on his knees to the Judge, and swore that his brother was innocent, and that he alone was guilty. I believe that from these convictions of innocent men the idea has spread among these moonlighters that, in all probability, it is the innocent men and not the guilty men who will be convicted, and I believe that fact has largely led to demoralisation. I would be glad that Her Majesty's Government would look into the case of the younger brother Delahunty, and investigate the circumstances connected with his arrest. The only other observation I shall make is as regards the question of the change of venue. Great stress has been laid by the Opposition upon this question of the change of venue. I will not at all say that
    1810
    there is not something to be said for change of venue when a county is in a demoralised state; but I do not regard this Motion as having been brought forward with any bonâ fide object whatever. I do not believe it is brought forward in order to put an end to the state of things in Clare. I believe you are delighted with the state of things in Clare. The hon. Member for South Tyrone crowed with jubilation when the Chief Secretary was obliged to admit that there were 15 more outrages now than 12 months ago. All these outrages are nuts to the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The telegram that he read out that a man was just shot at in the County of Clare reminded me of a man who has been out shooting, and who has taken a big bag. He flourished the telegram before the House—"Another outrage in Clare— good for the Unionist." You are delighted with the state of things in Clare because you can use it as a weapon against Her Majesty's Government. This question of the change of venue, no doubt, is one of considerable difficulty. The moment the Government avail themselves of any section of the Crimes Act, that moment the Conservative Party will shout out with one voice—"Oh, we are justified, our justification is complete now. What did you say in 1887? At last, so barbarous are those Irish that you have been obliged to resort to coercion yourself." That is what you want. You hardly disguise it, because your papers are not as wise as your statesmen. They blurt out. things in the most inconvenient fashion; and therefore I simple and absolutely decline to believe that this Motion is brought forward for any bonâ fide object. Four hundred Amendments were getting a little tedious, and this is a "maiden over." You have changed the bowling. Your 400 Amendments have been put on the shelf for a few hours, and now you are taking a turn at the County of Clare. The thing is perfectly apparent. It deceives nobody, and I am really astonished that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not do the thing a little more scientifically. When we were obstructing was this the way we did it? Did we ever miss a Vote on Account? Did any one of us go out speaking for a noble Duke when be ought to be in this House to move his Motion? Did we go to garden parties or anything of that kind? No;

    1811
    we stayed on these Benches and moved our Motion, and did not bring forward irrelevant Motions two days afterwards, without even the pretence that they were Brought forward for a bonâ fide object. The Unionist Party up to the present have not made at all as good a fist of this business as had been supposed. You were told they wore the strongest Opposition of modern times. [Cries of "Question!"] I am very glad to hear that cry. It is a reminder, no doubt, of great value, and having received the smallest reminder that I am out of Order, thankful as they will be that I have occupied 10 minutes of this evening, I will obey the slightest hint from the hon. Gentlemen who are so admirably able to decide upon points of order, and I will resume my seat.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 241.—(Division List, No. 107.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)
  COMMITTEE. [progress, 31st May.]
  [ELEVENTH NIGHT.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Legislative Authority.
  Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature.)
  *THE CHAIRMANruled that the following Amendment, which stood in the name of General Goldsworthy, was out of Order:—
  In Clause 8. page 1, line 22, after the second word "or," insert "the Secretary of State for Ireland so soon as he shall be appointed."
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYintimated that he should bring forward a New Clause dealing with the question.
  MR. HANBURYhad the following Amendment on the Paper:—
  In Clause 3, page 1, line 24, after "of war," insert "Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent the passing of any Irish Act whenever such Act may be necessary to provide for the proportionate contribution of Ireland to Imperial liabilities arising from a state of war or exceptional preparation for war."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Before the hon. Gentleman moves this Amendment, I would, with the leave of the House, like to make a suggestion. The object of the hon. Member is a perfectly good one, and the Government are quite ready to meet him; but there are two objections to the Amendment. The hon. Member begins by assuming that Ireland is to be liable for her share of war expenditure. The Government have already stated that in their view Parliament has the fullest right to impose on Ireland her share towards that expenditure; but the Irish Legislature ought to be left perfectly free as to the mode in which that liability is to be satisfied, and Ireland ought not to be disabled from raising money. We ought not, therefore, to rule that the war liabilities of Ireland are to be satisfied by the Irish Executive, and the question ought to be reserved for consideration until we come to the Financial Clauses. The object which the Government have in view is a perfectly legitimate one, and it ought to apply to all the reserved subjects. For the hon. Member's Amendment I propose to substitute the following, which I submit to him will meet the case. On page 2, at the end of the clause, to insert—
  "Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent the passing of any Irish Act for discharging airy liabilities imposed by Act of Parliament."
  That proposal is large and general; it excludes all the heads of the reserved subjects, and prevents any question as to the incapacity of the Irish Parliament to raise funds for any purpose.
  MR. HANBURYshould be willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman as far as he could if what had been suggested would meet the purpose he had in view in drawing up the Amendment. But he thought the Leader of the House had misapprehended the gist of the Amendment. In the first place, he was of opinion that a bird in hand was worth more than two in the bush, and the Financial Clauses could not come on until a late period—in fact, they had some doubt whether they would come on at all. Again, as he had said, the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended the purpose of his proposal. The object of the Amendment was not to say that this extraordinary expenditure must necessarily be met by an Irish Act, but that

  1813
  it might, if necessary, be met by an Irish Act. The Bill did not allow any portion of that extraordinary expenditure to be met by an Irish Act. He could not agree with the further objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman—that this proviso ought to apply to all the subsections in this clause; but during the adjournment for dinner he would consult with the Leader of the Opposition, and would, when the Committee resumed, state the decision at which he arrived.
  On resuming,
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he had had an opportunity of consulting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the late Solicitor General (Sir E. Clarke), and they both agreed that the proposition which had been made fully carried out the object of his Amendment. He was perfectly willing to withdraw his Amendment and insert the words suggested at the end of the clause as follows:—
  "Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent the passing of any Irish Act for discharging any liabilities imposed by Act of Parliament."
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,)said, he understood that these were the exact words used by the Prime Minister.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he had the words in the handwriting of a Member of the Government.
  MR. SEXTONrose, but——
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing before the Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: The Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has not yet been moved. We have only heard a conversation, and it was not properly before the Committee.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, before the Amendment was withdrawn he should like a distinct answer as to the words of the Prime Minister. Were those words accepted or not?
  THE CHAIRMANthen road Mr. Hanbury's original Amendment.
  SIR J. RIGBY: The words which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed——
  MR. BARTLEYon a point of Order, asked whether the Amendment ought not to be put in the first instance before discussion arose?
  THE CHAIRMANdid not reply.
  SIR J. RIGBY, rising again, gave way to.
  MR. SEXTON, who said, as he understood it, Ireland was to contribute under two heads—an ordinary contribution and a special contribution in the case of war. He wished to have it made clear that her liabilities would not be made greater by this Amendment or the words suggested in lieu of the Amendment. He would suggest that the words to be used should be—"To prevent any liabilities imposed by this Act." That would show that there was to be no increase in the liabilities by any other Act.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He did not move the words now. They were to be moved at the end of the clause, and he apprehended any discussion now was out of Order He had a distinct pledge from the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is quite right. The hon. Member wishes, then, to withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, yes; but it would bee taken—the words would be inserted—at the end of the clause upon the sub-section.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would like, before they passed from the subject, to hear the views of the Solicitor General and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the words proposed by the hon. Member for Preston, and the statement he had just made regarding them. The words seemed to him to carry an extension of the liabilities proposed by the Bill. They were entitled to know whether Ireland was to contribute under two heads—an ordinary contribution and a special one in time of war? His object was to ensure that the liabilities would not be increased.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Whatever the agreement arrived at, it took place when I was not present.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The only question now before the Committee is that the Amendment be withdrawn, and it is not proposed to move any further Amendment until the end of the clause is reached.
  MR. SEXTON: Before we agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment it if desirable that we should ascertain what the agreement is that was come to a few moments ago.
  MR., T. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Preston that he would insert at the end of the clause the words which were read out at the time—words to the effect of the Amendment of that hon. Member.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the words he bad read out he had read from a manuscript in the handwriting of the Secretary to the Treasury taken from the lips of the Prime Minister himself.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that one of the objections the Prime Minister took to the words of his hon. Friend was that they only applied to one exceptional liability, and he suggested a form of words which covered a number of exceptional liabilities.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was willing for words to be inserted such as would provide for all the liabilities under the Act, but be should look askance at any Amendment having reference to liabilities beyond those.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Prime Minister had declared that he desired to give a larger scope to the liability than that contained in the Amendment. When the matter came up for decision he hoped there would be no hesitation in carrying out the view of the Prime Minister.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he rose to move an Amendment which would introduce, in effect, the Preamble of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. The object was to except from the powers of the Irish Legislature the power to make laws as to
  "the regulation of the conduct of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign States with which Her Majesty is at peace, in respect of such hostilities; or."
  The Foreign Enlistment Act, which was one of first-rate importance, extended to all the dominions of Her Majesty, including the adjacent territorial waters, and provided that nothing should be done to the detriment of foreign Powers who might be at war with each other whilst at peace with us. It was an Act universally applicable to the whole of the British Empire. It was an Act which no colony could alter. He presumed it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the Irish Legislature
  1816
  should not have power to alter that Act in any way. He would like, however, to ask the Solicitor General or the Secretary for Ireland whether it was the view of the Government that the case he put in his Amendment was already sufficiently covered in any sub-section of the clause, or whether they thought his Amendment was necessary?
  *SIR J. RIGBYwas understood to reply that in his view the point raised by the hon. Member was already provided for in the Bill. The regulation of the conduct of any of Her Majesty's subjects during hostilities would be connected with legislation having reference to a state of war. That would not be a matter relating exclusively to Ireland. This question was covered by Section 2 of the Bill—by the fact that the only power given to the Irish Legislature was to make laws in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or any part thereof.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he was afraid be could not accept that assurance, and he would therefore proceed with his observations in support of his Amendment. The case that might arise under the Foreign Enlistment Act would very likely deal with some individual in Ireland, and it was a startling idea that the limitation of legislative powers of the Irish Parliament to matters exclusively Irish could by any possibility be held to prevent the Irish Parliament from repealing Section 8 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, so as to allow an individual to build and equip a ship, say at the great shipbuilding yard in Belfast, with the knowledge that it would be used for purposes of war against a friendly State. It never occurred to him that anyone would argue that the fact that the powers of the Irish Legislature were limited to matters exclusively relating to Ireland would prevent the Irish Parliament from repealing that section, and allowing a ship building yard in Belfast to build a blockade-runner or a fast cruiser, in that way bringing not only Ireland but the whole British Empire into difficulties. That argument was a striking example of the legal subtlety of the Solicitor General, and might do for the Court of Chancery, but would not pass muster in the House of Commons.
  *SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that he might have called attention to the sub-sections of the clause as precluding the Irish Parliament from repealing the Foreign Enlistment Act. Those sub-sections would prevent the Irish Parliament from legislating as to Treaties and other relations with foreign States and as to matters arising out of a state of war.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, those sub-sections had seemed to him to be the sub-sections which would bear upon the matter if any part of the Bill did. It was a startling proposition to say that the provision as to the making of peace and war should refer to war between two foreign States in which this country was not concerned. The obvious meaning of the sub-section was the question of this country being at peace or war with a foreign Power. The other sub-section to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was that which prevented the Irish Parliament from dealing with the question of Treaties or other relations with foreign States or the relations between different parts of Her Majesty's dominions. "Other relations" must mean other relations of the same kind—Conventions or Agreements of any sort between this country and some other nation. It seemed to him impossible to conceive that offences against International Law, which might not absolutely form the subject of Treaty and offences under the Foreign Enlistment Act, could be held to be covered by the words of Sub-section 4. They had to look upon this question in the light in which it would strike an ordinary person. It was a matter which should be considered by laymen as well as by lawyers, so that the clause should be made clear and explicit. The failure to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act might involve this country in war or in an arbitration costing us many millions. The Act was passed in 1870 as a result of long deliberation and of bitter experience, after the Alabama question had been hanging for many years over our heads, and in the early days of the Franco-German War, when it was felt to be essential that further powers should be given to the Government to prevent a recurrence of the American difficulty. The main provisions of the Bill were, in the first place, to prevent illegal enlistment; that was to say, to prevent enlistment in
  1818
  any part of the British Empire of men to take service with either of two belligerents who were already at war. After the establishment of an Irish Parliament this question might easily become of vital practical importance. Supposing a war arose in which there might be a possibility of the temporal power of the Pope being restored. This country might be neutral, or might possibly be on the side of Italy. But there would be a very strong feeling in Ireland on the side of the Power that held out a chance of the restoration of the temporal power of the Pope. There would be an enormous temptation to the Irish Parliament to give facilities for the formation of a foreign Legion, and if such a Legion were formed, we might be involved in the most serious consequences. It seemed to him of essential importance, therefore, that there should be no doubt that the power to repeal any of the sections of that Act should remain in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, and should not be given into the hands of a subordinate Parliament in another part of the Empire. The next set of clauses of the Act dealt with illegal shipbuilding, and fitting out and aiding the cruisers of the enemy, and this was a question not merely of our own Statutes, but of the rules which we laid down in our Geneva Arbitration, which we undertook to hold for the future and to do our best to enforce, and for any breach or violation of which we should be held liable. It was because we transgressed the rules we had laid down and accepted ex post facto that we had to pay an indemnity of 15,500,000 dollars. Under the Foreign Enlistment Act the very largest powers of seizure wore given to the officers of the Executive. In Ireland the Lord Lieutenant would deal with these matters, and he wished to know whether the Lord Lieutenant would, in the exercise of his discretion, act under the control of the Irish Parliament or under the control of Parliament at Westminster? What he wished to make certain of was whether it would be possible for the Irish Parliament to repeal any of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act? It was clear that if they ventured to do so in a time of war the Imperial Parliament would certainly interfere, and by its overmastering power stop them from doing so. But that would be a very unsatis-

