Sitting of 29 August 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
Committee to consider of authorising the remission of certain debts due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Hanbury.)
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
James Patrick Farrell, Esquire, for the County of Cavan (West Cavan Division).

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Proceedings, brought up and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 441.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.—[No. 441.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Leave given to the Select Committee to make a Special Report. Special Report brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 442.]
CANADIAN SPEAKER (APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY).
Bill for removing doubts as to the validity of an Act of the Dominion of Canada respecting the Deputy Speaker of the Senate, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 6.]
QUESTIONS.

  CORDITE MANUFACTURE.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the names and addresses of the firms with whom arrangements have been made for the manufacture of cordite powder?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,): Contracts for cordite have been made with Messrs. Kynoch & Co., of Witton, Birmingham, and the National Explosives Company, of Philpot Lane, E.C. From 1889 to the present time the sum of £47,750 has been expended in the Ordnance factories on machinery for the manufacture of nitro-glycerine and cordite. No money has been granted to private firms for the same purpose.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount of money expended by the Government on special machinery for the manufacture of cordite powder, and also how much has been granted to private firms for a similar purpose, as had been stated to have been the case by his predecessor in office?
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he did not accept the accuracy of the statement made.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, it was not within his knowledge that any such arrangements had been made.
  MR. WEIRsaid that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply he had received, he should take the earliest opportunity of calling further attention to the matter.

  STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT, CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the abstractors or assistant clerks employed upon the preparation of the Monthly Trade Returns in the Statistical Department of the Custom House, who were promoted from the position of Civil Service writers in 1891, are only entitled to 14 days' ordinary annual leave, whilst the messengers in the same

  1115
  Department are enjoying 18 days' ordinary leave, and that the remainder of the Establishment in that Department, including messengers, are entitled to six months' full pay whilst away on sick leave, and that the abstractors or assistant clerks are only allowed an absence of six weeks, including ordinary leave, after which all pay ceases, and that the annual increments of £2 10s. of the abstractors or assistant clerks is only an increase of £1 per annum beyond that accorded to a temporary copyist, he is prepared to reconsider these conditions with the view of improving the terms given to the abstractors?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I will consider whether any extension of the limits of sick leave on pay can be allowed to abstractors. As regards the other points raised by the Question, the Treasury consider that, for the rudimentary clerical work done by abstractors, the present conditions of their employment are sufficiently favourable. I can hold out no hopes that they will be improved.

  IRISH DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF TRADE.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, Mr. W. Field, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have any intention of establishing an Irish Department of the Board of Trade and Industries and Fisheries?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The question of establishing a separate Irish Department of the Board of Trade has, so far as I know, never been raised before, and I am not prepared to give an opinion on it. The interests of the sea and inland fisheries are already attended to by the Fisheries Department, and in certain cases by the Congested Districts Board.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the letter of a labourer, named
  1116
  M'Grane, addressed to the Local Government Board for Ireland, complaining that the writer is living in a house condemned by the sanitary authority as unfit for habitation, that the house has neither chimneys nor windows, and is in a falling condition; and if the Local Government Board for Ireland intends taking any step toward providing this man with a cottage under the Labourers' (Ireland) Act?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have received a letter of the nature indicated, and the Guardians of the Castleblaney Union, to whom the letter was forwarded, state that M'Grane cannot properly be described as a labourer within the meaning of the word as defined in the Labourers' Acts, but that they have called upon the owner of the house to put it into repair in pursuance of Section 110 of the Public Health Act.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how long it is since the powers of the Strabane Board of Guardians, under the Labourers' Acts, were suspended by the Local Government Board; what number of cottages have been built, and where, under the direction of the Local Government Board's Inspector entrusted with the work; and what steps the Chief Secretary proposes to take to expedite the provision of cottages?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The order empowering the Local Government Board's Inspector to exercise the duties of the Sanitary Authority under the Labourers' Acts was issued on the 2nd of May, 1894. The Inspector prepared a scheme for the erection of seven cottages in one electoral division of the Union, and after compliance with the usual preliminaries and the holding of a local inquiry, the scheme was confirmed by a Provisional Order of the Board, dated the 19th January 1895, which became absolute on the 16th March. The cottages have not yet been built, but the scheme is at present going through the arbitration stage. In addition to carrying out this scheme, the Inspector has also been engaged considering applications from several labourers for cottages, and he has prepared a further scheme for the erection of 13 cottages in other electoral divisions of the Union. As the

  1117
  various requirements of the Labourers' Acts have to be complied with by an Inspector in promoting a scheme, as well as by a Board of Guardians, whatever delay has taken place in erecting cottages in this case was, I am informed, unavoidable.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the exact position with reference to the provision of labourers' cottages, under the scheme sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the Union of Stranorlan, in county Donegal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Provisional Order confirming the Scheme for the provision of cottages in this Union is now being printed and will, it is expected, be issued in the course of a week.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the Local Government Board not expediting a Scheme of labourers' cottages approved, and all preliminaries complied with, by the Tipperary Board of Guardians?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The last set of improvement schemes under the Labourers' Acts submitted to the Local Government Board by the Guardians of Tipperary Union was approved of by a Provisional Order dated the 1st of February last, which was subsequently confirmed by Order in Council dated the 17th June. The only function remaining to the Local Government Board in regard to the carrying out of the schemes, is the sanctioning of the loans required, and on the Provisional Order being confirmed, forms were sent to the Guardians on which application should be made for such sanction. The applications have not yet been received, although the Board wrote, reminding the Guardians, on the 25th ultimo.

  COLLEGE LAND ESTATE, COUNTY FERMANAGH.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he has seen two resolutions passed at a meeting of farmers, occupying on the College Lands estate, county
  1118
  Fermanagh, asking to have the rent question on the estate settled by arbitration, and pointing out how undesirable it would be to have evictions carried out on the approach of winter; and (2), in view of this pacific action on the part of the tenants, will he, should evictions be persisted in, refuse to allow the forces of the Crown to be present thereat?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen a resolution to the effect stated in the question. With regard to the second paragraph, I trust a settlement will be arrived at between the parties, and the necessity for eviction thus obviated, but, as I have had occasion to state several times already, the Executive has no power to do as the hon. Member suggests at the end of the question.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY CANTEEN, DOVER.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Artillery battalion canteen, engaged in the manufacture of mineral waters at Dover, is an incorporated company; if so, when was it registered and under what name, who are its officers, and are they members of the Army; where are its offices and place of business situated; whether Income Tax has been assessed on the profits of the concern; and, if so, to what amount; whether the fair wage Resolution of the House of Commons is observed in the establishment; and is inspection under the Factories Acts enforced?
  MR. HAYDENfurther asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Irish manufactured mineral waters are largely imported into Great Britain; and whether, in view of the fact that this industry is one of the few thriving manufactures in Ireland, the Government are still disposed to allow the Royal Artillery canteen at Dover to conduct a manufactory of mineral waters in competition with Irish manufacturers?
  MR. BRODRICK: The whole question is under the Secretary of State's consideration, and he will receive a deputation to-morrow on the subject.

  DIPHTHERIA AT ALDERSHOT.
  MR. R. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, how many cases of diphtheria, and how many of diphtheritic sore throat, have been admitted to hospital in the camps at Aldershot during the last six months?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): During the last six months there have been admitted to the hospitals at Aldershot 137 cases of diphtheria and 525 cases of sore throat. In the latter, the returns do not differentiate septic sore throat. In the diphtheria cases, the type has been that known as "benign," and they have readily yielded to the anti-toxin treatment—only one death having resulted from this complaint. Although full investigation was made, in none of the cases could the origin of the disease be definitely traced. Some medical officers, however, are inclined to ascribe its prevalence, and that of septic sore throat, to the recent necessary opening up of the old drains for the purpose of reconstruction. The question is engaging most careful attention.

  WANDSWORTH CEMETERY.
  MR. H. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the late or any previous Home Secretary gave his sanction to a rule of the Wandsworth Burial Board imposing a fee of two guineas for the erection of an obelisk in the Wandsworth Cemetery, between 6 ft. and 7 ft. high; and whether such sanction was given in accordance with Law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY,): My answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

  NAVAL UNIFORM AND PRIVATE YACHTS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he has made any inquiry as to the existence of the practice of dressing the crews of private pleasure yachts in a dress having the
  1120
  appearance of the uniform of the Navy; whether he has considered the inconvenience of such a practice, when accompanied by the wearing of the white ensign of Her Majesty's Navy, as causing such private vessels to have, both as regards the ensign they wear and the dress of their crews, the appearance of men-of-war; whether the practice of the Admiralty is to grant a warrant to wear the white ensign of the Navy on the sole condition of membership of certain privileged clubs; and, if so, upon what grounds the privilege is given to some clubs and withheld from others; and whether the Admiralty will consider the propriety of attaching to all such warrants in future, either the condition that the white ensign shall bear a distinctive badge differentiating it from the ensign of the Navy, or the condition that the crew of the vessel shall not be dressed in a dress closely resembling the uniform of the Navy?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E.MACARTNEY,): No inquiry has been made as to the existence of the practice alluded to, and no instance of any inconvenience caused by it has come to the knowledge of the Admiralty. The Royal Yacht Squadron is the only yacht club allowed to wear the white ensign of Her Majesty's Fleet. The privilege was granted by warrant in June, 1829. I am unable to give any information as to the grounds on which it was granted. There is no intention to attach any new conditions to the warrants alluded to.

  BUCKFAST ABBEY ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can inform the House why the Buckfast Abbey School (Roman Catholic) has been repeatedly refused the Government Grant, although it is certified as an efficient public elementary school, and has complied in every respect with the requirements of the Code?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The grant to this school has been several times refused, the last time on the 11th June last. The reason

  1121
  for the refusal was that the school was unnecessary, within the meaning of Article 80 of the Code. The School Board has the prior right by law to provide schools for its district, and, in this case, the right has been exercised.

  SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between the Government of South Australia and the Colonial Office on the question of reducing the salary and emoluments of future governors of that colony?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no objection, and the papers will be laid as soon as they can be got ready.

  IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. J. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if the Irish Fisheries Commissioners held an inquiry in the Ballycastle district early in June, with regard to (amongst other points) changing the open season for salmon nets; (2) whether the evidence was unanimous that the season should be from 1st March till 1st September; and (3) whether any decision has been arrived at by the Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is, yes. The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that the evidence taken at the inquiry was not unanimously in favour of a close season between the dates mentioned. They arrived at a decision assimilating the seasons throughout the adjoining district, as they considered that having different close seasons would give facilities for poaching.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what authority the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries possess to enable them to forego enforcing the provisions of the Act of Parliament which declares that all expenses of applications for changes of seasons shall be paid by the applicants;
  1122
  whether the majority of such applications come from owners of fisheries or Boards of Conservators; and, can he say upon what grounds the Auditor General passed the accounts of the Inspectors for such expenses?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am advised that the action of the Inspectors in reference to the payment of the expenses in question has been ultra vires, but the practice, they explain, has been followed for the past 53 years, without, so far as I know, any objection having been raised, and the result has undoubtedly been beneficial to the poorer classes of fishermen, who otherwise would have been precluded from making application for an alteration of the close seasons. Up to the present these fishermen have had to incur the expense of retaining a legal adviser and the expenses of their own witnesses, but had the provisions of the Act been properly enforced, these men would further have been called upon to defray the travelling and other expenses of the inspectors, the costs of advertising, and the legal expenses incidental to the making of the close season orders. A majority of applications may have been made by Boards of Conservators, though in many cases these bodies apply on behalf of the poorer classes of fishermen, but it is equally a fact that a very considerable number of applications are made by the fishermen direct. I am not aware that the attention of the Controller and Auditor General has been drawn to the provisions of the Act, though if he were aware of it he would, I presume, certainly disallow any payments for such expenses out of public funds.

  PARTY DISTURBANCES, LISBELLAW.
  MR. J. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, on the evening of the 26th or 27th July last, an Orange mob, from the village of Lisbellaw and its vicinity, invaded Maguire's Bridge, a village three miles off, with the object of intimidating certain of the inhabitants of that place; that their conduct was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace; and will he take steps in future to restrain or punish the violence of the Lisbellaw Orangemen?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It appears that on the night of the 27th July, the day following the declaration of the poll at the recent election for South Fermanagh, currency was given to a rumour that the defeated candidate would be burned in effigy at Maguire's Bridge, and that a number of Orangemen, a portion of whom came from near Lisbellaw, proceeded to Muguire's Bridge and marched through the streets. A collision took place at one point between the two parties and two assaults were committed by the Orangemen, though not, I am informed, of a serious character. One of the Orangemen has since been convicted of assault.

  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (5TH BATTALION).
  MR. M. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the training of the 5th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles at Downpatrick, whether he is aware that there can be obtained on easy terms in the townland of Lisbane safe and most suitable ground for a rifle range; and, whether, considering the number of years during which the training has taken place at Downpatrick, and its superiority from a sanitary point of view, he will make further inquiry, and communicate with the military authorities at Downpatrick as to the suitability of the ground at Lisbane and the desirability of securing it?
  MR. BRODRICK: The military authorities in Ireland have not received an offer of land at Lisbane suitable for a rifle range. The place named is, however, understood to be in a district over 20 miles from Downpatrick, and, if so, the distance of the range would be too great to allow of training at that town.

  FLANNAN ISLANDS LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the engineer of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses visited the Flannan Islands last June, in accordance with an arrangement with the Board of Trade, for the purpose of surveying a site for a lighthouse there, and, if so, will he state when it is proposed to commence the construction of the lighthouse?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the survey has been made by their engineer, but that there has not been time for his Report to be considered. In these circumstances the hon. Member will see that I am not in a position to make any statement as to the commencement of the work.

  INVERGORDON FERRY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) whether steps will be taken to put the Invergordon Ferry under the control of the local authority, or (2) to require Captain M'Leod, of Cadboll, the owner of the pier on the Invergordon side, and Charles Forbes Hodson Shaw M'Kenzie, the owner of the pier on the Black Isle side, to put the respective piers in such a state that in rough weather passengers maybe able to land from the large ferry boat instead of having to be transferred at some distance from the piers into small boats?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): The steps contemplated in the first part of the hon. Member's question would require legislation. The second part appears to raise a question of private right, depending on the terms of the grant of ferry, as to which I can give no opinion.

  TELEGRAPHIC ARRANGEMENTS IN ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether arrangements will be made to extend the telegraph from Muir of Ord to Marybank, Ross-shire?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General will make inquiry into the question of extending the telegraphs to Marybank, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, having regard to the fact that the Postmaster General is unable, owing to the rules of the Treasury, to extend telegraphic and postal communication in many parts of the western mainland of Ross-shire and

  1125
  in the island of Lewis without guarantees which, in many cases, the people are unable to give, and, seeing that the circumstances of these people are quite exceptional, and that the development of the industries of these districts is to a great extent dependent upon better postal and telegraphic facilities, the Treasury will waive or modify its rule requiring guarantees, and give to the Postmaster General discretionary powers in such cases?
  MR. HANBURY: The system of guarantees can hardly be said to be operative in the West Highlands, as a considerable number of extensions have been made during the last four years, which, though quite unremunerative to the telegraph revenue, have been established without any guarantee whatever. It is not of course possible to spend more than a limited sum in each year on this service; but, I may mention that £500 is provided in this year's Estimates for telegraphic extensions in the Highlands and Islands, and that arrangements have already been made to devote a portion of this sum to an extension in Ross-shire, namely, from Gairloch to Badachro. In these circumstances, I see no reason for waiving or modifying the Treasury rules.

  TEMPLEMORE BARRACKS. COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. F. HOGANI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether any decision has been arrived at with respect to the re-occupation of the barracks at Templemore, county Tipperary?
  MR. BRODRICK:The case remains as stated by the late Secretary of State for War in his reply to the hon. Member on the 23rd May last. It is not at present intended to send any fresh troops to Templemore.

  ALLOTMENTS RETURN.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when the Return ordered by the House on 7th May of land acquired by local authorities for allotments under the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1892, up to 28th December, 1894, will be presented and issued to Members?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): For the purpose of this Return it is necessary to obtain Returns from 634 local authorities. The Return is not yet complete, but it is hoped that it will be ready for issue within about six weeks from the present time. With a view of facilitating the printing and distribution, of the Return, it was presented to the House on Tuesday last.

  SMALL HOLDINGS RETURN.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when the Return ordered by the House on 20th June of petitions, resolutions of County Councils, and land acquired by County Councils, and of the number and other particulars of small holdings provided under the the Small Holdings Act, 1892, will be presented and issued to Members?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The information which we have asked County Councils to supply for the purposes of the Return in question is not yet complete, but a reminder will at once be sent in the cases in which the required Returns have not yet been received, and the Return will be issued with the least possible delay.

  COPIES OF STATUTES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to what Government officials in Ireland copies of the Statutes are distributed annually; and, why Sessional Crown Solicitors are not supplied with copies?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In 1883 a Committee was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to consider and report upon the list of individuals to whom, and the Departments to which, the Statutes had at that time been supplied. The Committee recommended that the distribution of the Statutes to Crown and Sessional Crown Solicitors should cease, and this was accordingly done. The Report of the Committee, which contains their reasons for discontinuing the supply of the Statutes to these officials, will be found in Parliamentary Paper, C-4198, of the Session of 1884, and the hon. Gentleman

  1127
  will also find in this Report a list of the several Departments and individuals recommended to be supplied with the Statutes in future. There have been a few additions to the list since its publication in 1884, and, if the hon. Gentleman so desires, I will hand him a copy of the list as it exists at the present date.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether clerks of the second division appointed under the Playfair Scheme are in receipt of 28 days' annual leave, while those appointed under the Order in Council of March, 1890 (Ridley Scheme), are only allowed 14 days during the first five years of service and 21 days thereafter; whether he is aware that on 17th August, 1894, the late Under Secretary of State for the Home Department made a statement with reference to the leave granted to the "Ridley" second division clerks, in which he said that, as regarded the leave of absence, it appeared utterly inadequate, and that, if it was in the power of the Secretary of State to secure any reasonable modifications by the Treasury, it should be done; and, whether he will take steps to carry out this recommendation by granting the petition of the "Ridley" clerks for 21 days during the first five years and 28 days thereafter, and so place them as regards annual leave on a similar footing to their "Playfair" colleagues?
  MR. HANBURY: The Order in Council regulating the conditions of employment of second division clerks appointed before 1890, prescribed no limits of annual leave. In consequence, the practice has varied in different departments. In the Treasury the leave of the Playfair clerks has always been the same as that enjoyed by the clerks appointed under the Order in Council of March, 1890—that is, 14 and 21 days. It is possible that the late Under Secretary of State for the Home Department may have expressed the opinion attributed to him in the question. The Order of March, 1890, prescribes an annual leave of 14 days for the first five years of service, and, subsequently, of 21 days, in addition, in
  1128
  either case, to Christmas Day, Good Friday, the Queen's Birthday, and four Bank holidays. It is not intended to make any change in this arrangement. All Ridley clerks appointed since 1890, entered the service with the knowledge that this was a condition of their employment. ["Hear, hear!"]