  1819
  factory way of treating the question, and would bring about far more friction than would be created in laying down in clear and simple words the rights of the two Parliaments. This question, it seemed to him, was far too important to leave uncertain, and to subtle constructions such as those as the Solicitor General.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 24, after "war," insert "the regulation of the conduct of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign States with which Her Majesty is at peace, in respect of such hostilities; or."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My hon, and learned Friend the Solicitor General has already given the opinion of the Government as to the intention of this Bill —that there shall be no power in the Irish Parliament to interfere with the provisions to which the hon. Member has referred, and has stated that in his judgment the words of the Bill are perfectly adequate to give effect to that intention. That, I am bound to say, is our feeling. But the hon. Gentleman, looking at the Bill, I am sure not with a desire to destroy it, but in perfect good faith, has doubts as to whether the clause gives effect to the intention which the Government have expressed. Those doubts may be shared by others. The policy of the Government in a case of that kind is to pay all the respect we can to doubts we do not share, provided the mode proposed for meeting these doubts does not in our judgment import any inconvenience or danger. That is the principle on which we have acted, and that is the principle on which we mean to act. Examining the words of the Amendment from that point of view, the Government do not think there is any harm in them. They express what we believe to be already conveyed by the Bill; and as there is no harm in them, we are willing to admit them.
  SIR H. JAMESsaid, this raised, for the first time, a fresh question of extreme importance to this country, though, of course, there was nothing more to be said now that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had seen his way to accept the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment
  1820
  was merely to insert in the Bill the title of the Act of 1870 as an assertion that the Act of 1870 could not be touched by the Irish Legislature. Of course, they could not touch the question of the Executive at this stage; but inasmuch as these words were now to be put into the Bill, of course the Prime Minister would in the same spirit see that provision was made for carrying out the obligations of the Foreign Enlistment Act.
  MR. SEXTONwas willing that the view of the Prime Minister should be carried into effect; but he doubted whether, as a matter of drafting, the words of the Amendment were apt words for the purpose. He would put it to the Solicitor General that he should apply himself to the matter, so as to prepare words which would make it clear that there should be no infraction of the Foreign Enlistment Act by the Irish Parliament.
  *SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he could see no objection to these words as they stood. There could be no reason for supposing" that they covered anything more than the prevention of such legislation as would be against the spirit of the Act of 1870, and might involve us in difficulties with other Powers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the Member for North Islington (Mr. Hartley), which is "Clause 3, page, 1, line 24, after 'or,' insert—to change the name, title, or powers of the Legislature as established by this Act," is out of Order.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTrose to move the following Amendment:— In Clause 3, page 2, line 1, leave out "naval or military forces," and insert "army, navy, militia, volunteers, and any other military forces."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We propose to accept this Amendment, with the exception that we would alter the precedence as between the Army and Navy. We would suggest that the words should read "navy, army, militia, volunteers," and so on.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I have no objection to the slight alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 1. leave out naval or military forces," and insert "navy, army, militia, volunteers, and any other military forces.'"—(Sir K. Ashmead-Bartlett.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next three Amendments are out of Order.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that on behalf of the hon. Member for Dover he would move the next Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 1, after "forces," insert "or any police force other than a local police force required for local purposes and acting under the orders of a local authority."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the whole question of police was dealt with in Clause 30 of the Bill and the Schedule dependent on it, and it would be extremely inconvenient to Lave anything bearing upon that subject elsewhere than in that clause.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I agree with the hon. Member for North Kerry that it would be more convenient to discuss this question, if it has to be discussed, on the later clause. I hope it will not be insisted upon.
  SIR E. CLAKEdid not think Section 30 would be a convenient point for considering this Amendment. The question was whether a Legislative Body in Ire-land was or was not prohibited from dealing with police which were of an Imperial or central character or other than a local force. If they looked at the 30th clause they would find that it referred only to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the way in which those forces could be dealt with. If any prohibition was to be inserted in the Bill this would be the appropriate place.
  MR. SEXTONpointed out that under the 6th schedule, read in connection with the 30th clause, local forces might be established by Irish Act. That would, therefore, be the place in which the Amendment should be dealt with.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to speak as follows:—I must admit that
  1822
  there is some argument in favour of dealing with the Amendment at the present moment. My contention is that, from a theoretical point of view, the control of the police ought not to be taken out of the discretion of the Irish Legislature, on the broad ground that it is a matter which relates absolutely and exclusively to Irish affairs. I have always held the very strongest opinion that the duties of the police are duties which constitute the very first letter in the alphabet of local government. Historically, the basis of all local government is the local protection of life and property. Now, let us look at the case from a practical point of view. It appears to mo that if we attempted to interfere with the discretion of the Irish Legislature we should place them in a very false position. You must in a good police force have the power of transmission of a body of men from one district to another. The wants of particular districts and neighbourhoods are not a constant quantity. A town may require a certain number of police for its own purposes; but special circumstances may arise which, as in the case of Hull the other week, without the smallest imputation on the intention of any of those connected with the recent strike, constitute a state of things in which prudence requires that there should be a larger number of police on the spot. Will you lay down as your policy in the matter of police that the police force of each locality should be according to its maximum wants or according to its aggregate, which are also its minimum wants. Take the case of Belfast, which furnishes the best example that. I think the whole case of Ireland, as far as recent experience goes, presents. Should we force the Irish Legislature to fix the police force at Belfast at its maximum wants? No, certainly not. Surely it would be much better that, instead of having in every police district arrangements adequate to meet exigencies, which occur once in 15, or 20, or 50 years, you should have a central force, which would be adequate to meet the whole of such exigencies. Otherwise, it is evident that you must bring about enormous waste. You ought to have in each district a police force strictly adequate to its ordinary aggregate wants, which are also its minimum wants,

  1823
  and you ought to have the means somewhere in the country of meeting whatever special exigencies are likely to arise. It appears to me that these are propositions which do not belong to the contested parts of this subject. Very well then, what is to be done? I am for localising to the utmost degree. Even if the Irish Legislature chose to avoid having any central police force, which I rather hope it would, they would be obliged to make provision for having somewhere an available and disposable extra police force over and above the wants of some special locality—say Dublin—which extra force might upon occasion be made use of for the different, parts of the country, just, as in England now detachments of police are sent from one district to another to meet local wants. I cannot conceive how this can be disputed. Supposing there were disturbances in Belfast, would it be right that it should depend absolutely and finally upon the Municipality of Dublin to determine whether order should be restored in Belfast or not? It surely is obvious, not that you should necessarily introduce a Central Authority—God forbid; no one wants to avoid that more than I do—but that it would be absurd to say that the power of provision for the special wants of any particular district should depend on the will of the Local Authority of some other district. I think the hon. Member who is responsible for the Amendment means to make the Committee understand that there is a certain jealousy of a political force. The Royal Irish Constabulary is an expiring Force, and will be replaced by an Irish Force. Is the Viceroy to have no control over the movement of police forces from one part of the country to another as far as regards the meeting of exigencies which might occasionally arise? I cannot think the hon. Member really means to prevent the intervention of the Authority responsible for the peace of the country in determining those questions which may arise, and which always must arise from time to time. I think, without going further into the question, there are adequate reasons why we should not attempt to interfere by prohibition in a matter so purely Irish and so entirely beyond the possible occurrence of anything in the nature of risk.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he had never contemplated that there should be no Central Authority in Ireland having power to move a central force or local contingents of police from one place to another. His difficulty was that the Bill, as it stood, contemplated the gradual substitution of purely local forces for the Royal Irish Constabulary as it now existed. But there was nothing in the Bill or in the facts of Irish history which would lead to the supposition that an Irish Government would abolish the Royal Irish Constabulary out of hand. The Royal Irish Constabulary had been the good servants of all those who had employed them. The present Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and everyone else who had had any dealings with the Force had been proud to speak of them as they deserved, and had paid them many well deserved tributes in the House of Commons. In calm moments the Nationalist Members bad added their tributes, and he did not think it beyond the bounds of possibility that there would be no undue hurry on the part, of an Irish Government to abolish altogether one of the factors of Irish life of which Irishmen might be most proud. That being so, the Committee must consider that the Royal Irish Constabulary might continue to exist in many places, and his object was to make this perfectly clear. If the Lord Lieutenant in his relations with the Royal Irish Constabulary was an Imperial officer the Amendment ought to be accepted, because only yesterday the Prime Minister stated that the Lord Lieutenant, except within those spheres of action specifically withdrawn by this clause, was an Irish officer responsible to the Irish Executive. As long, however, as the Royal Irish Constabulary existed he would act, according to the Bill, as the representative of Her Majesty the Queen. If so, it was clear that the Constabulary ought to be excepted under the 3rd clause, just as the Army and Navy were excepted. But, supposing that the Irish Legislature din get rid of the Royal Irish Constabulary, what was to be placed in the field of action so cleared? The Prime Minister said he was in favour of localising the police as far as possible. In making

  1825
  that statement the right hon. Gentleman had merely repeated the tenor of thousands of speeches throughout the country. Would not the Government, then, prohibit in this Hill the recrudescence of an evil they had deplored during the six years of the late Government's tenure of Office. The Prime Minister had implied that in asking the Committee to accept this Amendment he was casting some reflection upon the Irish nation and upon the Irish Legislature which he hoped to see created. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had again employed the old argument about attributing to the Irish nothing human but the form.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said nothing of the kind.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to imply that the Amendment was inspired by mistrust.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said nothing about mistrust.
  MR. WYNDHAMheld that the Prime Minister had intimated that the Mover of the Amendment was actuated by mistrust of the Irish nation in suggesting that the Irish Legislature might go beyond the tenour of the Bill by creating a clandestine force to coerce Ulster. He held that view, and denied that it constituted any reproach to the Irish people, or to the Irish Legislature that was to be. They were invited by the Bill to divest themselves of the responsibility of keeping the peace as between Ulster and the rest of Ireland, and to shift that responsibility on to the shoulders of the Irish Legislature. But if he were a responsible Minister in that Legislature he should utterly refuse to undertake the task unless he was allowed to embody a force analogous to the Royal Irish Constabulary as it now existed. Did not that, dispose of the insinuation that he was distrustful of the Irish nation, and that he suspected the Irish Legislature would act contrary to the spirit of the Bill? Indeed, he contended that it would be no crime if the Irish Legislature sought to create such a force, unless they were directly prohibited by Act of Parliament from doing so. A central force—a force removable from place to place, as the necessity arose—would be necessary in
  1826
  Ireland to preserve peace and order, whether the country was under Nationalist or Imperial Government. Then came the question, Who should have the control of that central force? There could be but one answer to that question. They had in the 2nd clause of the Bill the declaration that the Imperial Parliament must be supreme. It had been said that that declaration would remain a mere idle form of words unless they had some machinery in Ireland, such as an adequate police force, which the Imperial Parliament could direct to make good its supremacy throughout Ireland. If the Government intended to adhere to their declarations that they would effectively maintain the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, they would insert provisions in the Bill either to retain the Royal Irish Constabulary as at present, or to create another central force. On the other hand, if they broke faith with respect to those declarations, and refused to allow the insertion of Amendments for creating adequate machinery to maintain that supremacy, they would aggravate the consequences of their lâches and not only deprive the loyal people of Ireland of armed protectors but impose upon them armed oppressors. The necessity for a centralised force had been admitted by the Prime Minister. The question, then, to be decided was whether the Imperial Parliament, which must be more impartial than the Parliament sitting in Dublin, was to control that force? It must be remembered that the Royal Irish Constabulary had been described at one time as "Morley's Murderers," and at another time as "Balfour's Bloodhounds." What name, he asked, would a similar force controlled by the Irish Parliament be called; but, above all, what would be the essence and character of such a force?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Prime Minister, in his observations upon this Amendment, was, through the accident of the progress of business in Committee, placed somewhat under the disadvantage of speaking before he had heard the arguments which the Mover of the Amendment proposed to advance in its defence. There are, therefore, aspects of the question which appear to have escaped the attention of the Government, The Prime Minister, in his speech.

  1827
  appears to contemplate the necessity for Ireland of some kind of central police force, and he seems to think that some such central police force exists at the present time in this country. That is a mistake.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is a large force in the Metropolis, under the control of the Executive Government, which supplies all the needful purposes of a central force.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The one observation I have to make on that statement is that, as I understand, the Government propose to hand over the central police force to the control of the County Council, with the exception of a small fragment in central London, which is to remain under the Executive power. That force will not be of the slightest use for provincial work. It could not be of service, for example, in the case of disturbances at Hull or elsewhere. Then, again, I do not believe it is legal, and certainly it is not practicable to use the London Police Force in Scotland.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: They go to Balmoral.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, when I was Secretary for Scotland it was at one; time difficult to provide an adequate police force to deal with disturbances in one or two of the Highland Counties, and the Executive had to rely entirely upon the charity of the police authorities of other districts of Scotland—a charity which was withheld in some cases, and very grudgingly granted in others. The contention of the Prime Minister that there is an adequate central police force in this country which can be used in cases of disturbances in outlying portions of the island is, I think, absurd. I am one of those prejudiced persons who hold that the proper form of police service is a central service. We should never have had a localised police force in this country were it not for the lawabiding instincts of the British community, which prevented evil arising from that state of things. I might remind the Government that the first idea of an Army was a local force, which gradually developed into our present central Army. However, to the local police service which is found adequate to our needs in
  1828
  England the people are accustomed, but it is not the best form of police service. In Ireland, however, different conditions prevail, and to manage affairs in that country without a central police force will he extremely difficult. The difference between Ulster and the rest of Ireland alone constitutes a reason why a local police force depending upon Local Authorities will always be difficult to use in certain cases of emergency. That being admitted, the question is whether the control of a central police force, which is the right form of force for Ireland, can be safely entrusted to an Irish Assembly? I think not, for the following reasons. A central police force paid by an Irish Parliament and under the control of an Irish Executive could be used, and would be used, for oppressive purposes in dealing with a Province like Ulster, differing from the rest of Ireland in its aims, intentions, religion, history, and in all things which make up the life of a community. It would be intolerable that the Executive in Ireland should have such powers to coerce Ulster. This, I think, is the view of the Government itself, for in the 30th clause of the Bill it is proposed that the police force which is to be gradually substituted for the existing centralised force shall be a local force. The Government, therefore, agree that the Irish Executive ought not to be given the power of ordering about a central police force. The proper force to give to Ireland under this Bill is a local force under the County Authorities, and over which the Irish Executive would have no more power than the Home Secretary has at this moment over the county police of Aberdeenshire or Ross-shire. If we are to allow the Irish Government to become the paymasters and commanders of a force of 12,000 drilled men, what value can be attached to the provision in the Bill which says that the now Legislature is to have nothing to do with the Naval or Military Forces of the Kingdom? At this moment a month's drill, or less, would make the Irish Constabulary the most formidable Military Force in the world. From the quality of the men, from their education, their training, they are not merely the raw material but the manufactured material of an admirable Army, and to allow this new Parliament to be the masters of such a Force would be little less than

  1829
  lunacy. I know that the Prime Minister resents as it' it wore a personal insult any suggestion that in any conceivable circumstances the now Irish Legislature and Executive could ever he engaged in hostile action against British interests and the British Army. But such things have occurred in the past, and may happen in the future; and we must remember that we are not legislating merely for next year or the year after that, but for an indefinite time. Are we, then, to shut our eyes to the possibility that in setting up a separate Legislative Assembly and Government in Ireland, and giving that Assembly the power of having a separate Army, we are creating in our own despite a danger and a, menace? I do not say that the possibility which I am contemplating would be fatal to our interests: but there can be no doubt that in times of difficulty it may put an additional and most severe strain even upon the resources of this Empire. These are reasons which should induce the Committee to think not once nor twice, but to deliberately pause before they refused an Amendment which will, in the first place, have the effect of preventing, not only the abuses which undoubtedly may follow in internal administration from the intrusting to the Irish Legislature a central police force which may be used as a great instrument of oppression, but also which will have the effect of preventing external complication that may result from endowing the Irish Government with an army formidable in discipline and training which may prove at a time when we are pressed by the sorest necessity and have to meet the greatest difficulties to be a new danger and a new difficulty with which it will be almost impossible for us to deal.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman has entirely overlooked a couple of facts. The first is that the Government do not contemplate the placing of this police force under the central authority. The Bill expressly says that that is not to be done.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Where?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In Clause 30 of the Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman has himself referred. Then the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked
  1830
  another thing. He has rightly said that the Royal Irish Constabulary is a splendidly-organised, armed, drilled, and disciplined force, that for a time all might be well, but that under certain contingencies that force might be used by the new Irish Government as a military force, for military or naval purposes, against this country. But the right hon. Gentleman entirely overlooks in his argument one line in Clause 30 which indicates that no officer or man shall be appointed to either of those forces.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In Section 30, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Government have undoubtedly indicated their own private and personal view in the drafting of the Bill that the force to be substituted for the Royal Irish Constabulary is to be a local force. That is true enough, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the new Irish Government from starting an Irish Constabulary of their own, paid, armed, and drilled precisely as the Irish Constabulary is now. If the Chief Secretary thinks that that is not the intention or desire of the Government, I would earnestly press upon him that all he has to do is to accept the Amendment, and the contingency will be absolutely obviated.
  MR J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman was not present earlier in the evening when an Amendment, moved by an hon. Gentleman opposite, was accepted by the Government, prohibiting the Irish Legislature from having an Army, Navy, Militia, Volunteers, or any other military force. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the new Irish Government from creating, constituting, drilling, and arming a new force; but if they attempted to create such a force under the pseudo-name of police, that would be contravening the Amendment that has been accepted by the Government.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he could point out circumstances in which the Irish Legislature might create a force equally dangerous without contravening the section to which the Chief Secretary referred. Supposing a local police force were created under the Bill in Ulster and the Royal Irish Constabulary were withdrawn from that part, but were

  1831
  to continue in existence elsewhere. If difficulties arose in Ulster after five years, and the local force proved inadequate to cope with them, did the Chief Secretary contend that it would not be in the power of the Irish Legislature to raise 1,000 men and put them into Ulster, calling them policemen? So far as he could see, there was not a line in the Bill to prevent the Irish Parliament from raising a police force to deal with difficulties in Ulster.
  MR, JAMES LOWTHERsaid, it was quite impossible for anybody who had had an official connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary to accept the assertions made by the Chief Secretary. He understood that the force of the future was to be a civil force. Allusions had been made to a military force, but he hoped the Committee would keep totally distinct the questions whether the force was to be central or local, or whether it was to be civil or military. At present the Royal Irish Constabulary was a force central and military in its organisation; but a force might be local and military, or central and civil. The contention of his hon. Friend was that if any central authority were to have the control of the police it should be laid down that that authority should be subject to the Imperial Parliament. The Prime Minister stated that that was already provided for.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is in the Amendment.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, it was not in the Amendment or in the Bill.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The police are given to the Viceroy.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, that if he were to discuss the powers of the Viceroy he would be told that he was out of Order in anticipating a later clause; and he declined to accept, even from so high an authority as the right hon. Gentleman, a suggestion to contravene the regularity of the discussions. He would not only endorse what the Loader of the Opposition had said about the Royal Irish Constabulary, but would add that no British regiment could be produced which could hold a candle to an equal number of men in the Constabulary. They were seasoned troops, and
  1832
  not short service men. The Bill provided no adequate safeguard against the raising of an unlimited and highly-disciplined force by the Irish Government. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would insist on the insertion of words in the Bill which would prevent the Irish Government of the future—if he could contemplate such a monstrosity—having under its command a highly-disciplined force which would enable it to perpetrate injustice in all parts of Ireland.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The right hon. Gentleman appears to contemplate the continued existence of the present highly-trained Constabulary Force.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I bog pardon. I have done nothing of the sort. I entirely recognise that under Clause 30 the existing Constabulary and Dublin Police Force will be gradually dissolved. But I contend that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an equivalent force from being created the very next day after those forces have disappeared.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman confirms me in the opinion I have formed that he has not read the subsequent clauses of the Bill. So long as the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Irish Constabulary continue in existence they are to be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant. These highly-trained forces can never be under the control of the new Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the creation by the Executive of a new Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I did not say Royal.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Well, a new Constabulary. [Opposition cheers.] I am glad hon. Gentlemen cheer, because that is how the right hon. Gentleman gives himself away. If it is not to be a force like the Royal Irish Constabulary the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground. The new force will be either a Constabulary or a Police Force. Is it to be an armed force? By using the words "local police force" it is made impossible to create an armed force. Can anyone

  1833
  mention a County or Borough Police Force that is armed?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The very city in which the right hon. Gentleman stands. The London Police Force carry revolvers.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No London policeman can carry a revolver without special permission and under special circumstances. But, assuming that a police force can be armed and made a military force, then it at once passes beyond the purview of the powers of the Irish Legislature. [Opposition cries of "No!"] The right hon. Member for West Birmingham should not cry out "No," because he was not in the House in the earlier part of the evening.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg pardon. I am listening to my right hon. Friend with the greatest interest. I did not utter a word.
  MR. H. H FOWLER: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon; I thought he contradicted my statement. An hour and a half ago the Government accepted an Amendment to extend the prohibitory clause of the Bill to every kind of military force. Whatever description of force comes within the category of military force is excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament. I consider the Irish Constabulary to be a military force.
  MR. A. J. BALFODR: Not at all.
  MR. H. FOWLER: It is an armed force, and that is the essential difference in England and Scotland between the military and police forces. In Ireland we were dealing with a military force under the guise of a Constabulary Force.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a military force.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Well, anyhow, it is under the control of the Executive. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the 6th schedule of the Bill he will find the various regulations as to the establishment of the Irish police forces and as to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police ceasing to exist. It is there provided—
  "That such local police forces shall be established under such local authorities, and for such counties, municipal boroughs, or other larger areas as may be provided by an Irish Act."
  1834
  The argument of the hon. Member for Dover is that the police forces will be local police forces, which will be under the control of the Local Authorities, and that it ought not to be in the power of the Irish Legislature to create a central police force. In that case we might just as well not give Home Rule at all. That is the meaning of the Opposition then, but it is not ours. You create a Local Legislature in Ireland, and to refuse to that Local Authority control of a civil force for the purposes of civil administration is a contradiction of terms, which the Committee will not stand for one moment. I entirely sympathise with the view that the Irish Legislature should not have power to create a military or in armed force, which should not be under the control of the Imperial Executive. That was already provided by the provisions of the Bill, but it has been emphasized by the Amendment, which has been accepted. Every military force in Ireland—everything that comes under the definition of a military force—is reserved to the control of the Imperial Parliament; but the local police force will be placed in the hands of the Irish Government.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The Prime Minister has suggested that there should be not only local police forces subject to the Local Authorities, but a central force which should be subject to the control of the Irish Executive.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said that there must be some disposable force, whether central or not.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman says that there must be an available and disposable force, under the control of some Central Authority, which might be sent to assist the Local Authorities when necessity arises. At all events, for the purposes of argument, may I be allowed to call that force a central force, because it would be impossible to call it a local force. We had it from the Chief Secretary that there is nothing in the Bill which would authorise the existence of a military force in Ireland under the control of the Irish Government. Then the question is, can the central police force be converted into an armed force; and, if so, is there any words in the Bill which will prevent it from being so converted into

  1835
  an armed force? It is clear that there has been a casus omissus in the Bill in reference to the creation of a military force, and that is the reason why the Prime Minister has assented to the amendment of the Bill in that respect. The Bill, however, contains no words which will prevent the creation of such a military force, except those which are in the Amendment to which the Prime Minister has assented, and the question is, whether the language of that Amendment is sufficient for its purpose? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last quoted words of the Bill to the effect that "the local police forces are to be established under such Local Authorities and for such counties, municipal boroughs, or other large areas as may be provided" by what—by "an Irish Act." The right hon. Gentleman did not put a distinct emphasis upon the words "by an Irish Act." It is by Irish Act that the constitution of the future police force is to be determined, and that is claimed as belonging to the prerogatives of the Irish Legislature. Then the question is—How near can a central police force be made to a military force without coming actually within the term of a military force? It can be trained up to a degree that only a fortnight's more drill will constitute it a military force. It is not the actual training in the use of the musket that would constitute the danger of such a force. Thus, among many of the points that may arise between the British and the Irish Legislatures there may be one as to the definition of a military and of a police force. There is a violent controversy just now as to whether the present Constabulary is a military force or a civil force. The Bill, I am reminded, contains a proviso that the whole of the Royal Irish Constabulary is to cease to exist as a police force, and, possibly, the Irish Judges would argue from that phrase in the Bill that a force precisely constituted as the Royal Irish Constabulary is intended by the Government to be defined as a military force and not as a police force. If we put together the utterances of the three Cabinet Ministers who have addressed the Committee on the subject, it will appear that they agree that it is necessary to have "a central something." I call it that, so
  1836
  that the Prime Minister shall not say I am misrepresenting what was said. There is to be a central body. It may be drilled and it may be organised by "an Irish Act." Whether arms could be placed in their hands is the only point on which controversy would remain. But under the Bill you may have a force of 12,000 men organised with everything short of arms. I venture to think that neither the Prime Minister nor any of his Colleagues will venture to say that that is not authorised under the Bill.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Totally unauthorised by the Bill.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I will proceed by stages. The future force might be drilled like the Royal Irish Constabulary. Might it not be so drilled? The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that it might be drilled like the present force.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In my opinion it cannot be so officered and drilled.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not wish for the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. I wish for the words in the Bill.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Why did the right hon. Gentleman ask for my opinion if he did not wish for it?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I make a present to the right hon. Gentleman of his rhetorical point. I wish for the right hon. Gentleman's opinion supported by words in the Bill. I can find no such words in the Bill. Having brought the argument to that point, I will leave it there, and will not insist that the, Irish Government can put arms into the hands of the new force. I am, however, reminded that the Royal Irish Constabulary are drilled with ball cartridge. I must, therefore, again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Royal Irish Constabulary is or is not to be the model for the future police force of Ireland? I maintain that unless the Amendment is accepted there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. I admit that the Prime Minister did not intend that the future police force of Ireland to be like the present Royal Irish Constabulary. We have suggested a method by which that can be prevented, and we ask him to accept it.
  SIR H. JAMES: Unless we have misinterpreted the meaning of the Prime Minister, there is nothing between him