  KINGSTOWN BOARD OF WORKS, COUNTY DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, will he explain why, although the men employed under the Board of Works at Kingstown, county of Dublin, were promised some years ago the usual half-holiday on Saturday, they are still compelled to work on that day till 3 p.m., thus putting in 58 hours a week; whether any employé who is late in going to work in the week, even though it be only by a few minutes, loses thereby the whole day; and whether, if the foregoing allegations are true, the full half-holiday will now be granted, and some lesser penalty be inflicted for being late at work in the mornings?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that no half-holiday was promised, but that shortened working hours of 57 hours in the week in summer, and 54 in winter, commenced on 20th June, 1891, and have been continued ever since. Prior to that date the men worked till six on Saturdays during the summer months, but since then have knocked off work at three. As the men work in gangs, it is essential that they should all be ready to commence work at the same time, and therefore no alterations can be made in the rules for attendance in the morning. The men are allowed seven holidays in the year on full pay, besides which they have certain benefits during sickness not given to ordinary labourers.

  CROWN MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS IN WALES.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he could state to the House what is the total number and acreage of the Crown mountain holdings in Llandwrog, Carnarvonshire, which have been sold to the tenants; what is the total number and acreage of

  1129
  such holdings which have been repurchased for quarrying purposes; what is the total sums for which they were sold and for which they were repurchased; what is the total number and acreage of all such holdings which have been enclosed and reclaimed by the tenants or their predecessors in title; and, what is the total of the rentals which the tenants are now required to pay?
  MR. HANBURY: The total number of encroachments sold by the Crown in Carnarvonshire is 300, and the acreage 923a. 2r. 18p.; the number re-purchased by the Crown is eight, and the acreage 10½ acres; these eight encroachments were sold for £31, and re-purchased for £622; the number of holdings which have been encroached by the present occupiers, or their predecessors in occupation, is 308, and the acreage 260a. 1r. 28p.; the rental to 31st March, 1895, was £217 11s. 1d., but some of the encroachers have not yet commenced to pay rent. Such re-purchases by the Crown are only possible in exceptional cases. For the most part, the Crown leaves its quarry lessees to make what arrangements they can with owners of encroachments.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the minimum wage now paid in Woolwich Arsenal?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The minimum weekly wage paid to labourers in the Ordnance Factories, Woolwich Arsenal, is 20s., where, according to a recent return, 50 men only out of 2,680 were paid at this rate. In the Ordnance Store Department, Woolwich Arsenal, I 9s. 6d. is the rate. Boys are paid less, according to age or rating. In addition to these rates the labourers have the advantage of sick-pay, medical attendance, and holidays, with pay, in both branches of the Arsenal. [''Hear, hear!"]

  CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg
  to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that statistics of
  1130
  the telephone business transacted between France and England can be obtained from the French Government; will he explain why these statistics cannot be furnished to the House of Commons; and, whether he could reduce the cost of conversation between France and England from 8s. to 2s. 6d. for three minutes without loss to the revenue?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not prepared to grant these statistics, as he is of opinion that the telegraphic business of the State must be dealt with as a whole, and that it would be misleading to give statistics relating to only a part of the business. The Postmaster General does not see his way to reduce the cost of conversation between France and England from 8s. to 2s. 6d. for three minutes. I take this opportunity of stating that, in his question on Tuesday, the fault of saying 3s. in place of 8s. was not the hon. Member for Canterbury's, but was due to a printer's error. The reduction of charge, in the Postmaster General's judgment, would necessarily lead to a loss of revenue from the telephone, which, during many hours of the day, is already fully occupied. ["Hear!"]

  VOLUNTEER RIFLE.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when it is anticipated that the converted rifle will be issued to the Volunteer Force; and, whether the new barrel is identical with that fitted to the rifle at present in use in the Regular Army?
  MR. BRODRICK: The issue of the new rifle to Volunteer corps which possess ranges at which it can be used, will commence next year. The new barrel is identical with that issued to the Regular Troops, including the latest improvements. ["Hear!"]
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War with what powder the cartridges for the new rifle for the Volunteer Force will be loaded; and, what price will be charged for issues requisitioned by regiments for private practice?
  MR. BRODRICK: Cordite will be used with the new Volunteer rifle. The price charged for issues to regiments for

  1131
  practice privately will be at vocabulary rates, which vary from time to time. The present price, which is expected to be reduced, is £5 12s. 3d. per thousand. ["Hear, hear!"]

  MINES DEPARTMENT, HOME OFFICE.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, appointed in 1889, and the recommendation it contains that the Department of Mines in the Home Office should be reorganised and extended, with such additional statutory powers as may be necessary, for the purpose of collecting and publishing accurate information with regard to mines and minerals; and, whether any steps were taken by the late Government to carry out the recommendations of the Commission?
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this matter. I find that the Mineral Statistics Department of the Home Office was reorganised by my predecessor in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission, and its work was put under the charge of Dr. Le Neve Foster, an able statistician and experienced inspector. The suggestions of the Commission are being carried out so far as this can be done without fresh legislation. ["Hear, hear!"]

  GUN LICENCE, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, could he explain on what ground a gun licence was refused by the resident magistrate to Mr. Thomas J. Ambrose, of Ardagh, County Limerick, for farm use?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Following the example of my predecessor in similar cases, I must decline to state the reasons which actuated the licensing officer in refusing to issue an arms licence to Mr. Ambrose. The discretion of granting such licences is vested by law in the licensing officer, and I have satisfied myself that in withholding a licence in this particular case he exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner.

  HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the surface men engaged on night ballasting on the Highland Railway work thirteen hours nightly at a wage of 17s. per week, with the addition of 1s. per week for lodgings when absent from their homes; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking stepts to prevent these hours of labour on the Highland Railway?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Company that the facts are not as stated in the Question, but that the men referred to work an average of 9¾ hours nightly, including the period for meals, that they only work five nights per week, and that they receive 22s. wages. I am informed that this work is of a special nature, and that the men work only 7½ hours per diem in the winter. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with this explanation, and desires to make a representation to the Board of Trade under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, it will receive my attention.

  IRISH BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the recent conviction of the Irish Board of Works at the Castleconnell Petty Sessions, for having failed to provide a Queen's gap in two eel weirs on the Shannon, and the fine of £1,820 imposed on them, whether the point for decision, when the case came before the Queen's Bench Division, was whether s. 41 of the 5th and 6th Vic. c. 106, and certain other enactments, had been impliedly repealed by the 9th section of the 26th and 27th Vic. c. 114; whether the Board of Works contended that they had not been so repealed, and that their express repeal by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1892, did not affect existing rights or liabilities; and, whether the decision of the Queen's Bench Division, that the enactments in question had been impliedly repealed by the 26th and 27th Vic. c. 114, was based upon their express repeal by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1892?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): As this question in effect asks me to give my interpretation of

  1133
  a judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, I respectfully submit that it ought not to be put to me, and that I ought not to be required to answer it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: My question was not what is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation, but as to what the Judges said, and the interpretation they gave.
  MR. SPEAKER: As I understand the question which the hon. Member now asks, it is as to what is the point in a certain case in the Queen's Bench Division; and what was the argument for the defendants and what were the grounds of the decision of the Judges. These are matters which are not specially within the information and knowledge of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, that being so, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the importance of this, he would procure a copy of the Judges' decision in the case and lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,said, that if the hon. Member would give notice of the question he would consider it.

  HOUSE RE-NUMBERING, CORK CITY.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the recent re-numbering of the houses by the Corporation in many streets of the City of Cork has been adopted by the Irish Valuation Office and copied on to the Valuation Rolls so as to make the numbering of the houses therein conformable with the actual numbers; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioner of Valuation informs me he is incorporating in the Valuation Rolls of his Department the numbering of the houses in the City of Cork as recently made by the Corporation. Two Wards are completed and he expects to be able to incorporate in the Lists to be issued next Spring, all the new numbers in the remaining Wards.

  OUTRAGES IN CHINA.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if his attention has been called to a telegram from the special correspondent of the pall Mall Gazette, from Shanghai on Friday last, stating that the former Viceroy of Izu, Lin Chang, who is regarded as the actual originator of the Cheng Tu riots, has been appointed Imperial Commissioner to investigate the outrages upon missionaries; and whether he has any reason to believe the statement to be correct?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): We have received no such information; and it does not appear likely to be true.

  ARMY COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE.
  MR. J. TULLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been directed to the case of the Crimean veteran, John Brennan, formerly of the 41st Regiment, who, at the last meeting of the Boyle Board of Guardians, was granted 1s. 6d. a week outdoor relief; whether he is aware that Brennan fought at Alma and in the siege of Sebastopol, but only got a pension for three years after the conclusion of the war, and, on applying recently to the authorities of the Chelsea Fund for an allowance, his application was ignored; and, whether it is proposed to make any compassionate allowance to this veteran soldier?
  Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The case of John Brennan has been repeatedly considered, and I regret to say that the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital can do nothing for him. He was at Sebastopol, but not at the battle of the Alma; and was discharged after 2½ years' service, with a temporary pension. He has not sufficient service to give him a claim to one of the special campaign pensions.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, seeing that Section 494 of the Code of Regulations

  1135
  for the Royal Irish Constabulary states that communications or decisions of the Inspector General sent to county inspectors are to be forwarded in original to the district inspectors whom they may concern, and when the communication affects any head or other constable, a copy thereof is to be sent to the person in charge of the station that it may be read by all concerned, the complete correspondence will in future be sent to the station of each head and other constable concerned, that he may have an opportunity of seeing all that has been alleged and written against him?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statement of the Rule as set forth in the question omits to mention that the communications referred to are to be forwarded to District Inspectors "unless otherwise directed or marked confidential." The Inspector General informs me that in the interests of discipline he cannot recommend any change to be made in the rule.

  FINANCE ACT APPEALS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, why rules have not been made for trial of appeals under the Finance Act in the County Court; whether the Inland Revenue Officers have a right to decline to go into the County Court until these rules have been made, and in the meantime force administrators, no matter how poor, to pay or go into the superior Courts; and, will any steps be taken to relieve executors and administrators from being obliged to pay interest until such time as, with reasonable diligence, they could have ascertained the assets and taken out the grant?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Rules have been made, and are in operation, for English County Courts. No similar rules have been made—owing, as I am informed, to a misunderstanding—for Ireland. The attention of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland has been called to the matter, and he will, doubtless, forthwith take the necessary steps. Till the rules are made the Inland Revenue are, of course, equally with administrators, powerless to go before the County Courts in such cases. If information is given to me of
  1136
  any case in which, owing to the absence of rules, loss has been incurred by executors, I will have careful inquiry made and will see what can be done in the matter. I have already directed inquiry to be made into the case sent to me privately by the hon. Member. The third part of the question raises a different point. Under Section 6, Subsection (6), of the Finance Act, 1894, interest is payable on the duty from the date of death. I do not think, as at present advised, that there is any occasion to alter the law in this respect.
  M. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Inland Revenue officers are powerless until rules are made? Is there any reason why the appellants are powerless?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can only refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the question.
  MR. HAYDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that no proceedings shall be taken till the rules are made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will take care that no injury is suffered by the public in this matter owing to the absence of rules.

  NAVAL LIEUTENANTS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) how many Naval Lieutenants are now on active service, how many of them are gunnery lieutenants, and how many torpedo lieutenants, either qualifying or on the staff in each case; (2) whether gunnery and torpedo lieutenants are only required to keep watch at sea, as lieutenants, for one year; and whether, having done this, they are not required to keep watch again, when at sea, but are employed exclusively to supervise drills, keep books, and fill up returns; and (3) whether the advisabilty has been considered of training and employing Royal Marine Artillery Officers for the gunnery and torpedo work now performed by Naval lieutenants, so as to set the latter officers free for watch-keeping duties at sea?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The number of lieutenants on the active list of the Navy is 844. Included in that number are 84 gunnery and 53 torpedo

  1137
  lieutenants. There are ten lieutenants qualifying for gunnery duties and six for torpedo duties. The one year's watch-keeping at sea to which the hon. Member appears to refer is an antecedent condition before officers are eligible to qualify as gunnery or torpedo lieutenants. They are not, after they become gunnery or torpedo lieutenants, exempt from the duty of keeping watch when the service requires. My answer to the third question is—Yes, the question has been fully considered. The duties of the gunnery and torpedo lieutenants include some important duties for which the Royal Marine Artillery have not been trained, and, therefore, the gunnery and torpedo lieutenants would not, in the words of the hon. Member, be set free. But Royal Marine Artillery officers would be made available for gunnery duties if circumstances rendered it necessary so to employ them.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not a fact that the gunnery and torpedo lieutenants never do keep watch?
  MR. GOSCHEN: That is contrary to the fact. They do keep watch.

  MILITARY VICE-CONSULS IN ASIA MINOR.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, by instructions from Lord Beaconsfield, six military officers with consular powers were appointed permanently to watch over the affairs of Armenia in 1879, and to report from time to time on the administration and affairs of the province; when, and by whom, were the orders given to cancel these appointments; whether reasons were given for the course taken; and if there is any objection to lay the Papers relating thereto upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CURZON: In 1879 six Military Vice-Consuls were temporarily appointed in Asia Minor, under the orders of a Consul-General at Sivas, for the purpose of carrying out the arrangements connected with the Anglo-Turkish Convention of June 4, 1878. They were withdrawn in 1882 by Lord Granville. Lord E. Fitzmaurice stated in the House of Commons, August 4, 1884, that their endeavours to bring about reforms had been unsuccessful, and that there was no longer any
  1138
  justification for a continuation of the expenditure involved. There are no papers which could be laid.
  MR. CHANNING: 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 threatening attitude of Turkish troops to the Christian population in the neighbourhood of Erzinghian, in Armenia, and to alleged attacks in the last few days on villages and monasteries, and other acts of violence by these troops; and, whether immediate steps have been or will be taken, by representations here and at Constantinople and in Armenia, to prevent the outrages and possible massacres apprehended by the Christian population?
  MR. CURZON: No such information has reached Her Majesty's Government, but inquiries have been made by telegraph of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople.
  MR. CHANNINGasked whether, in the event of the reports circulated yesterday being confirmed, Her Majesty's Government would take any steps in the matter.
  MR. CURZON: I had better wait for the confirmation of the reports. ["Hear, hear!"]

  TRALEE UNION JURORS' LIST.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware of the illegal detention in the hands of the printer of the lists of jurors for Tralee Union; what is the penalty attached to the bond for the non-performance of the printing contract; whether the Guardians will be compelled to receive and pay for printing executed subsequent to the date allowed by Law for its publication and delivery; whether Guardians, signing cheques for payment for printing, under such circumstances, would be liable to be surcharged by the Auditor of the Local Government Board; and whether full inquiry will be made with a view of preventing similar malpractices, and enforcing the Contractor's bail bonds?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A letter of complaint on this subject was received by the Local Government Board on the 23rd instant, and was referred to the Guardians for their observations. The

  1139
  matter, I understand, was before the Guardians at their meeting yesterday, but the Board have not yet been informed what decision they may have come to on the subject.

  PHONETIC READING BOOKS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether in English infant schools it is now optional for teachers to use phonetic reading books; when this regulation was made, and whether there is any reference to it in the Code; and to what extent, if any, has it been availed of by the teachers?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Committee of Council have made no regulations on the subject of reading books in infant schools, and there is no reference to it in the Code. If phonetic reading books were used in such schools, no objection would be raised by the Committee; but I am unable to inform the hon. Member to what extent the system is now employed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to embody in the Code a statement to the effect that there is no objection to these books in elementary schools?
  SIR JOHN GORST: With regard to the Code for next year, I cannot give any undertaking.

  CARDIFF CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, as the Cardiff merchants and shipowners are willing to guarantee the rent of a temporary building at the docks during the construction of the new Custom House, the Board of Customs will now grant the same powers for the transaction of business at the Cardiff Docks as are enjoyed at the neighbouring Barry Docks?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Customs have not yet received any definite offer from the local bodies, and they do not know whether the latter have any special premises to suggest. Any definite application to this effect will receive the immediate and favourable attention of the Board.

  WAIMA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reparation or explanation has been offered by the French Government as to the attack by French troops upon a British force at Waima on British territory, in December, 1893, by which three British Officers lost their lives?
  MR. CURZON: The geographical position of Waima has not yet been fixed, and it is not known, therefore, in whose territory it lies. It was decided to make the question part of the general negotiations with France which were suspended under the late Administration.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any efforts have been made to ascertain the geographical position of Waima?
  MR. CURZON: It is obvious that, in a district so little known, that would involve labour and expenditure of a very heavy nature.

  UPPER NILE WATERWAY.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the present position of the forces of the Congo Free State and of France with regard to the Upper Nile waterway; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any information regarding the reported engagements between the Mahdi's troops and Belgian forces on the Bahr-el-Ghazal?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have no official information on either point.

  COLLISIONS AT SEA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Table 61 of the Tables relating to Sea Casualties does not give the ascertained causes, but only the numbers of collisions which took place in thick and foggy weather, and that, in the minutes of evidence given before the Rule of the Road at Sea Committee (page 27), Admiral Sir George Nares

  1141
  states that he is not aware that any concise statement has been drawn up on the ascertained causes of collisions in fogs; and whether, with a view to accelerating the decision of the Committee promised for next Session, there could be prepared during the Recess a concise statement, over a period of years, of the ascertained causes of collisions which took place in fogs?
  MR. RITCHIE: The table in the Wreck Register to which my hon. Friend refers gives not only the total number of collisions, but also the causes as far as reported. During the Recess, however, a statement shall be prepared for the information of the Rule of the Road Committee, giving in a more concise and detailed form the ascertained causes of collisions which have taken place in thick and foggy weather. The work will be one of considerable labour and expense, and I, therefore, hope that a Return extending over two years will be sufficient for the purposes of my hon. Friend.

  REMISSION OF SENTENCE.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State, for the Home Department whether the certificate of Kelsall's discharge stated that he was discharged from custody in consequence of his having received Her Majesty's pardon; whether the certificate sets forth that, if a pardon is conditional, the condition on which it has been granted must be distinctly stated on the back of the certificate; whether, inasmuch as no condition was stated on the back of the certificate, Kelsall's pardon was free and unconditional; and, whether, or upon what condition, he would be willing to grant an inquiry as to the conduct of the police in connection with the trials of John Kelsall and Elizabeth Curran?
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY: It is true that, owing to an error at the prison whence Kelsall was discharged, it is stated on the certificate handed to him that he was released in consequence of his having received Her Majesty's pardon. This is an error; but it in no way affects Kelsall's legal position, the certificate of discharge not being the instrument under which the convict's release was authorised, but a mere statement by the governor of the prison made for the
  1142
  convenience of the convict and of the police of the districts through which he would pass. In reality the legal document authorising Kelsall's release was a Royal Warrant stating that, in consider ation of some circumstances humbly represented, Her Majesty was pleased to remit such part of the sentence as remained yet to be undergone. With regard to an inquiry as to the conduct of the police, I can only say that I concur in the view enunciated by my predecessor, viz., that, in the absence of any specific allegations by responsible persons against the police, there appears to be no ground for inquiry into their conduct.

  EVICTED TENANTS, IRELAND.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Robert Gleeson, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir John Carden, who was sentenced to one month's imprisonment at Templemore Petty Sessions on 22nd August; (2) whether the prosecution was brought under a Statute of Edward III.; and, if so, will he explain why; and (3) will he take any steps to have this case reopened before the Court of Queen's Bench?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): As has been already explained by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Mid. Tipperary on Tuesday last. No sentence properly so called was passed on Robert Gleeson, the person named in the question. But the magistrates, in the exercise of the jurisdiction which they have under these commissions, as well as under the statute of Edward III., in furtherance of preventive justice ordered him to give sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned for a month. He chose the latter alternative. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. The summons served upon Robert Gleeson was not expressly founded on the statute of 34 Ed. III, c. 1, but was in the ordinary form adopted for years in Ireland under successive Governments, requiring him to appear and show cause why he should not be

  1143
  ordered to give sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The answer to No. 3 paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONasked if it was not a fact that a large number of tenants were under this statute sentenced by the late Government?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, he understood that some hundreds of persons had been committed to prison under orders such as this, but he was unable at present to give the precise figures. If his hon. Friend wished for any information he would be glad if he would put a question on the Paper.
  MR. FLYNNasked if the Government would give this man any facilities for bringing his case before the Queen's Bench, and how it was, if he was not sentenced, that he was imprisoned for a month?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, he had already explained that the man was ordered by the magistrates to enter into securities to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a month, and was not sentenced. As he saw no reason whatever for disapproving of the order of the magistrates, he did not think the Crown would be justified in taking any steps in the matter.
  MR. FLYNNwas understood to ask if the breach of the peace did not consist in the man's saying:
  "These sheep ought to be good sheep, for they were grazed on my evicted farm,"
  and why, therefore, the magistrates made any order.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, that as had been already stated there was clear evidence of a continued and determined attempt to provoke a breach of the peace.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, he should raise the question on the right hon. Gentleman's own Vote.

  WANT OF EMPLOYMENT.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government intend to take any, and, if
  1144
  so what, practical steps to obviate distress arising from want of employment during the coming winter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, who answered the question, said: My right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, has asked me to reply to this question, and I have to inform him that her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the importance of the question of the unemployed, and they will watch very closely any increase of destitution due to want of employment, with every desire to render such assistance as circumstances admit, if and when the conditions during the coming winter foreshadowed by the hon. Member should unhappily arise.

  SCHOOL CHILDEEN POISONED.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of 148 children poisoned at Forest Gate School in 1893, of whom two died; whether it is a fact that the superior officer responsible for the supply of the poisonous meat, and of certain grave irregularities in the accounts, has not yet been in any way punished or even censured by the Local Government Board; whether the subordinate officer who gave evidence of the condition of the meat, and against whom there is no charge but that of misdirected zeal for the children, has been practically dismissed; whether any censure has been passed by the Local Government Board on their inspector for the state of the school; and whether there is at this moment any better guarantee than before that the children in such schools receive a proper supply of proper food.
  MR. CHAPLIN: My attention has been called to the fact that in June 1893 a large number of children at Forest Gate School were seized with illness and that two of them died. The Poor Law Medical Inspector for the District visited the School immediately he became aware of the outbreak of sickness, and as the result of his inquiries he came to the conclusion that the occurrence was due to the consumption by the children of some pickled meat which had been used in making soup. The Managers and not the

  1145
  Superintendent of the School were responsible for pickled meat being supplied under contracts for the use of the children, and at the inquest which was held touching the deaths of the two children the Jury added to the verdict an expression of their confidence in the Superintendent. The Superintendent incorrectly entered in his accounts the provisions supplied to the children on certain days, and the Board expressed their dissatisfaction in the matter; but there was no reason to suppose that the matter had been more than one of inadvertence on his part. No evidence was given by the subordinate officer referred to as to the condition of the meat which is believed to have occasioned the illness of the children, but the officer in question brought certain charges in connection with the food on other occasions which affected the Superintendent. The Managers suspended the officer referred to and requested that an Inquiry might be instituted by the Local Government Board. An Inquiry was held accordingly, with the result that the Board were satisfied that the facts were much overstated, and that although it was not clear that the officer might not have to some extent been actuated by zeal in the interest of the children, he was distinctly influenced by animosity against the Superintendent. The Board considered that the welfare of the children required that the two officers should not both retain their appointments, and that there was no reason for requiring the Superintendent's resignation; the Board have seen no reason whatever for censuring their Inspector in connection with this matter. At the instance of the Board, the Managers of this School have ceased to contract for pickled meat.

  ADULTERATED SPIRITS AND INSANITY.
  MR. J. McKILLOP: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return relating to cases of madness attributable to the use of adulterated spirits, which stands on this day's Paper?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): I am afraid it will not be possible to obtain the information which the hon. Member desires, but I will consult the Lunacy Commissioners.
  MR. McKILLOPasked whether there was anything in the Report?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: In the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners for the present year, the hon. Member will find a Return of the cases of insanity caused by intemperance generally. The hon. Gentleman will find other information bearing on insanity and intemperance in their Report.
  MR. McKILLOPasked whether it was not a fact that the Committee which sat on the question in 1891–2, had before them a large number of samples of spirits collected from public-houses and other places, and that the examination failed to find a single case of adulteration, except that some were weaker and some stronger?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: That has no bearing on the question of the hon. Member.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked the Leader of the House what would be taken after the three Votes in Class 5, and the Post Office Vote; whether the Navy Votes would be then taken, and if so, what provision would be made for the Army Votes?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There are three Votes in class 5, and the Post Office Vote, which must be taken before we finally dispose if the Civil Service Estimates. The original plan of the Government was, that after the Civil Service Estimates were disposed of, the Navy Estimates should be taken. I may mention to the House that if they are prepared to take the discussion on the Army Votes with

  1147
  the Speaker in the Chair, on the Report stage on Saturday, probably every opportunity would be given, if the House desires it, for the discussion of the important questions raised by the Army Estimates this year, and we should thus gain an additional day's holiday. Of course that is not a plan which the Government would think of forcing upon the House if it were not the general wish.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked, when the Post Office Vote would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYwas understood to say on Friday.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, in any case, whether that arrangement was agreed to or not, he hoped the Government would not attempt to force through the War Office Vote or the Army Estimates, on which the ammunition question might be discussed, at an inconvenient hour on Friday night.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Of course I cannot be at all sure that the time left on Friday night, after the disposal of the remaining Votes on the Civil Service Estimates, will enable that Vote to be discussed at a convenient hour, but, whether convenient or not, we hope that possibly it may be taken that night. I will make a statement on the subject at a later stage.
  MR. STRACHEYasked if the second reading of the West Highland Railway Bill would be taken on Friday, in view of the statements made on the previous night as to its contentious character?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESunderstood that the Navy Estimates would be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he had endeavoured to collect the general view of Members on both sides.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEStrusted the Navy Estimates would not come on at an inconveniently late hour.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the Army Estimates, on which it would be necessary to discuss the important statement of Lord Lansdowne.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that the Navy Estimates were quite as important as the Army Estimates.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1895–6.
  On the Vote of £88,376, to complete the sum for Local Government Board, Ireland,
  MR. FLYNNcalled attention to the salaries and expenses of the inspectors under the Board. When these gentlemen were directed to make inquiries about certain grievances laid before the House by Nationalist Members, they reported that no such grievances existed ["Order, order!"] There was so much noise that he could not hear the sound of his own voice [Laughter.] Then when it was proved that the grievances existed, the inspectors tried to minimise it, and finally they had to admit that the statements made were correct. When last year it was urged that relief works should be started, owing to the failure of the potato crop, the failure was at first flatly denied and afterwards admitted. The fact was the reports received by the Nationalist Members from Lough Swilly to Cape Clear, proved to be painfully accurate. The old stereotyped answer, however, was always given, and when the inspectors were asked to call on the parish priest or the rector, they declined. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman

  1149
  would not place unreserved reliance on the reports of officials, but would pay some attention to the statements put forward by public representative bodies in Ireland. With reference to the Labourers' Act, they did not operate to any extent in Ulster where the Boards of Guardians were dominated by the landlords, and he appealed to the Local Government Board to exercise the compulsory powers which they possessed in order to provide decent cottages for the poorest peasantry in the world. There was another point. The Local Government Board recently appointed vice-guardians in Killarney Union. The system of appointing vice-guardians was one to which they were opposed as being subversive of the principle of local self-government; and it was favoured by the landlord class, who were opposed to self-government in any shape or form in Ireland. In the case of Killarney, he maintained that the action of the vice-guardians was ultra vires in connection with the administration of the Labourers' Acts. A labourer in the union had been made a tenant of a cottage, and fell into arrears with his rent. The Guardians gave him notice to quit, and he then tendered the rent. They accepted it, but proceeded with the eviction because of a dispute between the labourer and his landlord with reference to a gate. He contended that while the vice-guardians were entitled to evict the man for nonpayment of rent, or in consequence of the dilapidation of the cottage, they were not entitled to evict him because of the dispute about the gate.
  MR. P. J. POWER.said, it was a matter of regret that they must acknowledge that nearly all the members of the Local Government Board, and nearly all the officials, were entirely out of sympathy with the Irish people, who had not the least confidence in them. There were one or two admitted grievances which could very easily be remedied. Again and again attention had been drawn to the question of the deportation of paupers. At every meeting of the Waterford Board of Guardians they received communications from Unions in Great Britain that people of Irish birth, who had become chargeable on the rates, would be sent back to their own country.
  1150
  He maintained that the community that had had the benefit of a man's work when he was self-supporting should provide for him when he was overtaken by illness or poverty in his old age. The most contradictory part of the present arrangement was that Englishmen, Scotchmen or Welshmen, who become chargeable on the rates in Ireland, could not be deported. He did not desire that they should be, and, as a rule, they were very much better looked after in Irish unions than were Irish paupers in England. The Irish were accused of intolerance. Well, in Waterford Union out of between 800 and 1,000 paupers something like 15 only were Protestants. Yet they had a ward for themselves, and officers of their own religious persuasion, and a respectable salary was paid to a clergyman of the Church of England to minister to their spiritual wants. If such an arrangement was necessary for Protestants in Ireland, he maintained that it was far more necessary for Catholics in. England, and yet, so far as his experience went, it did not prevail. He hoped that in the near future the right hon. Gentleman who was the head of the Local Government Board, would draw attention to the question. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would approach it with sympathy, and his only fear was that in the office which he had been called upon to fill the right hon. Gentleman would find himself in an impossible position. He wished to say a word with regard to the Labourers' Dwellings Act. A question was addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the other day on the subject, and he was very glad to hear him say that he would give his attention to the matter, with a view to ascertaining whether it would be possible to introduce some Bill to facilitate the working of that Act. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to reduce the rate of interest at which the money was advanced under the Act? Every body who had seen them must have been appalled at the wretched habitations in which Irish labourers lived. In Leinster and Munster, guardians had made an honest endeavour to rectify this state of things, and it was very gratifying to see the old cottages

  1151
  disappearing and decent habitations being erected. If the right hon. Gentleman would visit the West of Ireland, he would see that in many cases the ratepayers were most impoverished and unable to bear further taxation, and he would come to the conclusion that if the Act was to be worked it was absolutely necessary to reduce the rate of interest. One of the most sympathetic speeches the right hon. Gentleman's brother ever delivered was after a visit to some of these congested districts. There were two other matters he wished to allude to. One of the provisions of the Poor Law in Ireland was that anyone who entered the poorhouses must wear the dress of the particular union. He would not go into that question particularly now, but he would direct attention to this point, that in most parts of Ireland the hospitals where those who could afford to pay a little could go, were comparatively indifferent. He thought it was a matter worthy of the attention of the Local Government Board, whether some relaxation of the rules which governed the matter might not be introduced, and whether in some cases paying wards could not be established, so that it might not be necessary for people who did wish to do so, to wear the uniform of the union. It was quite possible that something might be done which would to some extent relieve the rates, and at the same time provide hospital accommodation for people who could not get proper treatment in their homes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consult the Local Government Board on the subject. Another matter was that half the salaries of officials appointed under the Public Health Act were paid out of the Imperial Fund. Of late, a certain class of officials, inspectors of dairies and cowsheds, and so forth, were appointed by the local authorities, who also paid their salaries. In the interests of public health, the Local Government Board thought it advisable to take these appointments out of the hands of the local authorities, but they had not adopted towards these officials the system they adopted towards others of their officials, namely, that of paying half their salaries. Their salaries were still paid by the local authorities. The matter
  1152
  concerned every union in Ireland, and had given rise to a considerable amount of correspondence. He knew the Treasury had already refused to pay half these salaries, but a particular decision of the Treasury need not bind all Governments, and he thought the matter was worthy of reconsideration. Allusion had been made to the work of the inspectors employed by the Local Government Board, and he could corroborate a great deal of what had been said. It was, however, only due to the inspectors who had been sent to his part of the country, in connection with improvement schemes under the Labourers' Act, to say that they had done their duty with ability and impartiality; and while he condemned the general administration of the Board, and the inspectors who had been sent to report on the state of the country, who had, as a rule, denied every statement made from the Irish Benches, though they had in the end been obliged to admit their truth, he thought it was only just to say that these particular inspectors had conducted their inquiries with impartiality and to the satisfaction of the ratepayers. He put these points confidently before the right hon. Gentleman, not in any Party spirit, but as one having an intimate knowledge of local administration, and he hoped he would inquire into them.
  MR. JAMES DALYcomplained that in its attitude towards Boards of Guardians the Local Government Board was unsympathetic and unprogressive. The Guardians elected by the ratepayers had no real power in respect of the expenditure of the rates. Their position was farcical, for they could not build even a pig-house without obtaining the sanction of the Local Government Board. They could not spend a single shilling without permission; if they attempted to do so they were at once rapped over the knuckles and ran the risk of being superseded. If the British Government wished to encourage the erection of labourers' cottages they ought to lend the money required for the work to Boards of Guardians at 2½ per cent. The visits paid to unions by the sub-inspectors of the Board were often much too short, and these officials were apt

  1153
  to obtain their information from interested parties instead of from independent sources, yet whatever they reported to the Department was accepted as Gospel truth. He objected to the exportation to Ireland of Irish paupers who had spent the best part of their lives in England and Scotland. When the substance had been, taken out of men and they were of no further use in. this country they were sent over to Ireland to be a burden upon the rates. In this connection it would be remembered that the Irish people could not send away from their country the English and Scotch paupers who were found there. The Local Government Board had issued an order directing that boys under 14, and girls under 16 must not be sent out to service. He was not himself in favour of sending very young children out to service, as that might interfere with their education, but he hoped this order would not be applied too rigidly, for it was often desirable that children reared in workhouses and other public institutions should be sent to live with small farmers by whom they could be taught habits of industry. He hoped earnestly that the Chief Secretary would cause the Local Government Board to relax its stringency and to act more in sympathy with the people. It was not astonishing that the people of Ireland were so anxious to have Home Rule, seeing that the laws were made in this country and were administered by officials who were foreign to the population in religion and sentiment. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to redress the grievances for which the Local Government Board was responsible.
  MR. J. GILHOOLY: The inspecting officials of the Local Government Board were generally men who were not fitted for their position. Many of them were retired officers who had no sympathy with the people and knew nothing about the working of the Poor Law. Their salaries were really money thrown away, because they rendered little or no service of value in return. When they visited a Union they often travelled down from Dublin by one train and returned by the next and then they thought themselves qualified to write an elaborate report
  1154
  respecting the condition of the place. In connection with the building of labourers' cottages, his experience was that the sympathies of the inspectors were with the landlords and not with the poorer classes. During the period of distress an inspector whom he knew acknowledged to him that the distress in the Union which he represented was considerable, and yet this same gentleman, when questions were asked in that House on the subject, actually told the authorities more than once that there was no distress in the Union. That was an example of things which inspectors did. It was a pity that the clerks of Unions, who were experienced and practical men, were seldom or never appointed as sub-inspectors by the Local Government Board. In that office excessive fees were charged in connection with the erection of labourers' cottages, the result being that a cottage that could be built for £50 or £60 cost in the end £150 or more. There was no reason why building plots should not be acquired without the intervention of an inspector, who under the present system was always sent down from Dublin. Local valuers might be permitted with advantage to inspect the land and report thereupon, so that the work would be done for much less than was now charged.
  MR. JASPER TULLYadvocated the amalgamation of Unions in Ireland. There were too many workhouses, and some effort ought to be made to reduce the number in proportion to the reduction that had taken place in the number of population. Farmers who found it very difficult to make both ends meet thought it very hard that high poor-rates should be continually coming in. But in any scheme of amalgamation certain conditions ought to be observed. There should in the first place be an area which would serve as a unit for taxation purposes, union purposes and the general purposes of local rates. At present in Ireland there were parishes overlapping electorial divisions, baronies overlapping unions and unions overlapping counties. The second condition to be observed was that the general convenience of the districts concerned should be consulted in effecting amalgamation, either

  1155
  the railways or the roads that converge to the spot chosen for the establishment of the workhouse of a locality. While favouring amalgamation generally he was opposed to amalgamation in the case of the Ballymahon Union, because he did not think that in this case they could observe the conditions which he had explained ought to be complied with. The Local Government Board inspector had reported that if the amalgamation of the Union were effected the people of Ballymahon would suffer a serious loss, and his view was supported by that of the Roman Catholic Bishop. The most Rev. Dr. Hoare, the prelate in question, said:—
  "My opinion is against my amalgamation at present. There should be a general overhauling by the Imperial Parliament, who established these workhouses, or better still, by a Home Rule Parliament, who would best understand the wants of our people. If in destroying the existing state of things, you put more burdens on the ratepayers, you would be cursed with the same evils as afflicted those who introduced light railways."
  He thought that in a case of this kind, where not only the Local Government Board Inspector was unfavourable to such a scheme being carried out, but where the Roman Catholic Bishop of the district was also opposed to it, as well as the large bulk of local feeling, any accidental majority of the Board of Guardians should not be allowed to carry out a project that would afterwards interfere with any general scheme of amalgamation that must be effected in the whole of Ireland, if the workhouses were to be brought down to the level that would be amply sufficient for the requirements of the people. There was an item in the Vote for the Law Adviser to the Local Government Board. He did not know the name of this gentleman, but he thought the Local Government Board should endeavour in some of the decisions they made to be guided by advice that would be sustained by the Courts of Law. In the Union in which he paid rates a serious complication ensued a year or two ago owing to the advice given by the Law Adviser to the Local Government Board. Again, owing to complaints made by a number of unions in the North of Ireland as to the excessive expenses of carrying out the Franchise Act, the Local Government Board in the month of August
  1156
  issued a new order fixing a reduced scale of payment for the services of the Union officials. The work had been done in the the month of July, and when the clerk and collectors put in their accounts for services rendered a month before the order was issued, the Guardians were puzzled as to whether they should pay under the old or under the new and reduced scale. Home guardians paid under the new scale, but were sued for the difference by the officials and were decreed against. In the other cases, where payment had been made under the old scale, the auditors of the Local Government Board, acting on the advice of the Law Adviser, surcharged the guardians, who were made to pay the difference between the new and the old scale out of their own pocket. Thus, where the guardians paid under the new scale they were brought into court by the officials who obtained decrees against them, and where they paid under the old scale they were surcharged by the auditors. If they were to continue the position of Law Adviser to the Local Government Board, the gentleman who occupied that position, before he issued arbitrary opinions or advice, should at least consult an eminent lawyer like the present Attorney General for Ireland. The Vote contained an increase of £200 for vaccine lymph. He knew that, owing to the small-pox scare in Dublin, there was a general state of alarm throughout parts of Ireland, and the Local Government Board issued some instructions as to the necessity of vaccination and re-vaccination, but it was never expected that this re-vaccination would be carried out in the wholesale fashion it was in districts where a case of small-pox had not been known for years. He noticed from a Belfast newspaper that the guardians of one of the Northern Unions complained of the way in which the doctors carried on a crusade of wholesale re-vaccination, one of these gentlemen going so far that whenever he met a man in the road, he stepped off his car and forthwith performed the operation of re-vaccination. This had resulted in heavy bills being incurred by many unions. In one case it amounted to something like £400, which entailed an additional tax of 3d. or 3d. per pound on the farmers, who were ill able to bear any further burdens. The question of night