  1837
  and us but a matter of construction. I understood the Prime Minister to say that in his view there should not be a central armed force in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman, took the view that this had been carried into effect by the Amendment which prevented military forces being employed by the Irish Executive, and that they cannot have a central sinned force because they cannot have a military force. But a military force must be under the provisions of the Mutiny Act. The present Constabulary, however, are not under Military Law. They arc, however, armed with muskets, and undergo target practice and the same drilling as military forces. What is to prevent the new force which is to come into existence being armed up to the point of the present Constabulary? Nobody thinks that such a force would come under the Mutiny Act; and, therefore, though armed, they will not be a military force. Such a force will not be forbidden by this Amendment. If the Amendment covers the police armed force, this Amendment is out of Order; but the Chairman has said that the military force will not cover the police armed force. On the construction of this Act, after those two forces have ceased to exist, the Executive Government in Ireland, not the Lord Lieutenant representing the British Ministry, but the new Executive, with the Lord Lieutenant under their power, will be able to bring armed men into existence, to keep them in barracks, to send them to Ulster or to any portion of the country, and as long as they are kept out of the Mutiny Act they will be a powerful armed force, to be used by the Irish Executive for any purpose they may think proper.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Prime Minister whether, if Clause 30 were not in the Bill, the words "military forces" would, in his opinion, include the Royal Irish Constabulary? He also wished to know whether the future Government in Ireland was to be unable to establish for purely local purposes a force similar to that which the Canadian Government had established in Canada, and to that which had been established in Cape Colony. If a central police force was to come into existence, he could not understand what good it would be if it was not to be an effective police force; and no one who knew any-
  1838
  thing of Irish social life, altogether apart from the controversy raging round this Bill, could for a moment imagine that a central force, without effective arms to aid it, would be of any assistance to the Executive in Ireland.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not think that the hon. Member has made it quite clear what it, was he wished a reply to; but I will give an answer as clearly as I can to what I conceive to be the main question now at issue as far it admits of a perfectly definite reply. I differ from the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member that the central force in Ireland made available for meeting the special police exigencies of particular districts must necessarily be a force with military organisation or anything approaching to it. In England we know nothing of this. I am not aware that the police force of the Metropolis has more of a military organisation than the rest of the country; and my wish is that, no strong distinction should be drawn between any central force in Ireland, if it is found to he necessary, and the local police force. The question is, What is really a military and what is really a police force? With respect to a clearly police force, my desire is that the discretion of the Irish Legislature should remain quite unfettered. With regard to an armed force, I should have been ashamed of myself if I had assented either to the original words as to the prohibition of a military force, or to the extension of the words which have been accepted this evening, if I had had in my mind the belief that some not properly police force, but a semi-military force, was to be within the competency of the Irish Executive. It is very difficult to be precise. Some hon. Members have said that the Constabulary is virtually a military force; others say that it is not. But I put aside the illustrations of the last speaker taken from Canada, and the Cape. I know the case of the Cape pretty well. The force there is not, intended for ordinary police purposes; I apprehend that the police at the Cape—the Cape Mounted Rifles, as they are called—are intended for dealing with disturbances on the frontier. In Canada there are the aborigines, and at the Cape there are the frontier tribes. There is nothing analogous to this state of things in Ireland; and the intention is

  1839
  that there should be at the disposal of the Irish Legislature nothing but a properly constituted police force. Next, with respect to arms. So far as arms are by usage and understanding within the true, genuine meaning of the ordinary police force, they are not entirely excluded. They may be used with certain limitations of which I cannot give a technical account. I am not aware that there is any legal definition on which I can fall back and and draw a line between police and military forces; but I think that the Committee understand it. I should think, however, that within the bosom of a civilised community the case of the Irish Constabulary comes within the category of the most doubtful of any that have ever fallen under my notice. The question might then be asked—"Do you conceive that it ought to be within the attributes of the Irish Legislature, which you have disabled from establishing any description of military forces, to establish a force like the Irish Constabulary?" I admit that I am not well-informed as to the facts, but my recollection is pretty distinct that the Irish Constabulary as it is has been greatly altered since its first foundation. At that early stage in its history it was almost absolutely a civil force; but in 1859 and 1860 measures were proposed and taken for the purpose of giving a more military character to the Irish Constabulary, in view of the possibility of invasion. The right, hon. Gentleman said the Irish Constabulary was not a military force; and, for myself, I frankly own I do not think the Irish Legislature ought to be in a position to re-create the Irish Constabulary. Such as it is, whether it is to be described as a civil or a military force, it appears to me to be beyond the attributes of a Local Legislature, working for local purposes, having, of course, the resource of the military, and at the discretion of the Executive, in case of need, to create such a force. I regard it as an admirable force, but abnormal in many of its conditions, and, as such, not lying within the proper attributes of a Local Legislature. In these circumstances, I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The speech to which we have just listened shows the extreme importance of the discussion and its bearings. I do not
  1840
  think anything could be more explicit or satisfactory than the declarations of the Prime Minister, and now we can see very clearly the point at issue, if, indeed, there remains any point in issue at all. The right hon. Gentleman desires that the Irish Legislature should be able to establish, in its discretion, if it finds it to be necessary, a small civil force to aid in the preservation of order. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very difficult to foresee the circumstances under which the constitution of such a force will be necessary. Of course, British troops will be in Ireland to assist in maintaining order. In this country the only force which the British Government have at their disposal is the Metropolitan Police; and I have always understood that my right hon. Friend would desire that the Metropolitan Police should be transferred to the Local Authority. If it is unnecessary for the Imperial Parliament to have an Executive force of this kind, I cannot think it is important to preserve to the Irish Legislature the right of creating such a force. In any case, supposing it is desirable to leave to the Irish Legislature this power of creating a civil force, let the Committee consider what kind of force, according to the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, it is that they will be entitled to constitute. It is not to be a military organisation; it is not to be an armed force; it is to be, properly speaking, a police force, but it is not to be a re-creation of the Irish Constabulary.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Further than an ordinary police force.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not familiar with the constitution of police forces, which are armed in some cases with bayonets, and in some with revolvers, and in all cases with truncheons. What the right hon. Gentleman means probably is that it is to be a force whose arms are to be such as not to enable it to become a military force in the ordinary acceptation of the word. I doubt very much whether it is necessary to give the Irish Legislature such a power; but if it is limited and restricted in the manner proposed, I, for one, should not think that it could, in any circumstances, be seriously mischievous. Can the right hon. Gen-

  1841
  tletman point to any clause or proposed Amendment which will prevent the Irish Parliament from creating under the name of a central civil force a force which will have a military organisation, and be an armed force according to his own definition? This is really the whole point at issue. As the Bill is drawn, even with the addition of this Amendment, there is nothing to prevent the formation of a force which might hold its own against a regiment, or, if it were sufficiently extended, against any number of British regiments. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not intend it should be possible for the Irish Legislature to re-create the Irish Constabulary, because it wan to all intents a thoroughly military organisation. How does this Bill prevent the Irish Legislature from re-creating the Irish Constabulary? I am obliged to ask my right hon. Friend that question. What power is there in the Bill to prevent it?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I understand that we are to lake the case of the Irish Legislature creating a central force, which is virtually to be a military force. My answer is this—that there is ample and sufficient provision in the clause to render that illegal. But that is not my full answer. The Irish Constabulary, I apprehend, is created by an Act, and any force which is to take its place must be created by an Act. It will not be possible to do that except by an Act. It will be the duty of the Viceroy to examine every Act and see that it does not establish any force of the kind. I have noticed that this is one of a set of suspicions injurious to Ireland and her Representatives here. [Laughter.] So much as this is due to our Colleagues in this House, and I am not ashamed to confess—I will not say that I am angry, because I am not angry—but I confess I am grieved to the heart by ridicule of this kind. I entirely disclaim, because I never entertained, the suspicious to which I refer.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has a little misunderstood the interruption to which he has referred. It did not proceed from this quarter, but I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood the intention. There was no intention to cast disparaging suspicions on the Irish people or their Representatives. No, not at all; in no sense more dis-
  1842
  paraging than those cast by the provisions of this Bill. My right hon. Friend originally of his own motion prohibited the Irish Legislature from creating military or naval forces. He has now most willingly accepted an Amendment extending that provision to Volunteers and to all other military forces. In refusing to the Irish Legislature the power of creating a military force there is no intention of throwing disparaging suspicions on the Irish people and their Representatives.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: T take not the slightest exception to what be is saying; from his point of view it must necessarily be said, but it was to provide for the necessities of our position that made me appear to adopt these suggestions.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think we are substantially agreed; at all events, whatever our motives may be, we are agreed as to the propriety of prohibiting the Irish Parliament from establishing any kind of military force. Now, the answer my right hon. Friend made just now was that first, in his opinion, the Amendment he has just accepted would prevent the re-creation of the Irish Constabulary. That is, to a large extent, a legal question that I am not competent to deal with; but my right hon. Friend by my side (Sir Henry James) assures me that provision about a military force would not be sufficient to prevent it. being perfectly legal for the Irish Legislature to establish a force precisely similar to the Royal Irish Constabulary. My right hon. Friend then says—"Your second security is that such a force might require an Act of Parliament."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: "Would."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that it is positively so; the only way it would require an Irish Act is that it. would ultimately require an Irish Appropriation Act to pay the expenses of the force; but I doubt if it would require an Act to provide for the constitution. That might be an Executive act which would not necessarily require an Act of the Legislature until the payment came to be made. But surely in a matter of this importance—and again I thank my right hon. Friend for appreciating my point of view—in a matter of this importance, from my point of view, we

  1843
  ought not to rest on that veto of the Viceroy, especially if we do not put the restrictions into the Bill. This will be purely an Irish affair, in which the Irish Viceroy will be advised by the Irish Government. I know that, although he will be advised by them, he will be subject to the instructions of Her Majesty; so that advised in the first instance by the Irish Government in one sense, it may happen, if the British Ministers advise Her Majesty, he may be instructed in an opposite sense by Her Majesty. Surely the plainest and simplest way to avoid subsequent irritation and difficulty would be to put it into the Bill. I am obliged now to put the question from my point of view, which my right hon. Friend does not share. My point of view is this: that when you create a separate Legislature in Ireland you are creating a subordinate Parliament that will always desire to become co-ordinate, and would seek to exercise pressure for that purpose. You have the experience of Grattan's Parliament and the Irish Parliament preceding Grattan's Parliament. You would have Volunteers or some other nominally civil force, but which is virtually a military force, and they would put on you pressure to exact fresh concessions. That is my fear. The difficulty will arise when you yourselves are in a condition least able to meet it. I say, therefore, you ought from the first to make clear in this Bill that the establishment by the Irish Legislature of any force which can by any possibility be used hereafter as a, military engine against this country is to be prohibited; but it is not prohibited in this Bill. My right hon. Friend says he thinks it is, but I do not think any lawyer will say so. At any rate, I will put it this way—that if any lawyer can be found who will say it is prohibited it will be easy to find another who would say it was not.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have already stated we are quite willing to reconsider the framing of the sub-section we have just passed—of course, it can only be done at a future stage of the Bill—so that any doubt shall be removed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will say at once, if I understand my right hon. Friend's last statement, that will be satisfactory to me. I understood him before
  1844
  to say that, in his opinion, there wag no necessity for any further words.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am consenting to put them in, but my opinion holds just the same.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my interpretation is right, but I do not want any misunderstanding at a subsequent stage. It appears to me that on this matter we are agreed as to what we want. My right hon. Friend thinks it is provided for—I think it is not, and, as I understand him, he says—"Very well, in order to meet your scruples I will be induced at another stage to add words that will make our meaning perfectly clear." If that is so, I withdraw any further opposition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman—I did not hear the whole of the conversation that took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the Prime Minister—but, as I understand, the Government pledge themselves to bring in words that shall absolutely exclude from the new Irish Legislature the right to create any force at all analogous to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Government are not prepared to bring those words up at present, as they require, consideration, and they therefore ask for time, but make a pledge that they will, at a subsequent stage, frame the requisite Amendment. That being the view of the Government, I would recommend my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and we might then proceed with the Bill.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: With regard to the engagement, what I said was that we pledged ourselves to bring up words; but they must be subject to communication with the view of a friendly understanding being arrived at. That is what we desire, but as it would be unusual that after several hours' discussion no progress should be made, I would suggest that the Amendment be negatived.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the course the right hon. Gentleman suggests rather unusual; but I dare say my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the substantial victory he has gained. I should recommend him not to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, as he has

  1845
  practically extorted from the Government all he desires.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Major Darwin) is out of Order; the one after that is in Order.
  MR. PARKER SMITHbegged to move the Amendment standing in his name. The force of the Amendment would be recognised by the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce), as it was derived from the Constitution of the United States, being part of Section 8 of the First Article of that Constitution.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 1, after "realm," insert "or forts, permanent military camps, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, or any places purchased for the erection thereof."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no necessity for the Amendment, as all matters connected with the defence of the realm are already reserved under the Bill. I think the hon. Member should have given us notice of these words.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, the words of the Amendment had been standing on the Paper a great many days.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I made no charge against the hon. Member: I merely said these words are in reference to the American Constitution, and we have not the Article before us.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONearnestly hoped his hon. Friend would not withdraw these words, and he would very soon show the Prime Minister that these words were not covered by the words "defence of the realm," because it was a recognised fact now that these forces of the Crown were to be used in Ireland, not for the defence of the realm, but for the coercion of Ulster. The Prime Minister rested his whole argument on the plea that it would be necessary to have a centralised police for dealing with Belfast; he said it might be necessary to have a Central Body, perhaps in the County of Dublin, which, under exceptional circumstances, should deal with the Province of Ulster.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No; I did not say that.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman used the words "for Belfast;" he would not deny that. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members seemed to think that the Representatives of the loyal minority in Ireland must not say anything, and he ventured to say they had been singularly scrupulous not to speak too often.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him for a moment. We are quite prepared to accept the words of the hon. Member. He has added words of his own—namely, "permanent military camps," and two words at the end; but they do not materially alter the effect of what we desire to have. Though we do not think the words necessary, we are perfectly willing to accept them.
  MR. T. M. HEALYwould like to know whether the words "other needful buildings" occurred in the Article of the American Constitution? At the present moment the Corporation of Dublin, for purposes of a main drainage scheme, were in communication with the Military Authority. He did not know the meaning exactly of "other needful buildings;" but he sincerely trusted the American Constitution was not going to be set up to prevent them from draining Dublin.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, the words "other needful buildings" were in the Article of the American Constitution. He had forgotten that he had introduced three words into the Amendment that were not in the Article, and they were the words "permanent military camps." The words of the Constitution were—
  "To exercise direct authority over all places purchased with the consent of the Legislature and the State for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that on the Report stage these words should precede the words "defence of the realm."
  MR. SEXTONthought it was perfectly clear that while there might be some context to the general language of the constitution, as they stood here the words were nonsense. The words must either come out or be brought in