  1157
  nursing in union hospitals in Ireland was one which required immediate attention. It was still in the primitive condition of 40 or 50 years ago, and persons had been allowed to die without having nurses to attend to them or the means of obtaining medical assistance. He observed from a letter written by Dr. Jacob, the editor of the Medical Press, that in 43 out of 79 workhouses, of which they had information, containing 2,694 inmates, there were no trained nurses, and in 61 the wards were in charge of paupers at night. Even in workhouses where a trained nurse was employed she was expected to be both day and night nurse, besides discharging other increasing duties. This was a serious state of things, and he hoped in the interests of humanity that the right hon. Gentleman would see that proper provision was made for nursing the sick at night in union hospitals. Another question of great importance was that of pauper lunatics in workhouses in Ireland. He was aware that, because of the overcrowding in the asylums, there had been a move to confine a number of pauper lunatics in the workhouses instead of sending them to the asylums. This had been attended with a great deal of hardship to these poor afflicted beings. In Longford Workhouse at present a very ugly state of things prevailed. At the very last meeting of the guardians a report was presented from the medical officer in which he drew a most painful picture of the wretched accommodation provided for the lunatics, In this Report Dr. Cochrane said:—
  "There are a number of lunatics in the house. There is no proper accommodation for them, no trained attendants, without which they cannot be humanely cared for or treated. The cells provided for their immurement are veritable black holes, 1½ feet square. 13 feet high, no windows or ventilators, except a sort of a hole high up in the wall; no furniture, bar a plank bed, surmounted by a wisp of straw. The unfortunate lunatic in his bed is hid away in his dungeon at eight o'clock every night, a strong door is bolted on him, and there is no more about him till eight o'clock next morning, when he is let out by the pauper inmates, who are the only available attendants."
  The Inspector of the Local Government Board was present at the meeting at which this report was presented, and the Local Government Board had called upon the guardians to carry out the recommendations made by the medical officer
  1158
  to remedy the defects he complained of, but without effect. He hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman visited Ireland he would give some consideration to these practical points, attention to which would probably effect some good in the management of the unions.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL, in a maiden speech, contended that the Local Government Board was essentially congested, that the amount of work put into its hands was much more than it could perform, and accordingly a great number of duties which rationally belong to it were neglected. One of the principal duties of the Local Government Board should be the administration of Poor Law Relief, whether as regarded the maintenance of the poor pauper class or the treatment of the sick poor, and he thought one of the reasons why they had to complain of the fact that the usual duties of the Local Government Board were neglected, was because other matters, of which the members of that Board, he feared, knew very little, had to be attended to. The constitution of the Local Government Board in Ireland made the office rest, practically, in the hands of three gentlemen, together with the Chief Secretary. They had to consider the Housing of the Working Classes, the working of the Labourers' Act, the Franchise Act, and a number of other things which made it absolutely possible for three men, no matter how able or intelligent, properly to discharge their duties. It was a remarkable fact that with the population of the country decreasing and the wealth of the people seriously impaired by bad seasons and other causes, that the amount of the poor-rates lodged every year seemed rather to increase than to decrease. He found that there was an increase of £56,327 in the amount of public rates lodged in 1893 over and above the amount of the previous year. He wanted an explanation of what was done with the large difference between the amount expended in relief and the amount collected. During 1893, the sum of £1,278,834 was lodged as for poor-rates collected throughout the whole country, and of that sum only £716,240 was accounted for in respect of relief of the poor. The work of the Board should be confined exclusively to relief of the poor.

  1159
  Travelling a short month ago in Mayo, he saw posted on the police barracks a list of voters for the barony of Erris for 1896. There were something like 2,028 names on the list, and of those, fully 1,500 were officially objected to. Therefore, if in the course of next year it became necessary to hold an Election in the Northern Division of Mayo, 1,500 voters who took part in the Election of 1895 would be struck off the list because an official objection could not be got over. It was imperative with the revising barrister to strike off the list names objected to by the officials in charge of the Department. He happened to know that in this particular case a grave injustice had been done to those 1,500 voters. The Clerk of the Union averred that it was the fault of the people themselves for not paying their rates, but he was informed by the priests and people who ought to know, that had the proper steps been taken before July 1st, the rates would have been paid and the people not placed in such an awkward position. The administration of the Franchise Acts ought not to be entrusted to a hand of men who were ignorant and negligent of their duties. Again, it was impossible for the Local Government Board, as at present constituted, efficiently to administer the Labourers' Acts, and in proof he cited an inquiry conducted in the Union of Longford, in connection with an application for the erection of 120 cottages, where the Local Government Board allowed something like 3½ years to elapse before the inspector came down to examine into the applications. Of the 120 applications, 86 were rejected, and only 34 were approved. Meanwhile, the unfortunate labourers were in a pitiable condition, their houses being in a most insanitary condition. The fact was the Local Government Board ought not to be allowed to administer an Act of which they had little knowledge, and he feared little desire at headquarters to carry out. He wished to support the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leitrim, in regard to the amalgamation of the Ballymahon Union and the treatment of pauper lunatics in Longford Workhouse. He trusted the question of amalgamation would engage the serious attention of the Chief Secretary, and that he would deal with it in a
  1160
  broad and liberal spirit. They had a great number of workhouses in Ireland. There were a great number of people, no doubt, who required relief from time to time, but this fact deserved consideration, that the vast majority of the poor people who claimed relief at the hands of guardians were strongly inclined to avail themselves of the outdoor rather than the indoor provisions of the Poor Law Acts. They considered that it demeaned and degraded them to have to go into the house, wear the garb of the union, and conform to a number of regulations which were repugnant to them. For the question, of amalgamation he might cite the case of the County of Longford. That was a small county, and yet there were in it three unions. Those unions overlapped other counties, and other baronies and other parishes. He trusted that if the subject of amalgamation received consideration at the hands of the Chief Secretary the right hon. Gentleman would, before he allowed the Local Government Board to destroy the Ballymahon Union, have regard to the whole question of poor-law relief in Longford. On those grounds he was inclined to express the hope that the Resolution, passed by what he must describe as a snatch majority of that Board, might not affect the minds of the Local Government Board in what they considered their duty. No doubt the condition of things as regarded lunatics in workhouses was very lamentable. He was persuaded that when the Governors of Longford refused to carry out the suggestions of the doctor they had not given the full consideration to the question which its urgency demanded. Recently, efforts were made in the Union to remove from the bad conditions under which they lived, some of the unfortunate lunatics and transfer them to the district asylum at Mullingar. The Governors of the asylum promptly packed the lunatics back to Longford. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was judicious that a workhouse for the relief of the poor should also be made a lunatic asylum, and whether pressure could not be brought to bear on the Directors of the Mullingar Asylum to take the lunatics altogether. Returning for a moment to the question of the constitution of the Local Government Board, he thought that, notwith

  1161
  standing the superior abilities of the three gentlemen forming the Board, it was unequitable and unjust to expect them to discharge a number of cumbrous duties and expect them to discharge those duties to the satisfaction of the country at large. In conclusion, he trusted some steps might be taken to improve the conditions under which poor-law relief was given in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)complimented the hon. Member who had just sat down upon the ability as well as upon the knowledge of the subject he had displayed in his first speech in the House. If there was, as the hon. Gentleman said, anything unsatisfactory in the administration of the Local Government Board, it arose, he thought, more from the causes which the hon. Member indicated—namely, the great amount and the great variety of the labour which was cast upon the Board, rather than any incompetence on the part of that body. The Local Government Board, like any other Department in Ireland which had difficult and delicate duties to discharge, must expect to be a mark for severe criticism, and the only natural defender of the Department was the chief Secretary himself. If his predecessor had been in the House he, no doubt, would have been able to reply more effectually than he could do to some of the strictures which had been passed upon the Board; but, although he was new to his office, he wished it to be distinctly understood he in no way associated himself with anything that had been said against the members of the Board so far as regarded their competency or their devotion to their duties. ["Hear, hear!''] The hon. Member for East Cork complained that the Local Government Board was very unready to acknowledge any state of distress when attention was called in the first instance to it, that they moved tardily, and only under the greatest pressure. A public body must necessarily proceed with great caution, and the passage in the Report of the Local Government Board to which the hon. Gentleman referred showed that the distress of last year was not neglected, but that the Board did its best from the first to ascertain the facts. He could not, therefore, admit that in that matter
  1162
  the Board were really slower than they should have been to acknowledge the condition of affairs. The hon. Member next referred to the operation of the Labourers Acts. There, was no doubt that the working of those Acts was cumbrous and slow in a lamentable degree, and, as he had already stated this afternoon, he should make it his business to inquire whether it would not be desirable to introduce some amending legislation to facilitate the acquisition of cottages under the Acts. ["Hear, hear!"| It might be of some interest to the Committee if he stated how far the Acts had been carried into effect, He thought hon. Members would admit that, although the operations under the Act had been slow, a considerable amount of good had already been done. Up to the 31st of March, 1894, the total number of cottages authorised under the Acts was 12,937, and during the year ending March 31st last the number had been increased by 1,126. In addition, 513 were in the course of being sanctioned. What he thought was remarkable was the curious difference between the different parts of Ireland in respect to the operation of the Acts. He found that claims had recently been submitted to the Local Government Board for 2,132 new cottages. Out of these only 101 were from Ulster, only 26 from Con-naught, whereas from Munster there were 1,086, and from Leinster 919. ["Hear, hear!"] From these statistics he was afraid there could be no doubt that Boards of Guardians in Ulster were slower to adopt the provisions of the Labourers Act than the Boards of Guardians of the other provinces—[Nationalist cheers]; and he believed the Local Government Board had found it necessary in Ulster alone to exercise their compulsory powers. [Nationalist cheers]. The hon. Member seems to think that the supercession of Boards of Guardians and the appointment of Vice-Guardians was a common practice on the part of the Local Government Board. He could assure the hon. Member that that was not the case. The Local Government Board only adopted that course of action in cases of extreme urgency; and he should say that if the Board erred at all it erred in the direction of not putting its compulsory powers in force rather than in the direction of

  1163
  putting them in force. The hon. Member for East Waterford complained that the poor of Ireland were liable to be sent over from England or Scotland to Ireland, while the English and Scotch poor in Ireland were not deported to their native places. That was the fact. His predecessor in office had stated, in reply to a question, that he had prepared the heads of a Bill dealing with the deportation of paupers from Great Britain to Ireland. He could promise that he would not lose sight of the subject. He would inquire into the reasons why this curious difference prevailed—a difference, he admitted, he saw no adequate reasons for—[Nationalist cheers]—and if necessary he would endeavour, by means of legislation, to remedy any grievance of the kind that existed. [Renewed cheers.] The next point of the hon. Member for East Waterford was that Roman Catholics were not provided with separate wards in workhouses in England, although Protestants had separate wards in workhouses in Roman Catholic portions of Ireland. The explanation he had received as to this difference between the two countries was that in Ireland the danger of proselytizing was recognised by both sides.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: No, no; certainly not.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not wish to say anything offensive to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It was very offensive.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is what I gather from the information I have been supplied with. In England this is not a burning question, while in Ireland, so far as I am aware, it has been a burning question.
  MR. POWER (interposing)said, his point had nothing whatever to do with the question of proselytism. What he ventured to say was that in Ireland guardians were more tolerant and more Christian in their treatment of non-Catholics committed to their care than guardians in England were in their treatment of Catholics. It was consoling, no doubt, to Protestants in Irish unions to have the ministrations of their own clergymen when dying and to be surrounded by people of the same faith. But in many English unions where priests attended dying Catholics they
  1164
  were surrounded by people of different religious views, whose remarks, to say the least, were most unpleasant and unseasonable.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he was not blaming the practice in Ireland at all. He quite recognised that Ireland in this respect did what was not done in England; but he presumed the only reason why the practice was not adopted in England was because no complaints had been received in England on the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] He had also been asked by the hon. Member for East Waterford whether he could induce the Treasury to reduce the rate of interest on loans under the Labourers' Act. He should think that every Chief Secretary in turn had always urged the Treasury to reduce the amount of interest on loans in Ireland to the lowest possible point; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would not be behind his predecessors in that respect. ["Hear, hear!"] But whether he was successful or not would, he was afraid, depend on the Treasury as much as on him. [Laughter] The hon. Member referred to the extreme poverty of the unions in the West of Ireland, and urged him to go there and see for himself the state of things in that part of the country. He not only should go, but he would go at an early period, to the poorer districts in Ireland, and should see for himself the condition of affairs. ["Hear, hear!"] He was only too painfully aware that the taxable capacity of many of those unionists had already reached its limit. He thought it was the poverty of those unions; it was the want of reserves at the command of the guardians that in many cases gave rise to the state of things which other hon. Members had complained of—namely, the want of proper attention to the sick. The treatment of the sick in workhouses left very much to be desired; and he could assure the hon. Member that the Local Government were at the present time doing their utmost to induce guardians to improve the condition of things in their hospitals, and more especially the system of night nursing. But, as he had said, it was not unwillingness but want of resource that prevented the guardians in poor unions from doing better things for the sick in their hospitals. The hon. Member for South Monaghan complained that the guardians

  1165
  had no power to spend money without the permission of the Local Government Board. That permission applied to England as well as to Ireland; and it was obvious that there must be some control of the gross abuse that would ensue. The hon. Member also touched on the question of boarding out pauper children from the workhouses. He believed that at the present there was nothing to prevent children being boarded out, and in England, at all events, the system of boarding out children had come into greater favour of late years. He personally agreed with the hon. Member that the boarding-out system was desirable; and his influence would be directed towards increasing the adoption of that system as far as possible.
  MR. DALY (interposing)said, his point was that there seemed to be an objection on the part of the Local Government Board to adopting the system. At a recent meeting of the Board of Guardians of which he was a member, a circular was received from the Local Government Board almost telling the guardians not to board out the children.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that so far as he was aware there was no legal difficulty in the way of adopting the system; but what the actual policy of the Local Government Board was he did not at present know. It was one of the points to which he would direct his attention. The hon. Member for South Leitrim called attention to the question of the amalgamation of unions and the classification of paupers, in respect to which his hon. Friend the Member for South Derry asked him the other day whether he would appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject. He was not in favour of Commissions when the information could be procured in other ways. But he recognised that this was a very important subject; and if he were unable to obtain in regard to it information which would enable him to come to a conclusion, he certainly should not be adverse to inquiry by Commission. It was true that the guardians of the Ballymahon Union passed a resolution in favour of amalgamation, under the presumption that there would be a saving, whereas the Report of the Inspector showed that in all probability there would be an actual loss.
  1166
  As to the necessity for a law officer to the Local Government Board, that Department had a great many difficult legal questions to deal with, and could not very well dispense with the services of a legal adviser. An hon. Member had referred to a case in which the opinion of the Board's law officer had differed from the decision ultimately given by the Courts. That was a misfortune which might happen to the best legal adviser; and on the grounds stated by the hon. Member he could not agree that the legal adviser to the Board ought to be a more competent person. The mere fact that legal opinions differed on questions notoriously difficult to decide was no proof of incompetency. As to the question of pauper lunatics being sent to asylums instead of to workhouses, there was a great deal to be said in favour of that plan. But he feared that at present there was not sufficient accommodation in the existing asylums to receive all the pauper lunatics; and here again the question of expense had to be considered. Although, in the case of pauper lunatics in the asylums, the Exchequer paid half the expense of maintenance, the expense for the guardians was still greater than that of maintaining the lunatics in the workhouse.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORcalled the Chief Secretary's attention to the practice of deporting paupers from England to their places of birth in Ireland. For the last 40 years, scarcely a year had passed without this question being brought forward by the Irish Members, and yet to-day the situation was exactly as it was half a century ago. Much cruelty to these poor old people, who had wasted their lives for manufacturers and mine owners in England, was wrought by transferring them from the workhouses in England and casting them helpless and penniless on the shores of Ireland. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give the subject his earnest attention. He was ready to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for perfect sincerity in desiring to remove the causes of the complaints which had been made by Irish Members; and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the working of the Labourers' Acts was cumbrous and slow He might have added that the expense of working the Acts was out of all