  1847
  in connection with something to show the nature of the need.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Brixton (Lord Carmarthen), is no longer in Order; but the first in order is in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Byrne).
  *MR. BYRNEsaid, his only object in putting down the Amendment standing in his name and certain other Amendments upon the Paper was to endeavour to improve the Bill in case it should ever, which be sincerely hoped it would not, become an Act of Parliament. In point of fact, these Amendments were really forced upon them by reason of the framing of the Bill. The Bill as it now stood, and had been accepted so far, was framed on the lines of conferring all powers except such as were expressly mentioned, instead of being framed on the footing of enumerating those powers which wore intended to be delegated. The consequence of that was, as the Prime Minister himself said the other night, it was possible that something might have been left out that ought to have been inserted, and, for his (Mr. Byrne's) part, he ventured to say that a very large number of subjects had been omitted. He had selected certain of them that he considered very important, and he had selected some because he thought they served to illustrate the necessity for a general exception at the end of the clause. With regard to the particular Amendment which he had put first on the Paper, after the discussion which had taken place to-night, he really hoped it would be accepted, as soon as he had explained it, without much discussion. The Amendment proposed to withdraw from the Irish Legislature the power of making laws, regulating the carrying and using arms, armed associations, and associations for drill or practice in the use of arms. If he was right in the view he took of these matters they could not have a more Imperial subject than this one. By using the word "Imperial," he used it in this sense; that he regarded these exceptions as being meant to be exceptions of Imperial questions, Imperial questions
  1848
  being those which were so intimately bound up with the welfare of the whole State, that they could not pass a law applicable to Ireland in respect to it which should not strike at the interests of this country. The Amendment as it stood—first with reference to the carriage of arms; and, secondly, as it stood with reference to armed associations and associations for drill—differed, to some extent, in the two categories. They knew there was special legislation in Ireland, particularly with reference to dangerous associations; and as he understood the feeling of some hon. Members of the Party opposite, their notion was that after the passing of this Act the Irish Legislature should not have power to do away with special laws, which had been found necessary in Ireland from time to time. An entirely different question was the question whether they would allow the law which had been considered necessary for the well-being of the country, so far as Ireland was concerned, to be abolished if the Irish Legislature so thought fit immediately after the passing of this Bill into law. With regard to the carrying and using arms, he proposed to ask the attention of the Committee to the law as it stood with reference to Great Britain as distinguished from special law. The law relating to carrying arms now stood in England upon the old Statute, commonly known as the Statute of Northampton, passed in the reign of Edward II. The 3rd section of the Statute was worth consideration.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert) whether

  1849
  it was necessary to keep to the 5 per cent. rate, and whether the time had not come to make an alteration in the amount given in the Bill which, as they knew, was a sort of index to the rate of interest:?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)said, he would consider the mutter. Al present he was not in a position to answer the hon. Member.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he hoped the matter would be considered in connection with the next Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to he read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 359.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 29th May.]
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESobjected to the stage being taken.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, there was only one clause of the Bill remaining for discussion, and as the measure was non-controversial, he hoped the objection would not be persisted in.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he must press his objection.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 244.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR H. MAXWELLwished to ask whether the Secretary for Scotland would consider, before the Committee stage came on the Report of the Committee over which he (Sir H. Maxwell) had presided, as to incorporating in the Bill some of that Committee's recommendations?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,)said, he was willing to consider these recommendations, but there were some which he took exception to, though there were others which he thought valuable.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERasked, would it be possible to put down the Committee stage of the Bill for
  1850
  certain nights—say, Mondays and Thursdays—so that Scottish Members would not be detained night after night to watch for it?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,)said, the Bill would be put down at every convenient opportunity to facilitate discussion.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.—(No. 24.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the Bill dealt with an important question, and if it were to be discussed, it should be put down for some day, when it could be dealt with in an adequate manner.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, no arrangement was possible, as the date of Public Business did not permit.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 1) BILL (No. 282.)

  SECOND READING.
  Older for Second Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESobjected.
  SIR E. CLARKEappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his objection. The Bill was one of great importance, and the public were deeply interested in its passing.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he must object to any legislation at that time of the night—after 12 o'clock.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had to ask Mr. Speaker, had they no power to prevent this wholesale obstruction?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I understand the hon. Member is the slave of duty.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Member is quite right.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am surprised at the hon. Member resisting the appeal from a high authority on his own side of the House, and I would put it to him whether he is using the power which the House has given to single Members to object in its spirit and intent? If the hon. Member objects simply because it is past 12 o'clock he is impeding the Business of the House by acting in contravention of the Rule of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he valued his authority as highly as that of any one on his own side of the House, but he believed he was acting in the spirit and intent of the Rule, which was passed for the purpose of preventing hasty legislation, and, inasmuch as this was a Government Bill, and the Government had taken up the whole time of the House, he submitted it was not fair to pass it in a few seconds. It might, at least, be properly explained.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, that he had attended in his place night after night in charge of two Bills that had passed the Committee stage and——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is scarcely in Order.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked whether the difficulty could not be got over by a ruling that the hon. Member for King's Lynn was abusing the Forms of the House? He would ask that especially in reference to Order No. 5, the Prison (Officers' Superannuation) Bill, with which the hon. Member had nothing to do.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order, but it is my duty to observe that the power of objecting after 12 o'clock ought to be used with some discrimination and discretion, because I foresee that the time is coining when some change will have to be made to prevent objections which are made indiscriminately.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his objection. As a lawyer, he knew how desirable it was that the measure should pass. It was not a Bill that could be discussed profitably in the House. It was a subject for experts.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he also hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would withdraw his objection. The power of
  1852
  objection after 12 o'clock was very valuable to private Members, and if the privilege was abused it might be withdrawn.
  *MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid he would point out that the Standing Order laid down that what could not be taken after 12 o'clock was Opposed Business. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had given express notice to the House that his objection was not dictated by opposition to this particular Bill. In these circumstances, was his opposition an opposition at all?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member used the words "I object," and that amounts to opposition under the Standing Order.
  MR. BARTLEYwished to add his appeal to those which had already been made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Hanbury, Hanbury [referring to Mr. Hanbury, the hon. Member for Preston].
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the measure, which was of a highly technical nature, ought not to be opposed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he felt like a lady who had too many suitors for her hand. He had objected because he knew nothing about the Bill, and had had no opportunity of acquiring any knowledge of it. However, as he saw that it came from another place— the Chamber for which the Prime Minister had so great a regard—he would withdraw his objection.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 236.)

  SECOND HEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Objection being taken,
  *MR. WEIRsaid, he hoped the objection would be withdrawn.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

ARBITRATION ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 300.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Objection being taken,
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEhoped no objection would prevent the progress of this Bill. It was a very simple measure brought in to amend the Act of 1889 in a very simple point—that of having three Arbitrators instead of two.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he must object.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 52.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, the Bill had made very good progress every year, and he was anxious it should now pass the Second Reading, and be referred to a Select Committee.
  An hon. MEMBER said, he objected, not because of the hour at which the Bill was taken, but because he had read its provisions, and considered them most objectionable.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESalso objected.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

BARGE OWNERS' LIABILITY BILL. (No. 169.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading road.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESobjected.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, the Bill was practically part of the last one.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (EDINBURGH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 347.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 342.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 354.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 319.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [CRANBROOK AND PADDOCK WOOD RAILWAY, &c] BILL —(No. 339.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 345.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 346.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order [Orpington] Bill. Amendments to Amendments to—Police Acts Amendments Bill; Public Libraries Act (1892) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
MESSAGE TO THE LORDS.
Railway Rates and Charges,—Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords, to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Balfour of Burleigh to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Select Committee on Railway Rates and Charges.—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

COLONIAL TRUSTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords]

  STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order which is applicable thereto has been complied with, namely, Oyster and Mussel Fishery Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.

  STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order which is applicable thereto has been complied with, namely, Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be road a second time To-morrow.

  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented,—of the Amount due by the Public to Depositors in Military Savings Banks on 31st March
  1856
  1891, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March 1892, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
  Copy presented,—of Return of Advances under the Act to the 31st March 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 13th May 1893, declaring that William Elliott, Office Messenger, Veterinary Department of the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RUSSIA (No. 1, 1893).
  Copy presented,—of Correspondence respecting an Agreement for the protection of Russian Sealing Interests in the North Pacific Ocean during the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1208 to 1215 (Africa, France, China, Spain, Italy) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
SAT FIRST.
The Marquess Camden, after the death of his father.
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships very long in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the promoters of the Bill is a very simple one, and one which will, I think, when stated, command the respect and support of the great majority of the House. The object of the Bill is to afford better means of protection by law than exists at the present time for certain species of wild birds which, from various causes, particularly require protection. My Lords, if I were asked to state what test I would apply in order to see whether any species of wild bird required protection or not, I should say you could determine the question by the test whether or not that species of bird was or was not largely decreasing in numbers. The necessity for the Bill arises from the increase of a certain class of persons who make a business, mainly for profit, of collecting birds' eggs in places where they are more or loss easily got, and of species which are somewhat rare. I do not know whether any of your Lordships noticed in the Spring of last year that some of those to whom I have referred went so far as to ask for subscriptions to a sort of Syndicate or Company in the Midland Counties for the purpose of employing persons in their interest to go to places in the North of Scotland, where some of the rarer kinds of wild birds' eggs are found, and to collect them wholesale. I do not think I am using too strong a term, from the contents of a circular which has been sent to me, when
  1694
  I say it really amounts to a wholesale depredation of the eggs of certain kinds of birds which are not by any means too plentiful. There are other places all over the country where birds congregate in considerable numbers and where they breed, and the scale of prices at which the eggs can be sold is held out as a temptation for taking them during those times of the year when they can be obtained. And not only do the eggs require protection, but certainly during the breeding-season the adult birds ought also to be protected. My Lords, it is said that the Bill as it stands is open to various objections. Noble Lords opposite and others have pointed out to mo that as the Bill stands a County Council and the Home Secretary, working together, could, if they chose, pass a bye-law which would, in fact, prohibit all shooting of game in the administrative county under their control. Of course, such a result as that, I need hardly say, is very far from the wishes or desires of the promoters. Again, it is objected that as the Bill stands it would be theoretically possible to punish schoolboys for taking the nest of blackbirds or sparrows. Of course, no such result as that is desired, either by myself or by those who have been most active in promoting the Bill. My Lords, I am not responsible for the drafting of the Bill. The Bill was introduced into, and has passed through, the other House of Parliament. If it was not introduced into the other House, in the shape in which it now comes to your Lordships, it has at any rate passed through the other House of Parliament in the shape in which it now stands; and until your Lordships have read the Bill a second time—if you will be so good as to read it a second time—there are no means of making known the Amendments which I dare say more than one noble Lord will be anxious to see introduced into it. I may say that I am prepared to move some Amendments myself, and I have knowledge that some of your Lordships are desirous of putting down Amendments with the view to making the Bill more useful and practical than it is at the present time. There is one point to which I ought, perhaps, to call attention. It may be thought desirable not to protect all species of birds, and not to give the Home Secretary and County

  1695
  Councils the power to shut up all places where birds are found. If it is the wish of the House to protect certain species of birds and their eggs by putting them in a Schedule, or, on the other hand, to protect certain places in particular, those are all matters for consideration; and I can only say that I shall be most anxious to accept help in the matter from all quarters of the House, keeping only in view the purpose of making the Bill efficient for the main objects which I have stated. I should be prepared to delay the Committee stage of the Bill for a few days so as to give plenty of time for consideration. I have only to say, in conclusion, that this is a subject which can, I think, he thoroughly well considered in this House. There are many noble Lords who have a thorough knowledge of country life, and who are well aware of the necessity for such a Bill as this; and I am quite certain that after this Second Reading, when we got to the Committee stage, help will be obtained from all quarters of the House for the purpose of making this an efficient and proper measure.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill on Second Reading. No doubt the object of the Bill is one which will commend itself to all noble Lords in this House; but it seems to me to give an additional proof, if one was wanting, of the great advantage which the country derives from the existence of your Lordships' House, because if the measure had not to pass the ordeal of this House we should have had a Bill passed through the other House of Parliament under which not one of your Lordships could shoot a single head of game if the County Council, having the control in that part of the country, with the assistance of the Home Secretary, chose to say so. I see many noble Lords around me who are very fond of shooting, and I think they would be much astonished if they found that the County Councils and the Home Secretary together were to have power to prevent them shooting a single head of game on their own estates during the whole breeding season, that game being their own property just as much as the
  1696
  timber which is grown on their laud. With regard to the protection for eggs, that, I know, is a somewhat difficult question, because it has been held by some Magistrates, or by some Judges, that they cannot accept the suggestion that a particular kind of egg belongs to a particular species of bird; and unless the bird has been seen to lay the egg, they deny the possibility of its being proved to be the egg of any particular bird which may be put in a Schedule. I am glad to hear from my noble Friend that the measure he proposes will be referred to a Select Committee, and that he will be prepared to accept various Amendments which may be proposed to it——
  *LORD BALFOUR: I did not propose that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; I said I should be prepared to allow some time to elapse before the Committee stage.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Then it will be considered in Committee of this House, which will be much better able to deal with it. But, my Lords, the question of protecting the eggs of wild birds might, I think, be dealt with by giving power to the County Councils to declare a certain close time for certain districts in the country. That would not apply to the whole country, but they would only be districts to which the birds usually resort. The fact that for a certain period this would be considered a close time, should be well-known throughout the district, and published beforehand, so that anyone going into that part of the country at that time for the purpose of collecting eggs would know that he was liable to punishment. But I entirely agree with my noble Friend that it would be quite impossible to put an end to the popular amusement of birds'-nesting among the younger members of the community; and I think if the Act was put into force very strenuously, a strong feeling would be aroused against it throughout the country; while, on the other hand, if the Act was very seldom put into force, or only with a slight punishment, it would become a dead letter, and you might just as well not pass it at all. My Lords, I think my noble Friend will do well, as he has said, to got opinions from various part of the House upon the Bill, and I have