  1167
  proportion to the value of the cottages erected. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman's amending Act would deal with this question of expense. He wished to call attention to the way in which the Guardians of Rathdown Union had frustrated every attempt on the part of the labourers in that Union to obtain cottages. For some years back representations had been made to the guardians; schemes for labourers' cottages had been submitted; inspections by sanitary officers had been held; and still there had not been a solitary cottage built in the Union, though it was one of the most important and wealthy in Ireland, covering a part of two counties, and including a large number of labourers, many of whom now lived in houses not fit for human habitation. For a long time the Guardians had had in their hands £500, given to them expressly for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, and yet the majority of the Board would never assent to the application of this money. The doctor of the Union had reported that several cottages were required on account of the unsanitary condition of the dwellings of the working classes; meeting after meeting had been held on the subject, and yet the majority had always some objection or obstacle to throw in the way. At last, the Local Government Board sent a letter to the Union, threatening that, if cottages were not built, they would be obliged to exercise their rights under the Acts, and order them to be built. Then the guardians, at the head of whom was Lord Powers-court, proceeded to evade the Act. They consented to build two cottages, but would only allow one-sixtieth part of an acre to each plot. The Local Government Board wrote again, and pointed out that the Act required a half-acre plot to each cottage. When the right hon. Gentleman went to Dublin he would be close to this Union, and he hoped that he would urge the Local Government Board not to be satisfied with merely threatening, but to really put their powers in force.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid, he wished emphatically to endorse the statement which had just been made by his hon. Friend, as to the great hardship resulting from the expensive and dilatory system of procedure in connection with
  1168
  the Labourers' Cottages Act. He understood, from an answer to a question last Session, that Mr. Morley had actually drafted a reforming Bill on this question; and he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was also going to bring in such a Bill. As one instance of the evils of the present system, he would mention the Midleton Union in County Cork, where there had been a scheme of cottages on the stocks for two years, postponed in the hope and expectation that some measure of this kind would be passed. During all this time, 200 or 300 labourers' families had been compelled to live in cabins which were, many of them, unfit for human habitation. If the right hon. Gentleman would really grapple with this question, he would deserve well of a very large and industrious class.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYreferred to the remarks of the Chief Secretary as to the danger of proselytising in Irish workhouses, and said that no doubt the remark had been made by inadvertence. [The CHIEF SECRETARY interposed a remark which was inaudible in the gallery.] He understood the right hon. Gentleman's argument to be, that whereas Roman Catholics in English workhouses were in no danger of their faith being undermined by proselytising, in Ireland it was considered that some arrangement was necessary whereby Protestants in Irish workhouses should have apartments to themselves and chaplains provided for them, no corresponding privileges being accorded to Roman Catholics in England. When the right hon. Gentleman knew a little more of Ireland he was sure that he would not repeat that suggestion. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman made it without any idea of giving offence; but he would inform the right hon. Gentleman that Roman Catholics had been the victims of proselytising attacks, never the authors of them.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to explain that he had understood the apprehension of proselytising existed on both sides, and in consequence of that feeling those special provisions in workhouses were adopted in Ireland, although it was not necessary to adopt them in England.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsuggested to the right hon. Gentleman that a more charitable explanation of the treatment

  1169
  of Protestants in Irish workhouses was the desire of the Roman Catholics to see that persons of all denominations were properly provided for. [Cheers.] That was the real explanation of the matter, and he did not grudge the Irish Protestants the privilege that they enjoyed in Irish workhouses. Not only did the workhouse authorities in Ireland permit the visits of Protestant chaplains, but they paid for those visits. On the other hand, he believed there was scarcely a priest in England paid for to administer to the needs of their Roman Catholic flock in the workhouses. In dealing with the administration of the Labourers' Acts by the Local Government Board, he hoped the subject would be considered with the view of early legislation upon it, because it was urgently needed. Mr. Morley had intended to immediately introduce legislation to deal with this important question. He admitted that, in the working of the Labourers' Acts, a great deal had been done for the Irish labourer, especially in Munster and Leinster. Even where most had been done, however, it was unquestionable that the Boards of Guardians had felt themselves enormously hampered by the machinery provided for them by the existing Acts. The law costs necessarily involved, when any labourers' scheme was to be set up, was an element largely in force to prevent the Guardians putting the Act in force, or undertaking a new scheme. He was aware of some of the difficulties which were inseparable from the nature of those Acts. He thought that the mistake of the existing Acts was in applying to the purposes of the Labourers' Acts a code which was intended for a wholly different purpose, namely, the Lands Clauses Acts. Those Acts were admirable enactments for their purpose and were a credit to the Parliamentary system of the country, but they were never intended to deal with cases where small plots of land had to be taken. The mistake was in supposing that the elaborate machinery of those Acts was at all applicable or necessary when they had to take half an acre or an acre of land, costing from £5 to £10, in addition to being encumbered with enormous law costs. A very similar case had to be considered a few years ago, when the Housing of the Working Classes Act was being passed
  1170
  in this country, for taking small plots. If the right hon. Gentleman looked into that Act he would surely see that it embodied modifications which simplified its working. In the working of the Lands Clauses Acts there was an inquiry by a valuer. When the arbitrator made his award there was an elaborate system of publication, and then there was a second sitting, when the whole subject was gone over a second time. One thing done by that Act was to abolish the necessity of the second sitting by the arbitrator on account of the small portion of land taken and the interests involved. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should apply, for the purposes of the Labourers' Acts, those schedules of the Housing of the Working Classes Act which facilitated the taking of land compulsorily in England. Another question came under his notice, that whereas a private individual could enter into an agreement with a stamp duty of sixpence, the Board of Guardians must put their seal to the agreement, thereby imposing on them a stamp duty of 10s. This was a considerable tax, because it sometimes nearly reached 1 per cent, of the whole cost of the cottage. When the Poor Law Acts were originally passed, in view of the fact that they were intended for the relief of distress, there was an enactment that legal documents, under those Acts, should be free of stamp duty. Would the right hon. Gentleman apply that clause to general contracts under the Labourers' Acts, in order to effect some saving and to confer some benefit on the Irish labourers. As to the Inspectors, he said that they were sometimes placed in a cruel position. The evil genius of the Labourers' Acts had not been the Local Government Board, but the Privy Council; and Inspectors who had reported in favour of labourers' cottages had been subjected to most unjust aspersions and attack when the case came before the Privy Council. The Local Government Board Inspectors had done their duty well and fairly towards the Irish labourers. The complaint he had to make of the Local Government Board was that, with 12 years' experience of the Labourers Acts, they had never attempted to improve them so as to make them work more smoothly. In this respect their

  1171
  conduct was in contrast with that of English Departments and officials, who were always passing Bills to improve the working of English Acts. Irish Members had brought in Bills, but they came on after midnight, and were always blocked. These Acts would never work efficiently until there was a change in the franchise on which Boards of Guardians were elected. These Acts were passed for the benefit of labourers, but they were not represented on the Boards of Guardians. Things would be very different if the labourers had votes. In England, the late Government passed an Act to revolutionise the Poor Law Franchise, and he hoped the present Government would do something of this kind for Ireland. Fancy a single individual having 36 votes, while there were also ex-officio members of the same class, and labourers were unrepresented. The Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890 was to be carried out by Towns Commissioners, but it omitted to constitute them corporate bodies for the purpose of holding land. Jealousy of local government prevented the conversion of the Commissioners into corporations; therefore, everything had to be done in the name of individuals; and when land had to be taken on lease, individual members had to be held responsible for the rent. This was an intolerable grievance, and it involved legal expense when a Commissioner, who was a trustee, died or retired. The same difficulties were experienced on the acquiring of tolls and markets. In 1871, an Act was passed to constitute Towns Commissioners corporate bodies for holding lands, but in 1878, it was mysteriously repealed. The Housing of the Working Classes Act expressly authorised the Commissioners to acquire land for the purposes of the Act, and yet, when they had acquired it, they could not, according to the contention of the Irish Local Government Board, use it for the purpose for which it had been acquired without the special consent of the Treasury. This was nothing short of an absurdity. In one instance a building season had been lost owing to the Local Government Board placing this perverse construction on this section of the Act.
  MR. POWERsaid, that some years ago, inspectors under the Contagious Diseases (Aninals) Act were appointed by local
  1172
  authorities, but now the Local Government Board said it was necessary they should have the appointment and control of these inspectors, and yet they paid only one-half the salaries. If they were to have appointment and full control, it followed that they should pay the salaries. One of his greatest objects was to do something for the benefit of the labourers of Ireland, and to enlist on their behalf the sympathies of hon. Members opposite would be to him a privilege and honour. With regard to pauper lunatics, as a Poor Law Guardian in the Cork Union he had seen something of asylums for this unfortunate class, and in Ireland they were a scandal. The medical officers of those asylums, who were at their work early and late, were most inadequately paid.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid that for 40 years there had been hæmorrhage from Ireland which had been swept away a larger population than now remained. Emigration from Ireland had in the last 40 years exceeded 4,500,000, with this result, that the vigorous reproductive class had gone, and there were left behind the weak, afflicted, and impotent, and at this moment Ireland had to bear, in the shape of a poor population, twice the burden any other European nation had to bear. The consideration, therefore, of the condition of the poor and the afflicted class in Ireland was for Irishmen so much more serious than a similar question was for Englishmen in their own country. The new Chief Secretary was going to Ireland with little experience of the country, but with the intention, he himself was satisfied, of doing the best he could in his office for the people whose fortunes were to a large extent committed to his care. He trusted and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to imagine he was an Irishman, and be ready to do what he could as an Irishman for his fellow-countrymen. He would find plenty of work to do, and in no department more than in the department which this Vote was concerned with. But he would find with regard to that department what was true of all others. It was distinguished from the English department by the fact that it was perfectly independent of and impervious to Irish public opinion. The fresh air of public opinion kept bright and effective all

  1173
  English departments, Ireland was administered by a number of departments each and every one of which was independent of Irish public opinion, beyond the reach of criticism or attack, except in so far as a small minority in the House coining from Ireland might be able by frequent repetition to get some small amelioration in the condition of things. In regard to this department, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to take in his hands when he went to Dublin the rules and regulations of the Poor Law Department in this country. Let him take the regulations with regard to the treatment of paupers in English unions and compare it with what he found in Irish workhouses. Let him compare the dietary scales in English and Irish workhouses. Let him then, consult any medical authority he chose upon what was necessary to keep a human being in normal health, and he would find in no English prisons or workhouses was such a dietary scale known as prevailed in Irish workhouses. According to all medical testimony the whole dietary scale in Irish workhouses was far inferior to that in English workhouses. For many years his efforts to induce different Irish Secretaries to deal with this question had failed, but he was bound to say that he had great hope that the present Chief Secretary would remedy the evil if he found that it really existed. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed that when the right hon. Gentleman promised to look into this question he would do so, and he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman would consult with the proper authorities he would take the necessary steps to ameliorate the condition of the unfortunate occupants of the Irish workhouses. ["Hear, hear!"] What could be thought of a scale of dietary which included a mixture composed of two ounces of salt fat with one gallon of boiling water? The dietary scale for the children in these workhouses had also been pronounced as altogether inadequate for their proper sustentation. He wished to refer in the next place to the classification of the inmates of the Irish workhouses, than which nothing could be more important from a moral point of view. Great advances had been made in England during the present generation in regard to this matter, and yet the condition of Ireland in reference
  1174
  to it had remained unchanged. In one Irish workhouse, for instance, the only playground for the children was in a large apartment which was generally used for the accommodation of lunatic women. Humanity revolted from such facts as those, but the practice had been going on from year to year, to the knowledge of the Local Government Board, who had taken no steps to put an end to it. There were numerous other questions arising out of the same subject with which he would not attempt to detain either the Committee or the right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, but from his own personal knowledge he could unhesitatingly say that there was scarcely any department in the whole of the administration of the United Kingdom which more required overhauling than did that which was now under discussion. He had to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the promise which he had given him in reference to certain other matters which he had brought under his notice, but he desired to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was nobody in the Local Government Board Department who was personally interested in seeing that the provisions of the statute were carried into effect. As he had already pointed out, the Department was administered in a manner that was totally independent of public opinion by those who had no personal interest in that administration being successful. In the absence of public opinion, financial interest might prove advantageous, and he therefore suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should give some official a small pecuniary interest in seeing that the provisions of the Act regulating these matters were properly carried into effect. If no such pecuniary interest were given, the officials would regard all extra work as a nuisance and a bore, because no one liked to take extra trouble unless he was paid for doing so. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he would carefully consider the various matters that had been brought to his notice. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that if his knowledge of those subjects was not very large his sympathy with regard to them was all that could be desired. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted that the many defects which it

  1175
  was generally admitted existed in connection with the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland might be gradually removed, but he desired again to remind the House that the continued existence of those defects was not due to a want of pressure upon the Guardians by the Local Government Board, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that no effort on his part should be spared to make that pressure as effective as possible. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £20,537 to complete the sum for the Public Works Offices, Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in England the Public Works Department was represented by a Cabinet Minister, but that was not the case with regard to the Irish Public Works Department. The result was that the playgrounds of the people were devoted to the purposes of the constabulary or the troops. It was absurd that neither a right of way through the public parks could be given to market gardeners, nor the Four Courts in Dublin be renovated by a coat of paint, without the matter having to be referred to London. When he had agitated in favour of swings being put up for the amusement of children, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had gravely informed him that the Board of Works could not put them up because they had no power to make bye-laws for their protection. It was quite true that some, of these Commissioners were very estimable gentlemen; but they were a portion of the system of administration. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to tell the Committee that when General Sankey went, the whole Department should be put under the Irish Secretary's Office. They would then have some Department with which they could deal. It was suggested that, because this was one of the great spending departments, it ought therefore to remain under the Treasury. But that was just why he objected to its so remaining; for the Secretary to the Treasury was bound to look at all these matters from a Treasury point of view. Take the Glebe Loans Act.
  1176
  What interest did the Treasury charge under that Act? Five per cent.! That was English generosity. They made three per cent, out of a lot of poor people, and then said: "Look how generous we are." If the Irish Secretary had the shaping of these measures, he would probably look at what was fair, and not merely at what could be made out of it for the Treasury. The salary of a schoolmaster in Ireland to-day was less than that of a policeman. The schoolmaster had to pay for his dwelling, while the Government erected huts for the police. Was not this absurd? They heard a good deal about the incomes of the clergy; but he supposed that the income of the average Irish curate in the West of Ireland did not come to more than about £2 a week, and it was not out of these men that the Treasury of this country wished to coin, that usurious amount of interest. While, possibly, the Treasury ought to be allowed to keep a check on the Chief Secretary's Department in regard to these matters, he pressed in some spirit of openness for the reforms he had indicated.
  MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN rose to call attention to Ballycotton Pier, which had cost over £23,000, and towards the cost of which the locality contributed largely. Taking courage in both hands, he would at once say that it was considered to be one of the best works of the Board of Works round the South and West of Ireland; but there were certain defects which had gone on increasing year after year, and the position was that the County Cork Grand Jury, acting upon the advice of their Surveyor, refused to take over the pier. The Board of Works insisted that they should; and it was in these circumstances that the pier was gradually getting worse in condition. They had frequently brought this matter before the House; but, unfortunately, their constituents called upon them to draw attention to the matter. The floor of the pier was getting worse and worse, and was now almost useless for the simple fishermen and small traders. A few years ago Mr. W. Barry, the celebrated engineer, reported on it, and, if his views had been adopted, the Grand Jury would have been bound to take it over, and it would be now in good condition. Only a portion of Mr. Barry's

  1177
  recommendations were, however, carried out, and the Grand Jury still held out, contending that the pier had not been put in such a proper condition as to justify them in taking it over. On the other hand, the Board of Works contended that the pier was put into a proper condition, and that the Grand Jury must take it over. In his view, the matter was very clear. The Grand Jury were, to a certain extent, justified in their attitude, because they were fortified by their present surveyor. On the other hand, it would, he asserted, be a great misfortune if this work of public utility should be allowed to become derelict and destroyed—if the Secretary to the Treasury would see that the Board of Works should make one final inspection of the pier; should state what was required to be done, and whether it was in their Department; and, that the pier should then be put in proper condition and be handed over to the Grand Jury, and should insist that the Grand Jury did their work in future. Of course, this case was only another illustration of what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Louth had just referred to, namely, that the Secretary to the Treasury, who administered these matters, only looked at them from the Treasury point of view, and who, moreover, had so many things to look after that it was almost impossible for him to see to all these local matters.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid, this pier was in his own constituency. The Grand Jury of County Cork had, in his opinion, very properly refused to take over the charge of this pier until it was put in proper repair. Mr. Grey, one of the engineers of the Irish Board of Works, considered that these repairs could be carried out for about £600. He thought the present was a good opportunity to get out of the impasse which now existed. During the time that the pier had been nobody's child it had been falling rapidly into decay. It had been at his request that Mr. Grey was sent to inspect this pier during the last Easter Recess. He himself accompanied Mr. Grey on that inspection. He certainly thought the report of Mr. Kirkby, the County surveyor, in condemning the construction of this pier, was much more in accordance with the real state of affairs than the report of Mr. Grey, who apparently
  1178
  approved of everything connected with it. It was only fair to Mr. Kirkby to say that his original report received the sanction of Mr. Wolfe Barry, the eminent engineer. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had now a very easy and economical way of meeting the views of the Grand Jury, by placing the pier in a proper state of repair, at a comparatively trifling sum, and so avoiding all further cause of friction between the Grand Jury and the Board of Works, and saving the Treasury the very large expenditure which would be incurred if the matter was much longer delayed.
  MR. POWERcalled attention to the case of Dunmore pier. The old pier was erected partly by means of local contributions, but the Board of Works insisted on building it according to the plans of their own engineer. The consequence was it had been swept away, and a large sum of money had been wasted. The Naval Reserve had a station there at present, but there was no provision enabling them to launch their boat, and as they had a considerable amount of gun practice at floating targets this often led to much inconvenience. The local rates already bore a heavy burden, and could not give much assistance to a fresh pier, and, therefore, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would see the absolute necessity that existed for doing something towards constructing a new pier, and assist them to remove this scandal.
  MR. TULLYcalled attention to a matter connected with loans from the Board of Works, which he had also pressed upon the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. Tenants whose valuation was £10 or under in former years were able to get loans from the Board of Works, but this custom had now been stopped. The reason the Board of Works gave was that some of these works undertaken by this means encumbered the lands of the tenants with loans. His own experience, however, was that loans which were given had the effect of enabling the tenants to improve the condition of their holdings, and were paid back afterwards. He thought the tenants ought to be encouraged in this way. When they were refused these loans they probably did not carry out the improvements. When

  1179
  the right hon. Gentleman went to Ireland he hoped he would see fit to revert to the old rule. In the West of Ireland, if this encouragement were given, the improvements would be of a substantial character approved of by the Board of Works inspectors. He had had letters from Board of Works inspectors asking him to press this matter on the House. He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that the drainage works on the Eslin river in South Leitrim, which were controlled he believed by the Board of Works, and which had been suspended some years ago, should be now carried out. There was a great deal of distress in the locality. Some time ago a man died under circumstances which gave rise to the suspicion that he died from starvation, though this was not proved.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,)said, he could not make any definite statement now in regard to these loans, but he should see how far the views of the hon. Member could be met. As to Bally-cotton pier, it, with the harbour, cost about £20,000. It was constructed by the Board of Works. There was power to put the pier in proper order and charge the Grand Jury of the locality with the cost. However that might be, it was alleged that the pier was badly constructed. An independent engineer was called in—a man of great authority—and he said that, although there was no absolute settlement, still it ought to be watched. It was also reported that in the construction of the pier some amount of earth had been used instead of rubble, which ought to have been put in. The consequence was, the Grand Jury never charged tolls, and the pier had been neglected and now stood in need of repairs. The sum of £600 was required, and it was with regard to that sum that the difficulty had arisen. He was bound to say that the action of the Grand Jury was not quite consistent with regard to that sum.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid, Sir John Hibbert offered a loan for three years.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, and I think that was rejected by the Grand Jury. The pier was in a condition which required that £600 should be spent upon it, and he confessed, after reading the evidence, that he was inclined to suspect that the
  1180
  faults in the pier might be due to original defects in the construction. If so, the conclusion was that this £600 should be spent. He should go over to Ireland and a thorough inquiry should be made, and if it was clear, that the fault lay in the original construction he should advise the Treasury to pay the £600. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Louth made the suggestion that the whole duties of the Office of Works should be transferred to the Treasury and handed over to the Irish Secretary. It was something gained to find that the hon. Member had confidence in the Irish Office. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is not because I have more confidence in the Irish Office, but because I have less confidence in the Treasury.
  MR. HANBURYdid not think the change would be a favourable one. After all, if they transferred the duties to the Irish Office the Treasury would be the real controlling power. He thererefore thought the change would not be more than a nominal one.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member had not said a word about the appointment of relatives. Let them not appoint the secretary of some English official. Irishmen could govern the Colonies, India, and occasionally act as Ambassador, in Paris, and then there was their only general. He thought the claims of Irishmen ought to be considered.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that when Conservatives and Nationalists joined in condemning a public work in Ireland as a fraud, it certainly must be very bad. The right hon. Gentleman was going to visit Ireland and enjoy the salubrious air of Ballycotton, but his predecessor the Member for South Leeds paid a similar visit, with no result. If they wanted anything absolutely and superlatively ridiculous off the stage let them go to the Irish Board of Works. He had been round the coast of Ireland, and had seen the wrecks and remnants of the work of that Department. It was simply because they were Irish that they were despised. They were hated by the English people; and when their hate took this unintelligible form how could they expect the Irish to love them? The hon. Member