  1697
  no doubt he would do well in striking out that part of it which would prevent those who are fond of shooting from indulging in that sport; and with regard to the question of collecting eggs, I think we should be in a hotter position by having power in the County Councils to declare a certain close time for particular districts in the country.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this Bill, in which I may say I take great interest. I entirely agree that the principle of it is one of which we should probably all approve; but with regard to the mode in which it is carried into effect, I agree with the noble Duke that it would be impossible to carry it into effect in its present form. I will not touch upon the proposals under which game might be prohibited from being shot; but with regard to the protection of eggs, I was very glad to hear what was said by the noble Duke opposite. I do not profess myself to have any experience in these matters, but it has been brought to my notice that if you simply prohibit the taking of the eggs of particular birds, you will probably altogether fail in the object you have in view. What is wanted is to prevent the destruction of certain species of wild birds which are rapidly diminishing, and which, if not protected, will probably vanish out of the country altogether. The eggs of some species of rare birds are to be found in certain limited localities, and I believe, from what I am told, that it would be possible to define those localities, and to prevent the taking there, during a certain season, of all eggs, and in that way to preserve the eggs of particular birds. They are not localities which are frequented largely by other kinds of birds than those whose eggs it is desired to preserve, and you could, therefore, punish persons who are found in those districts with eggs. Those who are acquainted with the subject say that it is almost impossible to distinguish between the eggs of certain rare birds and those of other birds, and it would, therefore, be impossible to prove before a Court that the eggs taken belonged to the particular species of bird which you wish to preserve. If the taking of the
  1698
  eggs of certain birds alone were prohibited, it would be almost impossible to prove that in any particular case. The Amendment suggested by the noble Duke deserves, I think, careful consideration, and I hope that, as well as many other points connected with the Bill, will be carefully considered in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL.): My Lords, there can be no doubt that this Bill has excited a good deal of interest, and also some alarm, even among those who desire to protect the species of wild birds whose protection is the object of it. I have been favoured with a communication from a very high authority on the subject— Professor Newman, of Cambridge. He has called my attention to the provisions of this Bill, and he is afraid that it will not attain the object desired, whilst it may, on the other hand, lead undesirably, in a considerable number of cases, to the infliction of punishment on those who are merely pursuing the pastime of birds'-nesting. They might suffer in a way which is very undesirable. In fact, when the matter was considered some years ago by a Committee of the British Association, of which Professor Newman was Chairman, one of the conclusions at which they arrived was that the practice of birds'-nesting has been so much followed in England that no Act of Parliament—except one of the most severe character—would stop it, and that such a measure would, by filling the gaols with boys, excite great opposition even among many of those who are at present favourably disposed towards legislation on the subject. There can be no doubt, I think, that any attempt to protect these wild birds by such means would excite hostility, and would lead to results which would tend to defeat the object in view. There is also a considerable amount of opinion in favour of the view that the birds which are decreasing most rapidly in numbers are precisely those the preservation of which is not largely affected by birds'-nesting; and, therefore, the diminution which is so much regretted would not be arrested to any material extent, and would certainly not be got rid of by the prohibition of birds'-nesting. My attention has been called also to the impossibility of dealing with this question in

  1699
  the manner proposed in reference to the eggs. As has been said already by my noble Friend, the eggs of many birds are so much alike that it is often impossible, even for experts, to distinguish the eggs of rare species of birds from those of others which are more common. There is, therefore, a feeling in some directions that if there is to be legislation on the subject, it should be legislation dealing with places rather than with species of birds. But, of course, when you come to deal with places you are met with this difficulty, which I find mentioned in an interesting article written by Mr. Digby Pigott, when a Bill of this kind was first introduced, calling attention to the fact that the Great Stena one of the species of rare birds, which are decreasing in numbers, is found in districts in the Northern Islands, in Shetland, for example, where birds' eggs are largely used as an article of food—gulls' eggs—that it is difficult to distinguish between them, and they would probably be found not far from each other. If, therefore, you were to prohibit the taking of eggs in any place of considerable extent for the purpose of protecting the eggs of birds of this description, you would, at the same time, be preventing people collecting eggs which are to them a valuable source of food. If you were to limit the operation of this Bill to places, you would, therefore, have to see that while the districts were made large enough for the purpose of protecting the particular eggs you desire to protect, you wore not, at the same time, making them so large as to deprive the people of the locality of an article of food, where they are accustomed to collect eggs for that purpose, and so cut off a valuable source of food supply. On those grounds I think it is necessary, in the first place, to pay attention to the selection of places; and, secondly, that great care should be taken not to make those districts too large in extent, but to confine them to the absolute necessities of the case. Another question which will have to be considered is that of giving notice of a change in the law— whether the Act ought not to provide for some form of publication which will make it certain that it will come to the knowledge of those who will come under the prohibition with regard to taking
  1700
  eggs from birds' nests. At present the only provision is that such notices are to be published in newspapers circulating in the country, or by such other means as the County Councils shall determine. The only objection is that the notices must be published in newspapers, and that boys who are in the habit of going birds'-nesting would probably not be likely to read advertisements in the newspapers. It has been suggested, therefore, that publication should be made also by putting up notices in the local schools. Those are matters which it will, I think, be very desirable should be considered in Committee; but I thought it necessary to call attention to them at the present time with the view of showing the great care which will have to be exercised in order that the Bill may accomplish the object desired, and may not do considerable mischief.
  LORD WALSINGHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said as to the desirability of protecting places rather than species. As the places where rare birds breed are well known, and are generally of limited extent, I quite agree that the best way of protecting those birds is to deal with the places in which they breed rather than to extend protection to birds' eggs in general. The vast number of wild birds really need no protection at all. I think that was the conclusion that was arrived at by the Committee to which the noble and learned Lord referred, that there are certainly a number of species of birds which need no such protection. Then, with regard to advertising the change in the law, I think more notice, and very clear notice, should be given, so that it should be thoroughly made known to the people in the district from what places they are prohibited taking eggs. That I think will not be made known by advertisements in newspapers as thoroughly as it should be; but I think the necessary publicity would be given if notices were exhibited on houses or in schools as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has suggested. If in Committee that Amendment were made I think it would meet the difficulty, and would be sufficient to carry out the views of those who wish to protect wild birds. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, of which, I believe, many noble Lords have already expressed approval.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 13th instant.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL [H.L.]— (NO. 52.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  LORD SANDHURSTdesired to interpose a few remarks upon the Bill before the Committee stage. Lord Colchester, who, like himself, was a member of the London School Board, made a speech the other night in which he seemed to infer that the Bill was very generally desired by that Body. He was not at all convinced that the Bill was desired by those forming the majority of the London School Board who followed the lead of the Chairman. It was true that a small section was extremely anxious to see it passed into law; but, on the other hand, a large number wore strongly opposed to the policy of the Bill. He objected to the Bill because he believed it would be found to be unworkable, and would tend to accelerate the strides now being made towards secular education. There were many denominations, and if all were to give distinctive religious teaching, even in a large school, the school building would have to be enlarged for the purpose of affording the accommodation that would be required. The interference with the ordinary work of the school would necessitate a re-arrangement of the time table; and the managers would be tempted to recommend the appointment of teachers, not for their qualifications as such, but because of the denominational views they might hold. He took his stand in opposing the Bill upon the compromise proposed by the late Mr. Smith and supported by the late Mr. Samuel Morley and by Professor Huxley. That compromise he regarded as a settlement of the controversy.
  *LORD COLCHESTERsaid, what he stated on the previous occasion referred to by his noble Friend was that there was a feeling of dissatisfaction in some respects with the present position of things. It could hardly be denied that there were
  1702
  large numbers of people of various religious denominations who were desirous that their children should receive religious instruction of their own denomination in the schools. At the same time, he did not think the inconvenience from the number of different sects to be provided for would be as great as supposed. Many Dissenting Bodies did not attach so much value to religious teaching in day schools, though it was greatly desired by the Church of England, the Wesleyans, and others, who, as ratepayers, were as much entitled to consideration as those who differed from them.
  *LORD SHANDregretted he had been unable to be present at the Second Reading, or he would then have supported the Bill. He thought it was scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the measure. In London at the present moment there was a considerable agitation on the subject; and as soon as the existence of the Bill and the discussions upon it became known, there was not a School Board in the country that would not be deeply interested, and there were a great many families that would take the deepest interest in its progress and results. Many years ago he came to the conclusion that the only satisfactory solution of the religious difficulty would be in carrying out some such national system as was now proposed in this Bill— namely, that there should be combined secular education supported from the rates and opportunities for separate religious instruction in every school allowed to the different religious denominations as a matter of voluntary action on their part. Much had been said as to the compromise arrived at in 1870 which was embodied in the Cowper-Temple Clause in the Education Act; but, in his opinion, too much weight had been attached to that compromise. With the advance of time the bitterness of the controversy on religious education, which made compromise necessary, had become abated; more of the spirit of tolerance prevailed now, and he submitted that the compromise of 23 years ago was not in any degree to be held binding now. And there was this further advantage, in reviewing the question at the present time, that experience had shown, as he contended, that the provision made for religious

  1703
  education in 1870 had not brought out satisfactory results. The total absence of all religious education in schools was a great injury to the country. What was the system now pursued? All that was done was that for a short time in each school there was a portion of Scripture read. That was not anything like a provision for religious education. Some noble Lords maintained that this was well supplemented by home training. Could anyone seriously say, with any knowledge of the homes of this country, especially of the working classes, where the parents had but little time for such duties, that there was anything like adequate home religious education given to children? It was idle to represent that there could be time for such instruction in the vast majority of working-class homes. He did not deny that without such instruction children might be brought up to speak truthfully, and to act honourably in accordance with the principles of morality; but in the view of those who supported the Bill it would add greatly to the strength of the moral lessons inculcated if they were supported by reference to the sanctions and the motives supplied by the teaching of Christian doctrines. It could not be suggested that the objection which was made to the scheme of 1870 applied to this scheme at all, because here, for the first time, the proposal was that while secular teaching alone should be thrown upon the rates, religious education should be supplied by the different religious bodies themselves. With regard to the objection that such a system was impracticable, he might mention that shortly before 1847 there was a school opened in Edinburgh by a well-known clergyman of the Free Church; but he made it a condition of admission that the children who came to the school should receive religious teaching according to the Presbyterian doctrines. The result was that a great many Roman Catholic children were left in the streets. That was considered by many as a very great injustice, and it was resolved that another school should be established, which should be conducted on quite different principles. Accordingly the United Industrial School was founded in 1847, and ever since, for nearly half-a-century, it had been successfully conducted. By
  1704
  the constitution of that school the subscribers generally were to pay for the secular education of the children; but the religious education which might be given was to be kept distinct, and was to be paid for by those who were interested in the particular denomination whose doctrines were to be taught. The school had subscribers among those who were regarded as extreme Liberals in politics. The late Mr. Adam Black, who was one of the staunchest Liberals in Scotland, was one of the main supporters of the school, and the noble Lord (the Earl of Rosebery), who conducted the foreign affairs of this country, had been, and was still, its President, and took the deepest interest in its welfare. Mr. Donald Crawford, the Member for North-East Lanarkshire, and Mr. Wallace, the Member for East Edinburgh, were also supporters of the school. The various Reports showed again and again, from the day on which the school was founded until the present time, that its Chairman and Directors had expressed the strongest conviction that in the principle of securing for the children common secular and separate religious education, if fairly carried out, would be found the ultimate solution of the educational difficulty. This was no small or recent experiment: the matter had gone beyond the region of experiment. There were 54 schools in Birmingham also, in almost every one of which religious instruction had been carried on for a period of 20 years precisely in the way which was proposed by the Bill, and with general satisfaction. With regard to the objections that had been urged against the Bill, not one of the noble Lords who had spoken against it had denied, so far as he understood, that the measure would be a desirable one if it could be practically carried out. It had been suggested that it would be likely to stir up religious animosity, and thus hinder the work of education; but he believed the tendency of the measure would be in quite the other direction. As long as this whole question was left undetermined there would be contention and agitation about it. But if, by a measure like that before their Lordships, the different denominations obtained the absolute right to have religious teaching in the schools on their own suggestion and at their own expense, an end would be put to the present unsettled and unsatisfactory state of things.