  1181
  having referred to various harbours on the coast of Ireland, mentioned the case of Kenmare, and was proceeding to speak of Kenmare oysters when—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself more closely to the Vote now under discussion.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he would pass on to the case of Ballybunnion. He had himself seen 80 salmon landed there in one haul.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must again request the hon. Member to confine himself more strictly to the items of the Vote under discussion, namely, that for the office of Public Works.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he was merely illustrating his argument as to the importance of Ballybunnion Harbour. But he would pass to Clew Bay, and he asserted that only two of the six harbours on the south side were capable of admitting a fishing smack at high water.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no money in this Vote for those harbours to which the hon. Member has referred, and therefore he is not entitled to discuss them.
  DR. TANNERsaid he was very sorry if he was out of order. If he had known it he would not have gone on. He would simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly bear in mind all he had tried to put before him. He was very sorry if he had transgressed in any way, but he was simply trying to do his duty to the best of his ability. He was perfectly certain the Committee would excuse him—his only wish was to do something for the benefit of the county he represented.
  CAPTAIN DONELANdesired to express his acknowledgments to the Secretary to the Treasury for the very fair manner in which he had met the questions of his colleagues and himself on this matter, and he was extremely pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman express his intention to pay a visit to this pier himself. It would require no technical knowledge to satisfy him that the fault was due to misconstruction. The whole trouble was due to the fact that this pier, like so many others in Ireland constructed by the same official of the Board of Works, was built without any view to proper construction whatever.
  MR. J. O'CONNORwished to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the dilapidated condition of Wicklow harbour. He said, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Government had found it necessary to send their own engineer to inspect the harbour and breakwater, and he had reported that the breakwater was in an absolutely rotten condition. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would call the attention of the Board of Works in Dublin to the report made on this harbour by the Government engineer. The condition of the harbour was very bad, and the breakwater could not stand more than a very short time. It would fall into the harbour and render it absolutely useless. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make an excursion to Wicklow. If he did he ventured to say he would not be pleased with the condition of the harbour. The right hon. Gentleman said that the rates in this part of Wicklow were only 3s. 6d. in the pound; he understood that was not the case, and that they were at the present time 5s. in the pound. To raise £35,000 on the rates was quite impossible.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval,
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTINbrought under notice of the Chief Secretary the dissatisfaction which prevailed among the tradesmen of Ireland as regarded the employment of incompetent workmen on public works. Handy-men were too often employed by contractors at very low wages, with the double result that the work was scamped and injury was done to tradesmen who had served long years of apprenticeship. The masons had written from time to time to the Department about this, and had only got evasive replies. The carpenters in various towns had strongly complained on the same point, and he urged that the Resolution of the House of Commons of February, 1891, with regard to paying trade union prices should be put in force in connection with every contract entered into by public departments in Ireland. He thought, in the interests of the Department itself, the employment of

  1183
  competent workmen was of the utmost importance, as defects which were often overlooked by the engineers would come under the cognisance of properly qualified workmen, who would remedy them. He trusted that in the contracts entered into in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman would see that the Resolution of that House was carried out as it was done in the case of contracts in England.
  MR. FLYNNsupported the appeal of the hon. Member for West Limerick, observing that the spending departments in Ireland, and notably the Board of Trade and the Board of Works, had not given that adherence to the Resolution of the House of Commons of 1891 which had been given in England. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would do all in his power to see that in future the public departments in Ireland faithfully carried out the Resolution.
  MR. FARRELLdirected the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the faulty construction of a pier built at Mulranny, on the west coast of Mayo. Although a considerable sum of money had been spent on the structure, no boat could approach it except at high tide. Quite recently the Government had expended a large sum on a railway passing by this village, and, furthermore, the Midland and Great Western Railway Company were about to spend £1,500 in the erection of a tourist hotel at this point. Mulranny stood on an eminence overlooking Clew Bay, one of the finest prospects in the whole of Ireland, and it was a place admirably adapted for the development of tourist traffic. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, in his forthcoming visit to Ireland, would inspect this pier, and recognise the absolute necessity of putting it into such a condition as to make it serve the purpose for which it was designed.
  MR. JAMES DALYcomplained that in his constituency a man was allowed to build a house, and then, when he had actually got it roofed and finished, after spending £150 upon it, he received a letter from the Board of Works directing him to pull it down. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the case.
  MR. HANBURYdesired the hon. Member for Monaghan to supply him with further details of the case to which
  1184
  he referred, and preferred the same request to the hon. Member for West Cavan as to the Mulranny Pier. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Limerick, his impression was that the resolution relating to wages was equally valid in Ireland as in England, and if the right hon. Gentleman could point out cases in which it was alleged it was not fairly carried out, he would be quite willing to see how far the complaint was genuine. The main point raised in the discussion was as to the Wicklow Harbour, and he was afraid he should not be able to give the same kind of answer here as he had given with regard to another pier earlier in the evening. Wicklow Pier was, no doubt, in a bad condition. In 1893 the breakwater was reported to be in a state of collapse, and since 1893 negotiations had taken place between the Board of Works and the local authorities as to who was really to find the money to put the breakwater into a proper condition. Already a considerable sum of money had been spent on the harbour. So far back as 1864, £12,000 was borrowed from the town commissioners, and that money was practically gone. In 1870 a further sum of £6,000 was borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, upon which no interest had been paid, whilst there had been no repayment of capital, and the loan, therefore, when it was transferred to the Board of Works in 1881, had reached the sum of £9,000. In 1881 the Board of Works lent a sum of £40,000, repayable in 50 years at 4¼ per cent., to be a first charge on the Harbour revenues, and to be guaranteed by the baronies. After the money had been spent the breakwater was still in a state of collapse. The Government were told that it would cost roughly, about £35,000 to put it in a proper state. That estimate had been gone into to see what expenses could be avoided, and the sum now estimated was £30,000, or a little less. The whole question was as to who should find the £30,000. His predecessor made what he regarded as a very fair offer, and one beyond which he would not go. This offer was to wipe out the £9,000 loan and reduce the interest on the £40,000 to 4 per cent, if the guaranteeing baronies and the town, of Wicklow would guarantee the new loan for

  1185
  £30,000, or the amount that was required, for forty years at 4 per cent. The baronies refused to do that, what they asked for being a free grant from the Treasury. That would be a very unusual step to take. After all, what was the position of the local authorities in this matter? The average rates of the five baronies concerned and the town of Wicklow were 3s. 6d., and these, he was told, were very low rates. At the outside it would only mean 2½d. in the £ extra for a loan of £35,000, and 2d. in the £ for a loan of £28,000, and he understood that the latter sum was that which would really be required for the work. The view which his predecessor took, and which he now took, was that if the local authorities were not prepared to find the extra 2d. in the £ they could not attach very much importance to the question.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORasked the right hon. Gentleman if he did not think that at the present price of money, 4 per cent, was too high a rate to charge?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the answer to the question depended upon what the guarantee was worth, and upon the price at which they could get money in the open market.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid he wished to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the Treasury Minute which made inoperative a provision in the Land Act of 1881. Under that Act, the Board of Public Works in Ireland were empowered to grant loans to tenant-farmers in Ireland for the improvement of their holdings. That provision worked satisfactorily to the Treasury and beneficially to the tenant-farmers for a great many years, but now the officials of the Treasury feared there might be loss to the Treasury because the land was not made liable for the loan. In other words, when a farm became derelict there was no power to make the landlord pay. A Treasury Minute was issued, and now a tenant-farmer, the value of whose holding was £10, could only borrow £30, and a tenant, the value of whose holding was £7, could not obtain a loan at all. It seemed to him a monstrous thing that a Treasury Minute could override an Act of Parliament, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether the Minute could not be withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANdid not see how the hon. Gentleman connected the question with the Board of Works Office.
  MR. GILHOOLYremarked that the Board of Works were the authority to issue the loans.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he gathered from the observations of the hon. Member that if anybody was at fault it was the Treasury, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's criticisms applied to the Treasury, and not to the Board of Works.
  MR. GILHOOLYpointed out that the Treasury controlled the Board of Works, and the Board of Works were empowered to issue the loans. He would not, however, pursue the matter. He had simply to ask that the Treasury Minute should be withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was, however, contravening his ruling.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsubmitted that his hon. Friend's remarks were in order, as the loans were made on the recommendation of the Board of Works.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that that, of course, was a new point, and if it was a fact it altered the complexion of the case.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid, he questioned the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the point, and Sir John Hibbert said he was anxious a short Act should be passed that would obviate the necessity of refusing the loans.
  MR. HANBURYcould not quite understand from the speech of the hon. Gentleman whether it was legislation or the Treasury which was at fault. The hon. Gentleman said Sir John Hibbert was anxious to remove the evil, if it was an evil, by legislation, but a little time before he said a Treasury Minute was overriding an Act of Parliament.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated that a remedy could only be afforded by legislation—by making the land liable for the loan if the tenant had been evicted.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, it was impossible for him to give a satisfactory answer unless he was in possession of all the facts. He, therefore, suggested that the hon. Gentleman should communicate with him privately.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS III.
  On the vote of £36,661, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland,
  MR. FLYNNsaid, he did not propose to raise any question of policy, but merely to call attention to the payments made to the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland. In 1886 a long correspondence took place as to whether the salaries of those gentlemen were not too high when compared with the salaries of similar officials for Scotland. He did not ask the Secretary to the Treasury to make any alteration this Session, but merely to go into the question with a view to a reasonable reduction being made. He noticed that £1,500 was paid in fees to the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland, but it was not shown which of the two gentlemen got the larger share of that amount. If they were to proceed in the direction of economy they were entitled to know whether those fees were taxed. Moreover, he would like to know why these fees should be paid at all. In England there was a general feeling that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General should receive fixed salaries, and should not engage in private practice. It would, in his opinion, be very wholesome if such a rule were applied to Ireland. It was desirable in the interests of public business, and, indeed, in the interests of the reputations of hon. Gentlemen themselves, that, representing as they did the Crown, or, in other words, the State, they should not engage in any legal business but the legal business of the country. It was desirable that gentlemen occupying such positions should be above all temptation to engage in any legal business but the legal business of the country, and, being paid handsome salaries, the least the country should expect from them was to apply all their time and energy to their public duties.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid he noticed an item of £300 for the expenses of jurors at Assizes. He did not know in what way those expenses were incurred. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Winter Assizes for the whole province
  1188
  of Leinster were held in Wicklow, and that it was a great inconvenience and expense to the jurors of the county to have to come long distances—especially in the west where there were no railways—to Wicklow, and to wait there for weeks to do the Assize business for the entire province of Leinster. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Treasury proposed to remunerate those jurors? There was also an item for £400 for the defence of public officials who made mistakes. It was exactly the same amount last year, and he would like to know how it happened that the figure was identical to the very farthing both years?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said, that the correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Office in 1886 resulted in the salary of the Irish Attorney General being fixed at £5,000, and the salary of the Solicitor General at £2,000; but neither of the law officers was prohibited from taking private practice. In regard to fees for contentious business, the same rule applied exactly to the law officers of England and Ireland. They were only paid for any contentious business they conducted for the Crown, and, as the fees for the conduct of such business were fixed by a Treasury Minute, and depended upon the nature of the business, and place where it was transacted, the question of taxation did not arise. The sum of £300 for jurors was intended to cover the expense of making the necessary provision for the comfort of jurors sworn to try cases at Assize. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had ever the fortune or the misfortune to serve on a jury and to be locked up all night. But, if he had that experience, he would not object to provide jurors in such a position with something to eat and drink and a bed to sleep on. It was to meet these expenses that the Vote was intended, and it amounted to only £300 for all Ireland. The sum of £400 for the defence of public officials was an estimate and not an expenditure, and it was because next to nothing was incurred last year that the same estimate was put down to cover any expenses that might arise this year. As to remunerating the jurors attending Assizes, there was no provision made by

  1189
  law for such a purpose. He was not at all sure that the law was not defective in that respect; but, at all events, it was the existing law of the land, and nothing could be done in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he noticed that the salaries and fees paid to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General amounted to £8,500, and that an exactly similar sum was paid to counsel for conducting prosecutions and representing the Law officers. That was a matter requiring some explanation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDexplained that the additional sum of £8,500 covered the fees paid to counsel who prosecuted on behalf of the Attorney General at the different Assize Courts oil Circuit. The same rule practically applied to England.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £64,395, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments in Ireland,
  MR. MAURICE HEALYcalled attention to the large sum annually spent in Ireland on the Court of Bankruptcy. Twenty or thirty years ago when the Bankruptcy Court, consisting of two Judges and a large staff of officials, was set up, there was a considerable amount of bankruptcy business in Ireland. But since then a great change had come over the country in that respect, and the amount of bankruptcy business now done in Ireland was exceedingly small. Within the past few years Bankruptcy Courts had been set up in Cork and Belfast, which had taken away much of the bankruptcy business from Dublin, consequently the staff in Dublin was now much in excess of the necessities of the case. In a short time the Government would have an opportunity of remodelling the Bankruptcy Department in Ireland, and he hoped the opportunity would be taken. As to Land Registration, this department of the public business was in a very unsatisfactory state. It was set up when Mr. Justice Madden was Attorney General for Ireland, and set an example to Irish Law Officers by taking an interest in Irish legislation. Good
  1190
  though the Act was, he could not say the same for the manner in which it had been administered. Registration of title in Ireland was now little more than a burlesque. Registration was made compulsory for tenant purchasers whether they had purchased before or after the passing of the Act in 1890. But special provision was made for the large number of tenant purchasers who had purchased before the Act. Every one of them who came in to register within twelve months of the passing of the Act was relieved of the Court fees. Those who purchased after the Act were not only compelled to register, but received no exemption from fees. That looked as though the old tenant purchasers were more favourably situated. But the operation of the Act was to produce the exact reverse of what was the undoubted intention of Parliament, for it placed the old purchasers in a position ten times worse than that of the new. With a new purchaser, the Land Commission was bound, as part of the procedure on the purchase, to register the title; and, therefore, the new purchaser had not to pay anything. But when the unfortunate old purchaser came into Court, as it was quite impossible for him to do the work himself, although he was relieved of the Court fees, he had to pay a solicitor handsomely for getting his title registered, and every conceivable obstacle was thrown in his way from first to last. The consequence was that not 5 per cent of the tenant purchasers who purchased before the Act had registered their titles. The rules made under the Registration Act, and the procedure set up, rendered this excellent measure almost a nullity, as far as its original intention was concerned, which was to make a farm as readily saleable as a cow, or horse, or any other chattel. Unfortunately, the Act contained provisions for registering the title to land subject to equities; and, consequently, registration did not imply a clear title. The purchaser, therefore, had to satisfy himself as to the title being clear just as carefully now as before registration was set up. A purchaser had to go into details with the same minuteness as before; he had to examine title deeds and leases, look out for mortgages, see whether there were any equitable charges, and go into all these matters exactly in the same way

  1191
  as he would do if there were no Land Registry. The result was that, instead of being a benefit to purchasers, it doubled their trouble and their costs. Could not something be done to make what should be an excellent institution more efficient and valuable? Of what good was a Land Registry which did not fulfil the first conditions of such a Registry? If it were to be of any use at all, a purchaser ought to be able to go in and see what the burdens on any piece of land really were, so that he might know what risk he incurred in putting his money into it. But, as he had said, the Registry made no investigation of tenants' titles. Instead of facilitating the registration of land, you might imagine that the one business of the office was to hinder it. The one idea of the gentlemen in charge of it appeared to be to throw difficulties in the way of registration and to increase law costs, by demands of affidavits and declarations, so that instead of being a blessing to the country it was more likely to be a curse. Could not something be done to diminish the fees that were demanded? He was glad to facilitate the passing of the Act, although the object of it was to cut down the fees of his profession, but the effect of it appeared to have been to transfer to the Treasury what was formerly paid to the solicitors.
  MR. J. DILLONsaid, he wished to call attention to the Land Division of the High Court. When it was constituted it was never dreamed that it would develop into the institution it had become. It was an institution to which no analogy existed in this country. When it was started it was intended for the temporary purpose of taking care of landed estates while they were being sold. It had developed into the largest landlord in Ireland, receiving a rental of £800,000 a year. What the Land Court had taken upon itself no one ever dreamed it would assume. It had undertaken to stop the natural operation of the market as regarded Irish land, to check the natural drop in its value, and artificially to bolster up that value. It acted as a great landlord who was removed from the ordinary incidents of dealings between man and man. The Land Division of the High Court was a monstrous excrescence on Irish life, and if the Government were wise they would find in this
  1192
  Court a great opportunity for commencing a system of compulsory sale in Ireland which would injure nobody and do an immense deal to benefit Ireland. Imagine the enormous advantage to the prosperity and peace of Ireland if the immense body of tenants who went to the Land Judges' Court were turned into peasant proprietors, which could easily be done. It was said compulsory sale would mean compelling men to sell their property who did not wish to part with it. But there were large estates in the Land Judges' Court where it was most desirable that the property in the land should pass from the "dead hand" of the Court, which could not expend money in the improvements that were needed. The owners of these estates could not complain if their property was sold by the operation of the Court at a fair and reasonable price and divided amongst their creditors, or, if there was anything left, the balance given to themselves. If the sale of land in Ireland went on without further development it would take 100 years to sell the land in Ireland to the occupying tenants. So he would urge on the Government the opportunity the Court offered for the creation of an immense number of peasant proprietors.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR, in replying, said he believed it was a fact that the Bankruptcy Court, Dublin, was over-manned for the work it had to do. But nothing could be done so long as the present members of the Court continued to hold their present position. The other question the hon. Member for Cork raised was one of considerable importance—as to the registration of title by the Land Commissioners. In the case of tenants who purchased their holdings before the passing of the Act of 1891, the registration had proceeded slowly. He doubted whether the whole blame was to be thrown on the Land Commission. He was inclined to doubt it, and he had been assured by the Land Commission that the delay did not arise from any act on their part, but in consequence of the apathy and tardiness with which the tenants themselves responded to the inquiries of the Land Commissioners. This was only an illustration of the fact that it was not so easy to make the land pass from hand to hand, which was the ideal some land

  1193
  reformers set before them. In many of the cases the tenants purchased their land free of equity as far as what they purchased was concerned, but still subject to the equities under which the landlord held, and it seemed to him difficult to imagine any system under which tenants could be enabled to hold a perfectly clear title. He entirely sympathised with the object of the hon. Member, and if it was in any way possible to expedite the process by which the registration took place, no pains would be spared on his part to effect it. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, the Government were not prepared to accept the principle of compulsory purchase, but they desired to facilitate the transfer of ownership of land from the landlord to the tenant as far as possible. No doubt the land held by the Land Judges' Court stood in a different position from the rest. He did not actually undertake to appoint a committee of inquiry, but he was satisfied that a distinction could be drawn between the larger part of the land in the hands of solvent landlords and that under the control of the Land Court, and if he could see his way to secure that the land now under the control of the Land Judges' Court should be transferred to the tenants on equitable terms, he should be only too glad to effect that object.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the hon. Member for East Mayo had every reason to be satisfied with the Chief Secretary's answer. If the Chief Secretary would consider the whole constitution of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland he would find that the Dublin Bankruptcy Court was not singular in being overmanned. England, with a population of 30,000,000, only paid three times as much for her Supreme Court of Judicature as Ireland, with a population of 4,500,000. In the first place, in Ireland there were too many Judges. In England, a barrister in good practice reduced, rather than added to, his income by accepting a Judgeship. The average income of a barrister in good practice in Ireland at the present time was put at £2,000 a year.
  THE CHAIRMAN (interposing)said, the salaries of the Judges did not arise on this Vote, but were on the Consoli
  1194
  dated Fund. The hon. Member could discuss the judicial staff in Ireland, but the Judges' salaries did not come under this Vote.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, his point was that in Ireland, unlike England, a barrister accepting a Judgeship considerably increased his income. A spirit of extravagance ran through the whole judicial system. In justice to Ireland and the taxpayers of the country, the Chief Secretary ought to pause when judicial vacancies occurred and ask whether it was not desirable that some of these Judgeships should be abolished and the salaries and expenses of the judiciary in Ireland brought more into accord with the state of the country as regarded population and wealth. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £33,733, to complete the sum required for the salaries and expenses of the Irish Land Commission,
  MR DILLONsaid, he did not know more expensive machinery of reform than the Irish Land Commission. The sum proposed to be taken for next year for the expenses of the Irish Land Commission was, allowing for the sum contributed by the Irish Church Fund, £66,733, and some years ago, when the judicial rents were being settled, the sum required used to amount to considerably over £100,000 a year. So, during the 15 years that the Commission had been in operation, the sum of no less than £1,300,000 had been, expended on the administration of the Commission. An enormous sum had been expended upon the Irish Land Commission, and yet they had only reduced the rents to an extent that the good feeling of the landlords would have prompted them voluntarily to have conceded in the circumstances. Therefore, the Land Act had been in operation for 15 years, with the result that it had, in the language of the late Lord Derby, been a raft on which the landlords had saved their pockets. Hon. Members had heard for many years from the Unionist Party that their idea of settling the Land Question of Ireland was to get rid of the landlords altogether.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, I may remind

  1195
  him that a general discussion upon the Irish Land Question would not be in order upon this Vote. As long as the hon. Gentleman confines his observations to criticising the expense of the machinery of the Land Commission, he will be quite in order; but if he proceeds to a general consideration of the policy of the Land Commission, and of the Land Question, I think that I should have to hold that his remarks would be out of Order.
  MR. DILLON, said he had no intention of going beyond the line which the Chairman had laid down. He, however, desired to point out that, during all the years that this costly Commission had been in existence, no principle had been laid down regulating the fixing of judicial rents in Ireland. No definition had yet been given as to the meaning of the words "fair rent." Some instructions ought to be issued which would serve as a guide in fixing a fair rent. It had been stated that the decision must be left to the discretion of the Assistant Commissioners, who were to go upon the land and place a value upon it by rule of thumb. It must be evident to the Committee that in that case a great deal must depend upon the character of the men who were appointed Assistant Commissioners, and it was the character of those men which had caused grievous dissatisfaction in Ireland with what they had done, and great anxiety for what they might do in the future. No doubt many of the Assistant Commissioners were upright, impartial, and skilful men, but there were also among them many whose antecedents in no way qualified them to discharge efficiently the duties of their office. It was admitted that many of these men had had no previous experience to guide them in valuing land, and there were others of them, he was sorry to say, whose antecedents were calculated to entirely destroy the confidence of the people in their decisions. For instance, many of them had been in the employment of landlords, as valuers, sub-agents, and agents, and were even landlords themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] He held in his hand a very interesting return which had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for South Derry, which showed the names and date of appointment of all the Members
  1196
  of the Land Commission. He had discovered one or two cases where gentlemen who had furnished that return had not given full information as to their antecedents. Some he knew of had returned themselves as surveyors who were not surveyors at all, but had simply been landlords' agents. In the continuation of that return, the right hon. Gentleman should see that inquiries were made with a view to checking the statements. It was essential that this great Department—the most vitally important of all the Departments of the Irish Government—should command the confidence of the people. One of the most important matters at present engaging the attention of Irish people, was the revision of the present judicial rents. In order to revise those rents, a number of new Commissioners would have to be appointed. He would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to be most careful to select men who would, if possible, command the confidence of both landlords and tenants. It would be a very difficult thing to do, but upon the right hon. Gentleman's success in doing it would largely depend the success of that Department. These matters would have to be discussed next year with very great care indeed. There was one other matter he desired to mention now in connection with the Land Commission. Unfortunately, when the Land Acts Committee were appointed, certain Members in the House resisted the inclusion of the Purchase Department, but there was no Department that required reform more than the Purchase Department. He would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to apply himself carefully to the state of that Department, and to examine into the defects and evils which had obstructed its action. One abuse in particular should be removed as soon as possible. The practice had arisen, and been held by some Commissioners to be legal, of making lettings for the purpose of selling farms. He knew of farms let by fathers to sons, for the purpose of borrowing money on the sale of the farm. What, he asked, could be more fraudulent than that a man should let a farm at an exorbitant price so as to borrow the money at 2¾ per cent.? This was a gross abuse, and it had been perpetrated over and over again in different parts of the country.

  1197
  One of the Land Purchase Commissioners who attempted to stop it was overruled by his brother Commissioners. The money was voted by Parliament for the purpose of settling the tenant farmers on their holdings, and not for the purpose of being put into the pockets of impecunious landlords. The Committee were aware that, under the present Land Purchase Act, a certain portion of the price was reserved and guaranteed by the Land Purchase Commissioners, and that portion was not paid out till it had been repaid by the tenant. He contended that if farms were sold at a fair price the State possessed ample security in the tenant-right of the tenant, for the property of the tenant in the farm, as recognised now by the law, was often as great as the property of the landlord, and if he was only called on to buy the property of the landlord, the State, as mortgagee, had half the value of the farm, and the whole of the tenant-right stood as margin of security.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now criticising the law as it exists at present. I do not think that can be discussed on this Vote. I have allowed the hon. Member to deal with the administration of the Land Commission, but any alteration of the law cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  MR. DILLONpointed out that frequently the reports sent to the Land Commission by the inspectors stated that the price fixed between landlord and tenant was too great, and that the farm was no security for the price. He had made inquiries as to whether the inspectors were instructed to separate the interest of the landlord and tenant, but, as a matter of fact, they did not; their custom was to examine a farm as it stood, and to report to the Land Commission whether the farm as it stood was value as security for the advance to be made. In many cases they reported that the farm was not value for the advance to be made, and, he contended, that showed that in the great number of these sales the tenant was compelled not only to pay for the landlord's interest in the farm, but also for the whole of the tenant-right. If that was not so there must be an ample margin of security, because the tenant-right must be there over and above the advance made by the State.
  1198
  He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to get for himself the instructions which were issued to the inspectors of the purchase department, and to cross-question those inspectors as to whether, when they were inspecting a farm and making a report on the nature of the security to the Purchase Commissioners, they took the farm as it stood, or reported on the landlord interest only. His remarks applied especially to certain large estates in Ireland where tenants had been evicted. He hoped this matter would be fully considered by a Committee next year, but pending that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into this point. At the opening of next Session he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would move for the reappointment of the Land Acts Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the administration of the Purchase Commission, and also of the Land Department of the High Court in Ireland.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, that on the Ponsonby estate some of the tenants had purchased a short time ago, but their case would, unhappily, be a warning to others. It was pointed out at the time that the price that was being offered for this land was entirely disproportionate to its value. A large number of the tenants had engaged in an agrarian combination, and there had been a state of conflict on the estate, but he believed about half of them had purchased. They had purchased at so high a price, however, that it would be morally impossible for them to continue to pay the instalments. Unfortunately, it was likely to be only a matter of time when the purchasers on the Ponsonby estate would be in a far worse position than those who were on the holdings at present, and this state of affairs, he contended, was entirely due to the laxity of the Purchase Commissioners.
  THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, said the hon. Member was not entitled to go into the constitution of the Land Commission, as those salaries were not included in the Vote. He must request the hon. Member to leave the Land Commission alone.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, what he wished to deal with was the inspectors who went down to value the land. He knew, as well as any Member of the House, that

  1199
  he could not bring up the Land Commission on this Vote. He was not an old Parliamentary hand, but he knew that these inspectors were supposed to act upon instructions, but so far as he was informed, they did not do so. What they had to do was to see if the land was value to the State, but he contended that they put an extravagant value on the land. They ought to act on definite instructions and they ought not to attach importance to the financial embarrassments of the landlords. The inspectors should have nothing to do with that. They should have only to do with the present value of the land. He contended that the inspectors did not act in that way in the case of which he spoke, the Ponsonby Estate. With regard to the Sub-Commissioners he did not propose to go into that at any length. They might be told that they need not go into it, because it was intended to bring in a Land Bill next Session, but the members of that Committee were supposed to be in ignorance of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. They must take things as they found them, and their charge was that with the exception of a minority of the Sub-Commissioners, the bulk of them acted in the interest of the landlord class, that they were appointed from landlord agents, and that they had utterly failed to do justice to the people or to carry out the intentions of the Act of 1881. He should not weary the Committee with any lengthened reference to the report of Mr. Morley's Committee on that particular point. As far as the administration went, that Committee found that the Sub-Commissioners appointed under the Act went even beyond Adams v. Dunseath, and fixed the rent on the tenant's own improvements, and as if the tenant had no interest in the holding. The history of the manner in which these Sub-Commissioners had fixed the rent on the tenant's own improvements, was one of the most melancholy chapters in the
  1200
  history of how the Act, intended to benefit the tenant, had been whittled down until it had become practically worthless to the tenants of Ireland. Comparing the reductions granted, with the reductions granted voluntarily in England, it must be evident that these Sub-Commissioners had set all the equity of the case out of consideration. He should not say more than that, whatever legislation they might have on this question, he trusted that care would be taken that these Sub-Commissioners should not be drawn exclusively from one class, but from the people who would do justice as between man and man.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member for East Mayo has criticised the Land Commission from two points of view. He has criticised the system, and he has criticised those who have carried it out. As regards the system itself, I am bound to say I can go a very considerable distance with him. He has told the Committee truly that the Commission has since its inception cost no less than £1,300,000, and that the work of the Commission has been to reduce the rents by 20 per cent, per annum. That is to say, that for an expenditure of £,300,000 there has been a gain to the tenants on the whole—if the advantage of the Commission is to be measured in that way—of something like £1,200,000 a year. I agree that that seems to be an enormous sum of public money to spend for a reduction in rents which in England would have been effected, as the hon. Gentleman says, by a voluntary arrangement between landlords and tenants. At the same time I must remind him that, if the Act of 1881 had not been passed, we must not assume that at the present time the tenants would be actually paying the rents they were paying at the time when that Act was introduced, and if you abandon the system of the voluntary arrangement between the landlord and tenant, and substitute for it a system of judically fixing rents, you cannot expect to have the advantage of the

  1201
  voluntary system going on concurrently with the advantage of the judicial system. If the rents are fixed by the Courts for a good number of years, that must have an inevitable tendency to stop any voluntary arrangements that might otherwise have been come to between landlord and tenant. That is a point which hon. Members from Ireland have not always sufficiently considered. The hon. Member went on to quote from the opinion given before the Select Committee by Mr. Doyle—namely, that the Assistant Commissioners were not guided by any principle, and that no one knew what a fair rent was, and he has asked me to do my best in the Land Bill I bring in to give an intelligible definition of what a fair rent is. I am not sanguine that I shall be able to accomplish that task any more than my predecessors. It may be possible to give a definition of a fair rent which is satisfactory in words, but I am bound to say, when it comes to the actual valuation of a farm, that I have very grave doubts whether any definition, however carefully framed, can really do away with what the hon. Member describes as the rule of thumb. The hon. Member for North Cork has referred to the case of "Adams and Dunseath," and he has stated that the Commissioners really were not in the habit of giving to the tenants so much as the judgment of "Adams and Dunseath" allowed, and that they really neglected the terms of that judgment altogether. If that refers to the division of the unearned increment as between the landlord and the tenant, in proportion to their interest in the holding, I think it is only fair to say that, so far as I can gather from the investigation of the subject I have been able to give, the Select Committee were not quite accurate in saying that "Adams and Dunseath" did lay down that principle at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the hon. Member for South Tyrone was wrong? [Laughter.]
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not able to say, because I have not looked into it, what the view of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He agreed with us.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: He may possibly have done so. The opinion I am expressing is at variance with the opinion of hon. Members opposite. If it happen also to be at variance with the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone I am afraid I cannot help that. [Laughter.] My own judgment was that that principle was not really laid down in "Adams and Dunseath," and that it was not fair therefore to charge the Land Commission with having neglected what, if it had been laid down in "Adams and Dunseath," I admit would have been an important element in the case. But that is only by the way. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo and the opinion given by Mr. Doyle, that it is simply a question for the discretion of each Commissioner. I have little doubt myself that there is a large element of truth in it. You may define and define, but when it comes to the practical application of the definition, then it really is a question of the skill which each valuer may have, of course bearing in mind the principles which must guide him in coming to a decision.
  MR. DILLON: It is not so much a question of definition as a question of method.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course I will do my best to make it as clear to the Sub-Commissioners as possible what they have to do, but it is impossible to avoid the use of a rule of thumb to some extent. Hon. Members opposite must know that we on this side of the House have never been very much enamoured of the Act of 1881. We all see the enormous difficulties its application entails, and we have always felt the disadvantage of fixing rents with absolute rigidity for a given number of years. You have ruled it out of order,

  1203
  Sir, to discuss the whole question of land tenure in Ireland, and, even had you not done so, I do not think I could at the present time enter on that subject, because if I did so I should necessarily have to anticipate what I may have to say next Session in introducing the Land Bill. I must say I am appalled not only at the expenditure in which the Land Commission has already involved the country, but I am also appalled at the idea of the expenditure which will be required if we have to deal with all the applications which may come in for fixing judicial rents in a manner similar to that already adopted. If the 30,000 or so applications to refix judicial rents came in during the year following September 30th, and if the Land Commission was to dispose of them in a single year, it would probably entail something like 70 additional sub-commissioners, and would cost the country some £80,000 quite apart from the cost to the parties themselves. I leave the matter there for the judgment of the Committee, in order that they may realise what the present position of affairs is. I may add, by the way, that if the proposal in Mr. Morley's Bill had been adopted, instead of 70 additional Commissioners, we might possibly have had to appoint double that number in order to deal with the applications that would come in. The hon. Member for East Mayo himself admitted that it would be very difficult to discover sufficient Sub-Commissioners who would be able to carry out the work in a satisfactory and impartial manner. I quite agree with the hon. Member in that, but he will also agree with me when I say that that difficulty would be enormous if such a vast number of Sub-Commissioners had to be appointed. The hon. Member said that he believed there had been a large number of bogus cases got up for the purpose of borrowing money at a low rate of interest from the State. Possibly such cases may have been brought before the Commissioners; but of this I am
  1204
  sure, that the Commissioners would inquire into the bonâ fides of all cases. I do not think that a single case could be found in which the Sub-Commissioners have allowed such a case to pass. The hon. Member asked me one other question, and that is whether, in considering the terms of purchase, the Land Commissioners have regard to the value of the landlord's interest only, or also to the value of the tenant's interest in the holding. I believe they have regard to the value of the holding as a going concern—["Hear, hear!"]—and I should imagine they were bound to do that. Then the hon. Member goes on to assume that the tenant has an interest in the holding equal to that of the landlord, and that the Commissioners have sometimes declined to accept the terms voluntarily arranged between landlords and their tenants, and, therefore, that it follows that those terms must have been very much too high, inasmuch as, considering the value of the security, you have to consider the interest of the landlord as well as the interest of the tenant. That is very plausible, but in each individual case you would have to look into the relation of the landlord's interest to the interest of the tenant. I believe the Commissioners have been excessively cautious, perhaps they have been overcautious, but until we really know what precautions they have regarded as necessary to safeguard the State against loss, it is impossible to infer with the hon. Member that the amounts voluntarily arranged in these cases between the landlords and the tenants have been in their opinion too high.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYdid not think that anyone would consider the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to be a conclusive reply to the right hon. Member for East Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his view the Land Commission had been over-cautious. That statement amounted almost to a hint to the Land Commission that they had held the purse-strings too