  1705
  He saw nothing whatever in the measure calculated to foment or raise religious animosity. Another objection urged against, the Bill was that, if passed, it would lead to some question or difficulty with denominational schools. He ventured to think that no such question would arise; but, even were it probable, this objection was not a good reason for rejecting a measure good in itself, and any such point could be dealt with when it arose. He appealed to noble Lords who had opposed the Bill to re-consider the matter. He believed it was possible to effectively carry out the scheme proposed, and he thought he had shown this by the illustrations he had given. If this measure was passed they would strengthen the hands of the Education Department in resisting demands for founding denominational schools in future. It might now be said in support of such demands that children could not get the religious teaching they required within the particular district or parish. That plea would be at once taken away by the adoption of this Bill. Public opinion had been maturing for a long time in the direction of the measure. Reference was made on the last occasion when the Bill was before their Lordships to a passage written by Dr. Martineau, in which he stated that he was willing to accept a Bill of this kind, and would hail it; and allusion had also been made to Mr. Huxley's views. It might be interesting to their Lordships to know that his esteemed friend Mr. Huxley, who was opposed to the proposal then before the London School Board, thoroughly approved the scheme of the Bill. It was substantially a Liberal measure, and was supported, as he had shown, by many eminent Liberals. The Bill would confer on Roman Catholics benefits to which they were justly entitled. In due course he presumed the Bill would go to the other House; and it was hardly to be supposed that the Roman Catholic Members, especially the Representatives from Ireland, would refuse on any grounds to support a measure which would give their Church equal privileges with the Church of England and other Churches in the United Kingdom. He earnestly hoped that, for the various reasons he had given, the Bill would be passed. He felt he ought not, in justice to himself, having so long
  1706
  held the views he had now stated, to remain silent in the discussion of so important a subject.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that, so far from this being a new system or an experiment, it had been carried on, at all events as far as Ireland was concerned, and to a great degree successfully, for more than 50 years. Lord Stanley then established there a National system of education which was founded on the principle of separate religious and united secular teaching, and there seemed no reason why a measure of the kind should not be applied to England. In Ireland it had certainly had the most excellent effect, though, no doubt, some of the most intolerant had refused to accept it. It was extraordinary, with the noble Earl's great knowledge of this question, that he should not have been aware how long this system had existed in Ireland. No doubt the Roman Catholic clergy would like to have no religious teaching but their own; the system had, however, down to this time, been more or loss carried out by the School Boards in Ireland; and he hoped their Lordships would adopt it for this country.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  *LORD LINGENwished to make a few remarks on this and the previous clause. He said the scope of the Bill appeared to have been misapprehended by some of the noble Lords who had spoken in support of it. It was merely with reference to Board Schools, and no others, to provide for religious instruction being given in them. The distinction should be borne in mind between the object of providing for denominational religious instruction under certain conditions and the means prescribed for effecting that object. Those means he could not but regard as unfortunate, and he believed that the Bill would be received in another place as a challenge. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the Cowper-Temple Clause, it had produced, on the whole for 23 years religious peace, though he did not desire to stand up as a very ardent advocate of it. In 1870 it was

  1707
  considered that the field was already mainly occupied by denominational schools; and, in the first instance, the Board schools were represented to Parliament as a supplement to the general system. Accordingly, the Cowper-Temple Clause was adopted as a compromise rather than that the schools should provide for united secular education and separate religious instruction. The Report of Lord Cross's Commission on the provision for religious instruction in Boards Schools was, on the whole, favourable. This Bill did not deal, as it might be possible to deal, with the difficulties attending denominational education, which should, as far as possible, he thought, be met by separate schools. He deprecated the interference with the management of Board schools, which would be sanctioned by the clause, and suggested that provision for the religious teaching which the right rev. Prelate in charge of the measure desired to promote should be made in some different way. For instance, the position of denominational schools, as compared with that of Board schools, might be improved, and in that way the extension of religious teaching might be promoted.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I cannot help saying that I do not recognise, in the instances which have been cited, anything like precedents for the provisions of this Bill. A case has been referred to in which two Committees were appointed, one Protestant and the other Roman Catholic, to see that the children received religious teaching according to which religion they belonged; but, as I gather, there was no provision for separate Presbyterian teaching, and children of that denomination received teaching of a general Protestant character. In the first place, I would point out that this is not a Bill dealing with all schools. It is, if I may say so without offence, an extremely partisan Bill. It insists upon provision being made for religious teaching at the instance of parents of a few children attending at the Board schools, but it makes no such provision as regards the vast number of denominational schools, which in many parts of the country are the only schools to which it is possible for parents to send their children. I venture to say the Bill is a partisan
  1708
  measure, because it deals with Board schools only and does not apply to voluntary denominational schools, which are partly supported out of rates, and in many of which there might be a demand made for religious instruction of a different kind than is supplied. The right rev. Prelate is apparently only alive to injustice when it affects those who belong to the Church to which he belongs himself; he sees no injustice in the fact that in localities where there are no Board schools children whose parents belong to one denomination have often to attend schools where the religious instruction of a different denomination is given. I should not be surprised if the ultimate result of the proposal in the clause were to diminish the amount of religious teaching imparted in Board schools, and make the education secular only. A large number of schools in this country teach, I believe simply and briefly, the truths which are held in common by Churchmen and Nonconformists alike. That instruction is given to all the children. Would it be a gain to religious teaching for many of them that you substitute special religious teaching for those who are not of that denomination, but who, if the parents care enough about it, can receive that teaching at home or on Sundays? While this system might secure to a limited number of children a little more Church-teaching, it would, I think, result in leaving a vast number of children who most need it without religious teaching at all. The children who most need some kind of religious instruction in the schools are those whose parents, as a general rule, care nothing about the character of such instruction. In a vast number of the Board Schools there is, as I have said, religious teaching given, which, though it may not be the religious teaching of any particular denomination, is religious teaching to which a vast majority of laymen, whether Churchmen or Nonconformists, could take no exception. That teaching simply consists of the truths which are held in common by Churchmen and the great mass of Nonconformists alike. The instruction is given to all the children alike, and I ask whether it would be a gain if you were to substitute teaching of the special tenets of any sect. My belief is, as I have said, that in the case

  1709
  of children whose parents care enough about the matter special religious teaching is secured to them by giving it on Sundays rather than on week days. This Bill, therefore, if carried into law would, I believe, strike a vital blow at the religious teaching in schools for the children who most need such instruction.
  *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYexpressed surprise that the Bill had been spoken of by the noble and learned Lord as a partisan measure. If it had been drawn specially in the interests of the Church of England, he would have put in "twenty children" instead of "five children" us the number for whom separate provision might be made. But he considered that his position as Bishop required him to be true to the first principles of religion rather than to the special tenets of the Church with which he was connected—that was to say, in this case to freedom of conscience. The noble and learned Lord, in speaking of voluntary schools, said they were supported out of the public rates. That was not the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I withdraw "rates" and substitute "grants." I believe that 74 per cent. of the cost is defrayed by grants.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, that those schools had been built at enormous cost, and were kept up at great expense—a burden which fell entirely on the shoulders of the promoters of the voluntary schools, who did not possess the privilege of borrowing capital like the Board schools, when improvements were suddenly demanded.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthought that the noble and learned Lord could hardly have made himself acquainted with what had recently taken place in the London School Board when he spoke of this measure being extremely injurious to the cause of religious education in Board schools throughout the country. The religious teaching which was given under the London School Board was founded on the compromise arranged by the late Mr. W. H. Smith and Mr. Samuel Morley on the basis of the Cowper-Temple Clause, which was intended to secure the teaching of the Christian religion in Board schools. What was the fact at present? In the case of a very large number of children compelled to go to the London Board schools, it was found that the elementary truths of the Christian religion were neglected in
  1710
  a manner which would surprise the noble and learned Lord. But when, in view of this state of things, certain gentlemen, who believed that the teaching of religion in the schools of the country was a matter of vital importance, asked that the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause should be honestly carried out, that the doctrines of the Atonement and the Divinity of our Lord should be taught in the Board schools, they were met by an outcry that it would inflict an injustice on a large number of ratepayers—Jews, Unitarians, and persons of other denominations. It had been conclusively proved, however, that the compromise established as between the members of the Church and the Nonconformists had now drifted into a supposed compromise between Christians and non-Christians. The School Boards throughout the country were professing to give instruction in the Christian religion, but they were doing nothing of the kind. Take the case of Wales, for example; the great majority of the schools there gave no religions teaching whatever, or very little, and we ought not now to refuse to provide that necessary religious teaching should be given under our great national system of education.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEintimated his intention to vote for Clause 5, if it was opposed, though he very much regretted that any occasion had arisen for the revival of this controversy. The existence of dangers had been referred to, but the dangers wore not all on one side. Unless something was done to satisfy the religious feelings of the community in the matter of education their Lordships might depend upon it that their whole system of public education, sooner or later, would be endangered. It seemed to him that, as far as it went, the Bill would give relief from this danger. It would relieve the Board schools from what otherwise might be great difficulties in their way. The principle of the Bill seemed to him to be absolutely just. He regretted that this question had arisen; but as it had been raised, he should vote for the Bill, especially as their Lordships had already affirmed the principle of the Bill, LORD SHAND moved, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from ("teach") to the end of the sub-section. Their Lordships would understand that the Amendments he proposed were of a friendly character,

  1711
  with the view to improve the Bill and not to injure it in any way. The result of the clause as it stood would be to invite inquiry into the competency of the teacher to be a religious instructor, and he was afraid that implied examining him as to his religious belief. That would be objectionable, and would injure the Bill when it got to the other House of Parliament.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from ("teach") to the end of the sub-section.—(The Lord Shand.)
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHAND LORD SHAND moved, in line 18, after ("incompetence"), to insert
  ("(d.) No part of the expense rendered necessary by any arrangement for giving separate religious instruction shall be paid from the funds of the School Board, but such expense shall be provided for to the satisfaction of the Board by the persons making application to have such arrangement made.")
  As provision was made in the Bill that the religious instruction might he given either within or outside the school-house, it might be necessary to pay for separate rooms, and such expense must not fall on the rates; and it seemed only right and proper, also, that where the schoolrooms were used for that purpose, it should be in the power of the School Board to make a charge.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked whether it was really necessary to discuss this point, as it seemed a small matter?
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid that, if rooms had to be hired, it would be against principle for the expense to be thrown on the School Board, but the Amendment would not apply where the schoolroom was used, unless some extra expense was incurred.
  LORD SHANDagreed that the noble and learned Lord had expressed the meaning of the clause, and that the question of payment would only arise if any extra cost was incurred. No injustice must be done to the ratepayers. With regard to the difficulty which had been suggested of getting the children to attend the religious instruction, his information from Birmingham was that all the children in the schools there did attend it. They certainly did
  1712
  not absent themselves by their parents' desire.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I venture to suggest that we are not discussing here the position of the Birmingham schools or School Board. The Birmingham School Board will be in precisely the same position after this Bill has passed, if it does pass, as it is in now.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY moved the following words as a new subsection (e):—
  ("No teacher already employed in the school by the Board shall give religious instruction under this section without the consent of the Board or the managers.")
  It had been thought that perhaps as a religious teacher there might be nominated, by parents, the master of a school. That appeared to be a serious objection, and it was thought better, therefore, to propose this sub-section to avoid any strain being put on the relations between the managers and the staff. It would serve as an interpretation upon the provision in Section A that the religious teacher might be a teacher in the school provided the Board approved.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems to me by implication to say that you may employ one of the teachers in the Board school for this purpose provided he is not already appointed at the time of the passing of this Act as manager.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYthought it conveyed exactly the opposite.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, this was intended to meet the objection that there would otherwise be an unlimited power of appointing persons who were teachers in the school; which ought to be subject to the consent of the Board or managers. It seemed to him that this was a distinct improvement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD SHAND LORD SHAND moved, in page 2, line 36, after ("board") to insert—
  ("On payment of a charge sufficient to meet the expense of printing such forms, where the same shall be printed.")
  This was a trifling matter, no doubt, but it was just one of those trifles which sometimes aroused people.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee: and to he printed as amended. (No. 122.)

IRELAND (COUNTY LIMERICK).

  QUESTION OBSERVATION'S.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYcalled attention to the condition of County Limerick; and asked Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to deal with the unsatisfactory state of that county? He said their Lordships would remember throe months ago he brought under the notice of the House the serious condition of the County of Clare, and called upon Her Majesty's Government to say what steps they proposed to take with reference to the appalling condition of that county. On that occasion Her Majesty's Government did not attempt to soar into the higher regions of anything approaching statesmanship; but they contented themselves with responding to his arguments by the crude and schoolboy retort, the well-known tu quoque. They said the county was not in a more unsatisfactory condition than it had been under the former Government. On this occasion, with reference to the County Limerick, such a to quoque was absolutely impossible. He defied anyone to say that Limerick was in an unsatisfactory condition when Mr. Morley undertook the government of the country. On that point he would make a quotation from a Charge delivered by Mr. Justice O'Brien at Limerick Assizes on the 11th of July, 1892, a short time before Mr. Gladstone came into power. The learned Judge said—
  "Almost all forms of exception to the ordinary state of society in the County Limerick in reference to the violation of the law have. I may say, entirely disappeared. Life is more secure, not only against violence, but against the menace or the apprehension of violence; property is more secure from all forms of invasion or interference; and all forms of social relations are relieved from the burden of that intolerable restraint upon personal liberty with which, unhappily, we have been too long familiar in this country."
  It was, therefore, no exaggeration to say that when Mr. Morley undertook the government of Ireland the county was in a satisfactory condition; now it was
  1714
  not in a satisfactory condition, but it was in a state of absolute lawlessness. He read with some surprise a statement made by Mr. Morley in the House of Commons a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Excepting in two bad areas I should regard the state of the Counties of Clare, Kerry, and Limerick as not any more serious, but as less serious at the present moment than it was when the present Government acceded to Office."
  With that statement he joined issue; he gave it the flattest contradiction; and he hoped he should, from Mr. Morley's own mouth, make out his case that Limerick was in a most unsatisfactory condition compared with what it was when the present Government came into power. It ought ever to be remembered that Mr. Morley possessed the aid and support of very powerful auxiliaries in his endeavour to maintain law and order in Ireland. He had at his back the priests and both sections of the Nationalist Party, and their Lordships could at once discern where the fault lay when there existed the present state of lawlessness. The machinery was there, but it was not used. The Government were responsible, because, in defiance of warnings and in defiance of the fact that there had been the most palpable miscarriage of justice, they utterly refused to apply the remedy. In proof of his statement that Limerick was at present in an unsatisfactory and lawless condition he quoted from the Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson delivered in March last. Mr. Justice Gibson stated that—
  "Although there was no form of the worst crime, such as murder, or attempt, to murder, nevertheless there is in the Police Returns evidence of crime, and of a very formidable state of affairs. There has been an increase of specially reported crime of a very substantial character. The number this year was 81, as against 54 last year. His Lordship was by no means an alarmist, and he trusted that the apprehensions he might be induced to feel from reading these colourless Reports might be perhaps shown not to be warranted by the result in the future."
  He would deal with the future later. At the time he delivered that Charge the learned Judge was referring to the following crimes committed in the county:—Twenty cases of arson, ten of moonlighting, two of firing at the person, ten of malicious injuries to property, nine of killing, cutting, and maiming cattle, and two cases of intimidation. Since that

  1715
  Charge there had been one murder, seven cases of arson, one of attempted arson, seven cases of moonlighting, including the case of Quirke, whom they beat about the head; his son, whom they shot in the legs; and Brosnan, whom they beat about the head. He found that Mr. Morley stated that—
  "The number of moonlighting outrages committed in Limerick between August 22, 1892— that was when Mr. Gladstone assumed the reins of Government—and April 30th, 1893, was 17, of which nine were agrarian and eight non-agrarian. In the corresponding months of 1891–2 there was but one case of moonlighting in the county."
  He wished to know—and here he was addressing himself specially to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), who on two occasions had represented Her Majesty in Ireland—how many of the men who were concerned in the 17 cases of moonlighting had been laid by the heels; and what was the course the Government proposed to take with them? Also, what was meant by "agrarian" and what by "non-agrarian" moonlighting? He had no doubt non-agrarian moonlighting meant raiding for arms or attacking houses; but, having looked with considerable care through the Returns in regard to agrarian outrages when he (Earl Spencer) was responsible as Viceroy for the government of Ireland, he found that raiding for arms and attacks on houses were included in agrarian outrages. But whether they were called agrarian or non-agrarian, these attacks on houses showed a condition of lawlessness very different to the condition which prevailed when Mr. Morley undertook the government of the country. To say that this lawlessness was confined to one small area was no excuse whatever; because, in that case, if the proper machinery were used, the perpetrators ought to be all the more easily detected and arrested. He knew well that in 1887 the condition of Limerick was very nearly as bad as that with which the Government now had to deal. And here he would again quote a Judge of Assize. Mr. Justice Johnson, on March 4, 1887, said—
  "It is quite idle for us to shut our eyes and say there is peace where there is no peace while these things are going on throughout the country. In these nine cases no single person has been made amenable. … This state of things is disorder of the worst possible character. I hope it is not sympathy. I believe it is vastly
  1716
  more terror than sympathy, for people whose peaceful homes are invaded in the darkness of the night are probably greatly apprehensive that the next visit may not leave them as it left them before. It is my duty to remark this, not to point out any remedy. I can only say that the lawless state of the county shows no improvement."
  That was about the time when that politician, Sir G. Trevelyan, who, however able he might be, had not shown he possessed the gift either of consistency or perspicuity, enunciated the idea that the game of law and order was up in Ireland. All he could say was—Thank God they had Mr. Arthur Balfour and not Sir G. Trevelyan in power! Mr. Balfour lost no time in introducing a Crimes Act, with the result which he had already described. It was perfectly possible, by judging the statistics of crime alone, to know whether a Crimes Act was in force or not, for the simple reason that when it was not crime increased almost with the regularity of a barometer. In 1880 there were 123 cases of agrarian crime in the County of Limerick; in 1881 there were 190. That was the year of Mr. Gladstone's famous Suspects' Act. In the next year—1882—when Mr. Gladstone brought in his famous Crimes Act, they fell to 126. In 1883 there were 54 cases; 1884, 49; in 1885 they rose to 61, for the simple reason that the Crimes Act lapsed; in 1886 they rose to 67. In 1887 Mr. Balfour introduced his Crimes Act, with the result, although it was the latter part of the year, that crimes dropped to 57 cases; in 1888, to 34; in 1889, to 25; in 1890, to 26; in 1891, to 17; while in 1892 they rose to 26. In the first half of that year, when Lord Salisbury's Government was responsible, the number was less than in the latter half. The reason of that was that convictions were obtained in the Crimes Courts in the county. He did not know why the noble Earl (Earl Spencer), who administered the law with so much courage and impartiality, did not now insist on the law being administered in the same spirit which he formerly displayed. In 1887 he found there were 18 convictions; in 1888, 94; in 1889 there were 33; in 1890 they were 7; while in the last two years of the Marquess of Salisbury's administration of English and Irish affairs not a single Crimes Court was held, for there was no necessity for them, and there was, consequently, not a

  1717
  single conviction. When a Crimes Act was in force in Ireland and administered with firmness and impartiality crime had invariably decreased. Serious crime between 1887 and 1892 was dealt with in the same firm and fearless manner by the Irish Executive taking advantage of the power to change the venue. In Limerick, according to Mr. Morley himself, the total number of cases in which orders for change of venue and special juries were made in that period was 41. These cases, which all proceeded to trial, affected 65 accused persons, of whom 28 were convicted. The noble Lord who represented the Irish Office in that House said that by change of venue you might get special juries, but how would you get better witnesses? There was not a man who had any experience of Ireland who did not know that the evidence given out of the county in which crime was committed was very different from the evidence which would be given in the county, because out of the county the witness was free from surveillance, espionage, and intimidation. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) knew that most of the crime in Ireland had been stopped because juries in other counties, to which the venue had been changed, were found willing to convict. He would quote various cases in which convictions had thus been obtained. From Clare, in 1890, cases were tried at Sligo, with the result that fair sentences were passed. Timothy Lalor got penal servitude for life for firing at the person; Denis Cooney, James Cooney, Martin Moloney, John Hurst, and Cornelius Howard, convicted of firing at James Donnelan, got 20 years' penal servitude; John Neylan and Thomas Tudhy got two years for moonlighting; and so on. Then with regard to Kerry cases. In his (Lord Londonderry's) Viceroyalty, Kirby and Conmane were found guilty at Wicklow for the murder of Quirke, May 7, 1888; Hayes and Moriarty wore convicted at Wicklow of the murder of James Fitzmaurice March 29, 1888; Leanlan, found guilty at Maryborough of the murder of Robinson, the schoolmaster, July 18, 1888; while in Earl Spencer's Viceroyalty Patrick Walsh, tried at Dublin before Mr. Justice Lawson, August 21, 1882, for the murder of Martin Lyden, of Lotterfrack, was sentenced to
  1718
  be hanged August 22; his brother, Michael Walsh, was sentenced in Dublin to be hanged for the murder of Constable Kavanagh at Lotterfrack September 29, 1882; and the Lough mask murderers were found guilty of the murder of the Huddys December 13, 1882. He would be glad to know why Mr. Gladstone had gone back from his own words? Mr. Gladstone said on April 8, 1886—
  "In the first place, with certain exceptions, for the case of winter juries, it is impossible to depend upon the finding of a jury in a case of agrarian crime according to the facts as they are viewed by the Government, by the Judges, and by the public, I think, at large."
  He should be glad to know why, therefore, Mr. Gladstone did not insist upon Mr. Morley reviving change of venue? Since the O'Hagan Jury Act there had never been a conviction in any important agrarian case before a common jury, and, consequently, the repeal of the jury and venue sections of the Crimes Act was a declaration of immunity for that class of crime. He had proved beyond doubt that the condition of the County Limerick was unsatisfactory and lawless at present, and he now asked the Government to give the House some definite idea of what they were going to do. To restore law and order nothing but a revival of the clauses enabling the Government to change the venue of trials could be of any avail. He asked, were they going to allow the present state of things to continue? Mr. Morley sail—
  "The only steps I propose to take are to continue those I have already taken—namely, to rely on the vigilance of the police, which has been attended by a decline of agrarian crime in two out of three of the counties mentioned."
  A more miserable answer was never given by a responsible Minister. He had been told in March that police were going to be drafted into the County Clare. But what was the use of the police in Clare? Since March 2 there had been in Clare six cases of moonlighting, four of firing at the person (including the case of Mr. Blood, which was fresh in their Lordships' recollection), one of intimidation, one of attack on the person, one of maiming cattle, and four of incendiary fires. He would read a telegram dated Ennis, just received, which had been put into his hands—
  "About noon to-day Weldon Moloney, solicitor, Dublin, Agent to Moloney trustees in this county, was fired at and wounded near Tullas, close to where Perry was shot."

  1719
  Were the Government going to take no steps to put an end to such a state of things? Mr. Morley said the other day—
  "He thought that denouncing in this case pointed an individual out to public disapproval. if it led to overt acts, or if the denunciation was so directed to the individual in question as to intimidate him in the exercise of his legal rights then the Government would interfere."
  Well, he would tell them at once of a case in which they ought to interfere. At a meeting held at Coore, West Clare, a few days ago, the following resolution was passed:—
  "That we again call on all good and earnest Nationalists to assist us in putting down land-grabbing."
  And the newspaper from which the resolution was quoted added—
  "Pat Donnellan, of Dunogan, and Pat Mungovan, of Clounlaheen, were censured —the former for intercourse and intimacy with the grabber Sexton, and the latter for his connection with the aiders and abbettors of the grabber. Other matters of an important nature were discussed, the consideration of which was adjourned to next meeting, when it is expected the parties concerned will be present.—Michael McMahon, Hon. Sec."
  That was published in the newspaper United Ireland, 20th May, 1893. As he came into the House a paper was put into his hand, in which it was stated that if a certain grabber persisted he would be denounced by name, and a circular would be sent out calling upon all patriotic Irishmen to have no dealings with him. Another meeting was also held at which a so-called land-grabber was denounced, and that meeting was presided over by Mr. J. Chines, who had been recently appointed a J.P. for Limerick by Mr. Morley. He wished Mr. Morley joy of his new man. What he wanted to know was this: Was Mr. Morley going to redeem his pledge or not? Was he going to prosecute these people or not? He had a right to demand an answer to that question. There was no use in telling him that, in order to restore peace and order in Limerick, the Government were going to draft in a certain number of policemen. The conduct of Her Majesty's Government would be far more straightforward if they got up and said that they intended to take no steps; that they intended to truckle to the Leaders of the Nationalist Party, in the House of Commons, and that they meant to hand over the loyal inhabitants of
  1720
  Clare, Kerry, and Limerick to the tender mercies of the moonlighters and boycotters, and not go through the farce of pretending to do something when they were doing nothing that could be of any use for protecting either their lives or their property. He addressed himself to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) more especially, because his Lordship was constantly referred to and quoted in the House as a great authority on Irish matters, and because he knew that nothing would be done in Ireland without the noble Earl's sanction. Still more, he knew that without the noble Earl's approbation the Home Rule Bill could never have been introduced. He called upon the noble Earl to reply, either then or on the following day, to the charges and statements he had made. If Her Majesty's Government were content to remain silent, torpid, apathetic, and indifferent to the misery and crime that prevailed in Limerick; if they refused to avail themselves of the powers they had in their hands and could exercise if they had only the courage to do so for dealing with such a state of things as he had shown to exist, then on them must be the responsibility of every outrage and crime that might yet be perpetrated —on their shoulders must rest the responsibility of the blood of every unfortunate victim who might be assassinated. If they refused, they would undertake a responsibility which no honest man would undertake. He thanked God with all his heart that he could look back to the time when he was in office in Ireland and say—as all his colleagues could say—that no weight of responsibility of so horrible, disastrous, and bloodthirsty a character could ever be laid at their doors.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are we to expect no reply?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We are waiting to know whether the Debate is to be adjourned.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl wants to know whether the Debate is to be adjourned. The speech of my noble Friend behind me no doubt requires a great deal of digestion, and time must, I suppose, be taken for that purpose. Besides, I understand that a discussion on the subject is going on in the House of Commons, and I dare say

  1721
  noble Lords opposite would find it convenient to ascertain before they reply what Mr. Morley has said, so us to avoid any unpleasant discrepancies. Under those circumstances, if noble Lords opposite will not do so, I am prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of moving the Adjournment of the Debate. That would be a convenient arrangement, for I understand there are several Irish Peers who wish to address the House on the question, and I am quite sure that if the reply of the noble Earl opposite is to be measured by the mass of Papers in his hands, it must occupy a considerable time. I move the Adjournment of the Debate, and I suppose that it may have precedence over the Business for tomorrow.
  Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned, and that it have precedence over the Business for to-morrow."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend is perfectly ready to give the answer now, and we are certainly not open to the remarks of the noble Marquess. Probably, as other Peers wish to address the House, my noble Friend would like to hear more upon the subject. As to the figments of the noble Marquess, they may he very convenient jokes at the moment, but we know that they have no foundation in fact.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I entirely sympathise with the noble Earl, and I think it would be inconvenient that it should become a precedent for one speech to be made and the Debate then adjourned interfering with the business of the next evening. Quite admitting that the practice should not be made a precedent, I think that course would on the present occasion be very convenient.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think the business for to-morrow will throw any obstacle in the way, and I have no objection to the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

  HIGH SHERIFFS.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed
  1722
  for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 120.)

  MARKING OF FOREIGN MEAT, &c.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House: but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 121.)
  MAGISTRATES (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Memorandum respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of the 16th day of May last), and to be printed. (No. 119.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 89.)
  Read 2a, according to Order,
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 90.)
  Read 2a, according to Order.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NEWENT, &C.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 84.)
  Read 2a, according to Order.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 85.)
  Read 2a, according to Order.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CHISWICK, &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No.53.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  METROPOLITAN COMMONS PROVISIONAL ORDER (BANSTEAD) BILL. —(No. 51.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: A further Amendment made: The Report of the said Amendments to be received Tomorrow.
  MADRAS AND BOMBAY ARMIES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 66.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 86.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 123.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.