  1205
  tightly, and been too slow to sanction the arrangements come to between landlords and tenants. But this very slowness on the part of the Commission in making advances was the only protection which the unfortunate tenant had in a great many instances. If the landlord and the tenant were dealing with each other on a footing of perfect equality, he would agree that it was not the function or duty of the Commission to step in between them, and to ascertain whether the bargain made by the landlord and the tenant was just to the latter. But the relations of the parties were not equal. In spite of all the Land Acts a great number of Irish tenants went to meet their landlords with a burden of arrears upon their backs. This made it impossible to regard them as free agents in these purchase transactions. In a large proportion of cases the landlord had it in his power, by demanding the arrears due, to force upon the tenant any bargain which he might think fit to insist upon. In these circumstances, if there were not some Department of State to step in between the landlord and the tenant, to examine their bargain, and to consider whether it was a just one for the tenant, it would be a poor look-out both for him and for the State, which supplied the money for the advances. The right hon. Gentleman said correctly that at present it was not the function of the Land Commission to differentiate between the interests of the landlord and the interests of the tenant. According to the strict law, no doubt the sole function of the Commission, when asked to make an advance, was to inquire whether the holding as it stood was sufficient security for the loan. But the argument of the hon. Member for East Mayo was that the functions of the Commission ought to be extended, and that the Commission ought to investigate these bargains between landlords and tenants, with a view to ascertain whether they were just in the tenants' interest. That would be not
  1206
  only a proper policy in the interest of the tenants, but also a proper policy having regard to the interests of the State, because no system of land purchase could continue in Ireland unless the tenant purchasers could faithfully observe their bargains.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting rather far from the Vote. I ruled some time ago that hon. Members could not discuss the Irish land question on this Vote, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the particulars of the Vote.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether or not it would be open to him to argue that it was the duty of the Land Commissioners to issue such instructions to their valuers as would secure the tenant purchaser from loss.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; I understand no criticism of the action of the Land Commissioners is permissible upon this Vote, because their salaries do not appear upon it. I have permitted criticism upon the character and action of the Assistant Commissioners and inspectors who form the staff, but the hon. Member must not criticise the action of the Commissioners.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, that of course he would bow to the ruling of the Chairman. He would press on the right hon. Gentleman that his sound policy would be to insist that the valuers should keep a tight hand over the national purse-strings, and not shovel out money in any quantity to the landlords of Ireland. He would pass to another point. In the Land Purchase Act of 1890 a clause was inserted placing on the Land Commission the duty of seeing, in connection with the land purchase transactions, that the labourers were properly housed and that provision was made for the erection of cottages on the holdings. That clause had proved a dead letter, and he wished to know why such an important enactment had not been put in force.
  MR. POWERcorroborated the statement of the hon. Member who had just sat down. Since the Election he had been waited on by several tenants among his own constituents, who complained that the inspections made by the inspectors sent down by the Land Commission had been cursory and hurried, and that due regard had not been paid to their representations. They said they were not actually free agents in the agreements made, and that they acted under duress, most of them having had writs served upon them by the landlords. Their condition was desperate, and he would suggest that the Chief Secretary should, under the circumstances, consider whether it was not possible to extend the period for the repayment of the loans which had been made to them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY rose, with increasing reluctance, to speak upon any Irish question. If a man served three years at the Bar he was a lawyer, and was entitled to pass his judgment upon any legal question; if a man studied medicine for a few years he was licensed to kill or cure; if he took a journey to Siam on a Cook's tourist ticket he was an authority upon that subject, or if he went round the world on a few months' trip he was entitled to write about Greater Britain; but if a man spent 40 years in Ireland, devoted himself solely to Irish politics, and made it his special study, then he was the last person in the whole world to be listened to. He was consequently thinking of devoting himself to Mekong and Macedonia—[Laughter]—leaving these small trumpery questions of his native land to English politicians, because they knew from an old saying that a prophet had no honour in his own country. It was, therefore, with great diffidence that he rose to make a few remarks on the Irish land question. He was greatly interested to hear from the Chief Secretary his observations in regard to his future legislation. The right hon. Gentleman dropped one remark that had struck
  1208
  him as singularly interesting, because it was the first indication he had given them of the policy he intended to act upon in regard to his Bill of next Session. He had told them that he was appalled when he came to contemplate the prospect which would open up before the country next spring or autumn in the fact that 30,000 Irish farmers were again to require to have their rents fixed. Fancy a man being appalled at another man's seeking justice! ["Hear, hear!"] Why was he appalled? Because 80 Sub-Commisioners at £500 a year each would have to be appointed, and £40,000 a year would have to be spent upon the settlement of the Irish land question. When they came to the Vote for the Royal Irish Constabulary would the right hon. Gentleman be appalled? £66,000 for the settlement of the Irish land question in the interest of the tenants. How much for the police in the interest of the landlords?—£1,370,000. That did not appall him a bit. There was another significant deduction to be drawn from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary was appalled at the notion of 30,000 tenants going into court, and he had warned the tenants that he was going to take a short way with them. [Mr. G. BALFOUR: "I did not say so."] No, the right hon. Gentleman did not dare to say so, but he was entitled to place his commentary upon the observations, and he maintained it was quite plain the right hon. Gentleman was going to garrot and throttle the rights of the tenants to go into court. The tenants were not to go into court, because Mr. Justice Bewley told them he would postpone judgment on their applications if they did. Yes, but if they did not go into court at once, although judgment might be postponed, what security and guarantee had they that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman might not contain some provision abridging the right they now had to have a fair rent fixed?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was discussing possible legislation next Session. It was obvious that that did not arise on the Vote for the Land Commission, which terminated on March 31 next.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he readily bowed to the Chairman's decision, because he could see the remark of the Minister that he was appalled as to what would happen next year was entirely disorderly.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that if made in that bald way it would have been disorderly. The right hon. Gentleman regarded the Commission as expensive, and, as an illustration of the expense, he referred to the possibility of future developments.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, concerned as he was in the clodhoppers in question, and having no regard whatever to the salaries which might be involved in their getting justice, his advice to the Irish tenants was that, notwithstanding the appalling shock to the conscience of the Irish Secretary, they should, as soon as their rights accrued, serve their notices in court, and leave it to the British Minister to say, when he brought in his Bill next March, how the rush should be dealt with. He did not believe that if the men rushed into court in any numbers, the right hon. Gentleman would have the courage to carry out the views which he imagined were now lurking in his mind. But the Chief Secretary said, with some truth, that the fixing of fair rents must be always more or less in the nature of a rule of thumb; he condemned that method of settlement, and alluded to settlement by legal process Where did the proposition of Euclid come in in the settlement of any legal question. Take the Employers' Liability Act. A workman had his leg taken off by a machine and he got compensation. Was that compensation arrived at by any other rule but the rule of thumb? How could any other rule prevail under a land
  1210
  system whereby the landlord was different in race, religion, thought, feeling, house and home, from the people. The landlord lived in this island and cared nothing about his own land, and in order to prevent his exactions they had set up an abnormal state of things which did not exist, except in India, in any other country in the world. As between Lord Clanricarde living in the Albany, and his tenants over in Galway, he said—"blessed be the rule of thumb." He did not hold up the rule of thumb, as some magnificent emanation of profound genius, but he said it was the only kind of protection the tenants had against their oppressors. As between the labour of the tenant and the so-called rights of the landlord, by every consideration which belonged to justice and equity, the improvements upon a farm were created by the tenant. Where had that contention been questioned? The right hon. Gentleman quarelled with the view of the Morley Committee. But did he quarrel with it upon the doctrine that the improvements were made by the tenants? No, the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to do that. The advocates of the tenants therefore contended that the tribunals, created as they were by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and permeated as they were by the land lord class, should not be allowed to say that those improvements belonged to any man except to the man who by his sweat had created them. The laws were those of the British Parliament; they were made by the enemies of Ireland in the House of Commons, and by her tenfold enemies in the House of Lords. Irish representatives were forced to come to Westminster to discuss them, and then the British Parliament quarrelled with its own handiwork and called them "rule of thumb." The British Parliament wished Irishmen to worship its laws, while it spat upon them itself. That was practically the Irish question. These Sub-

  1211
  Commissioners were 70 or 80 in number, and with one or two exceptions they were all landlords' men. The Chief Secretary was appalled at the thought of the Irish peasant having resort, not to the Land League, or the Riband Societies, or the Moonlighters, but to the tribunals which he himself appointed. He denounced this British pharisaism in connection with the Irish land question. There was no mystery about that question; it was so simple that it was ridiculous to discuss it. The Irish kern, who had made the land, whose home it was, who had to work on it in hunger and rain, sought some little right to acquire more decent sustenance than the pig and the fowl which housed with him. [Cheers.] He asked that he should be required to give to the landlord, who was away at Epsom or Monte Carlo, only what would leave him, the tenant, enough to live in misery and rags. The Chief Secretary was appalled at this expenditure on the Land Commission; but the million and three-quarters spent on the Royal Irish Constabulary was the delight and boast of Parliament. And what a magnificent body of men they were. [Ministerial Cheers.] Any one could be loyal at 30s. a week. If the Irish peasants, who hardly got 2s. 6d. a week out of their holdings, were given 30s. a week, they might be inclined to recognise more than they did the benefits of the British Constitution. The land question, or the future or the past policy of the Government, could not be discussed on this Vote. The only question that could be discussed was whether the salaries of the Secretary and Assistant-Secretary were or were not excessive. Here were the Irish Members, with a nation behind them, panting to know what the Government were going to do about the land question next year; there was not a peasant in Ireland to whom this question did not involve the whole of life interest; and yet the Irish representatives were not allowed even to offer a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government on the
  1212
  subject. He did not desire to deny the right hon. Gentleman sufficient time to consider the Irish land question. It had been considered long enough. They began its consideration with the Devon Commission 50 years ago.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have to inform the hon. Member again—and I think that he recognises the ruling to be just—that the land question generally cannot be properly raised on this Vote. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, hon. Members rejoiced at that statement. They did not want the Irish question to be discussed. [Cries of "Order" and cheers.] But the Irish Members were sent to Westminster to discuss it. The Irish people took no interest in anything else. This was not their Parliament; and the Irish Members came to it to fight their opponents in handcuffs. He made no complaint of the ruling of the Chairman. Practically, he believed it was the ruling that their own friends in the chair would arrive at; but it resulted from the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury had taken the salaries of the Judicial Commissioners off the Estimates, and had put them on the Consolidated Fund. The only question they could discuss on the Vote, therefore, was whether the Land Commission was an economical system or not. As far as he was concerned, he was not in the least interested whether the Irish Land Commission was economically worked or not. Personally he did not care whether it cost £60,000 or £660,000, The more that oppression cost in Ireland the better he was pleased; he would not cross the floor of the House to save the British Treasury a million of money. The more it cost this country the better he was satisfied. Acting, therefore, on the ruling of the Chair, he had only to express his opinion, for the benefit of those in Ireland who might read what he said [ironical cheers], that, having regard to the series of speeches the right hon. Gentleman had made, the series of letters which he had caused to

  1213
  be written to the Irish Land Commission and which he had been afraid to produce [cheers], the replies which he had received from the Land Commission, and which he had been afraid to lay on the table of the House, the circumstance that he was appalled at the prospect of 30,000 Irish farmers having the right to go into Court next September or November, the fact that the Government had promoted three gentlemen who had voted against the Report of the Morley Committee as against one in favour of it, that the right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way to condemn the Morley Report on the one point vitally interesting to the tenant— its view of the case of "Adams v. Dunseath"—his advice to the Irish farmers would be to put little faith in the promises of the right hon. Gentleman of legislation in the course of next year. If they did they would be disappointed, and they would be well advised, if they now considered that they had the right to go into Court, to exercise that right while it still remained to them, in order to prevent that right from being taken away from them, as was threatened in the next Bill promised by the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.]
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £63,104 to complete the sum for County Court Officers and others in Ireland,
  MR. POWERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the great inconvenience that had been occasioned by the withdrawal of Civil Bill Courts from Carrick-on-Suir and Carrickbeg. Last year representations were made to the Chief Secretary, and it was arranged that the Courts should be restored; but there had been a misunderstanding as to the number of Courts that should be held, and it appeared to have been the decision of the Privy Council that the Courts should be held only once a year. He did not wish to draw an exact parallel between
  1214
  the County Courts in England and in Ireland: but, whereas in England quite small towns had a County Court sitting once a month, in Ireland they were denied even the small concession of having sittings twice a year. The difference between England and Ireland was that, whereas in England the convenience of the people was consulted, in Ireland they consulted rather the convenience of the highly-paid officials.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that his impression was that this was a question for the Judicial Committee.
  MR. POWERsaid that, if the right hon. Gentleman would only express an opinion that the demand now made was, on the face of it, just and reasonable, he thought that those gentlemen would take their cue from him, and would submit to this small, just, and reasonable demand.
  MR. FLYNNcalled attention to the case of Robert Gleeson, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir John Carden, who was, he stated, sentenced at Templemore Petty Sessions under a Statute of Edward III. It seemed extraordinary that the return of a Conservative Government should lead to the recrudescence of cases of magisterial oppression, which characterised the administration of 1880–1891. They would be very loath to attack the question of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland, if they were not forced to do so by cases of that kind. He had asked the Attorney General that afternoon, about this case, and the right hon. Gentleman had replied that several prosecutions had taken place during the late administration.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, he had stated that there were several hundreds.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he challenged that statement. He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his information. He wished to know under what statute the residential Magistrate proceeded to this extremity, and sent this unfortunate evicted tenant to prison for a month? The fact was that this man

  1215
  was trying to sell some sheep, and the evicted tenant said to the possible purchasers, "These sheep ought to be good sheep, for they were grazed on my evicted farm." He held that to be an extraordinary and coercive law which could make an offence of such an utterance. It was admitted by the steward in cross-examination that that was the only act that the tenant had done, and that he had used no violence, obstruction, or intimidation, and yet the Resident Magistrate sent the man to prison for a month. He asked hon. Member's representing English and Scotch constituences to give a fair consideration to this case. In this country the workmen had the right of striking for higher wages. If their employer says to them, "I cannot give you more than so much wages," the men have a right to say to him, "we cannot accept the wages you propose to offer us," and to leave their employment. But further than that, the men had a right to station one of themselves at their employer's door, and advise those who came to fill their places not to enter into the employment. Why should not the law in Ireland be based upon the same principle? How did an evicted Irish tenant break the law by saying "These ought to be good sheep because they were fed npon my farm?" Under the ordinary law no man could have been prosecuted for making such a statement, and the right hon. Gentleman would have been ashamed to have introduced a Bill into the House for the purpose of making such a statement a criminal offence. The prosecution in this case had, therefore, been compelled to fall back upon the obsolete statute of Edward III. Surely that statute was opposed in principle to the now acknowledged right of Trade Unionists to combine for their own protection. The Resident Magistrate, however, acting under the power supposed to be conferred upon him by that ancient statute, had bound this man over to keep the peace, "which you have, not broken, or else we shall send you to prison for a month." The law under which this man was prosecuted was a monstrous one. It was a most unhappy thing for the Government that such a case as this should be brought before the country, and he was firmly convinced that the right hon. Gentleman had
  1216
  not heard the last of this matter. He was anxious to hear what reply the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General would give as to the proceedings at Templemore Petty Sessions, but if the Government went on in this way they would raise a very strong feeling in Ireland. They were anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should get fair play, and they should help him by every means in their power, but he warned him that a mean, miserable tyranny of this kind would raise a spirit in Ireland which could not be put down.
  MR. DILLONsaid, a few cases of this kind had occurred, but in those cases the most angry protests had been made by the Irish Nationalist Members. The practice pursued here was most scandalous and outrageous. What was the case with regard to this unfortunate man? He was harshly and cruelly evicted. He was now suffering a second term of imprisonment. He was put under a rule of bail to be of good behaviour and keep the peace. He had not broken the peace, and he had not done anything which in England was not perfectly legal and commonly done by the working men of this country. There was the strike at Northampton.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the hon. Member is going rather far from the question.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the Attorney General had justified the placing of this man under a rule of bail, and he (Mr. Dillon) was contending that the man's action was exactly on all fours with the proceedings of the working men in this country. Mr. Gleeson had as much right to do what he did as the strikers in a recent boot strike had to endeavour to dissuade men from going into shops concerned in the dispute. Then, he understood that in cases of intimidation in this country the practice was to leave the prosecution to the individual aggrieved. But in Ireland, the numerous police force were ever ready immediately to set the law in motion. In this instance a cruel injustice had been done, and proceedings of this character, instead of promoting peace, would considerably increase the difficulties in preserving law and order in Ireland. He would await with interest the proofs that the late Government instituted hundreds of prosecutions under the Statute of Edward

  1217
  III. His recollection was that there were only two or three cases, and that in only one, instance was a man imprisoned. In every single instance in which the late Government attempted to enforce that Statute, the Nationalist Members remonstrated in the strongest possible language. Whether they were instituted by a Liberal Government or by a Tory Government, proceedings of this character were an abominable perversion of the law, and ought not to be tolerated for a single moment. He protested against this straining of the law against poor and defenceless tenants in Ireland, and he would impress upon the Chief Secretary that he should depart from the evil position taken up by the Irish Office, and should administer the law equally and indifferently between the poor tenants and the wealthy landlords of the country. If there was to be any inclination towards one side or the other, the right hon. Gentleman ought to loan rather towards an indulgent attitude towards the poor and defenceless, than towards the rich and powerful.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTINdesired to direct the attention of the Committee to an extraordinary answer given by the Chief Secretary to a question put by him that day. He did not think it necessary to put a supplemental question because this Vote was coming on. As the case was typical of many others, he thought he was justified in calling attention to this subject. The question he put was as to whether a gun licence was refused by the resident magistrate to one Thomas Ambrose, a most respectable farmer of Ardagh, in the county of Limerick. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that he did not differ with the conclusions arrived at by the magistrates. If that was the principle adopted by the Chief Secretary it foreboded ill for the future. He thought it was the duty of the Chief Secretary, before he made that reply, to inquire into the character of the man whose application was refused. The matter had created a deep feeling in the district, and in every other part of the county. It seemed to him that this magistrate was not actuated by fine feelings of justice. He was rather inclined to believe that feelings of a different character must have actuated him in the decision he gave.
  1218
  He acted in antagonism to everyone who held Nationalist opinions, and on the Bench he had displayed animus to an extraordinary degree. The farmer whose application for a licence was refused was a well-known man in Ardagh, and his character would bear the closest investigation. Although his application was refused, a licence was granted two weeks ago by the same magistrate to an individual who had been found discharging his gun at people in a public road when suffering under the effects of drink. He pressed the Chief Secretary for an inquiry into the conduct of this Resident Magistrate.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND, replying to the hon. Member for East Mayo, said that it was very difficult for him to discuss the case of Robert Gleeson in that House, and for this reason:—If the contention of the hon. Member for Mayo was well founded, and if the order made against Gleeson was pronounced without any evidence whatever to justify it, it would be quite open to him to apply for a writ of certiorari, with the object of getting the order quashed. He had not the slightest alarm, so far as his own action was concerned, in discussing the particulars of this case. The prosecution, if prosecution it could be called, was nothing more than this, that a summons was served upon this man alleging that he did unlawfully watch and beset one Henry Morgan, and unlawfully obstruct and prevent him from conducting his lawful business, namely, sheep-selling, at the fair at Templemore, and did induce and prevent other persons from purchasing sheep from the said Henry Morgan with intent to injure him and the owner of the said sheep, and had been at said time and place guilty of conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. It was an ordinary form of summons. In regard to this jurisdiction the hon. Member for East Mayo said it did not exist or could not be exercised in England.
  MR. DILLON: No, I did not say that. I said it would not be used in similar cases in England.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELANDdid not know that similar cases would arise in England, but this jurisdiction which magistrates had exercised, not as a punishment for crime

  1219
  actually committed, but in furtherance of preventive justice, to compel a man to give sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, existed in England as well as in Ireland, and existed not under the Statute of Edward at all, but under the commission which every magistrate holds. In regard to this matter, Mr. Morley, replying to a question on June 21 last, said, in reference to the application of this statute to the Massereene evicted tenants:—
  "Justices of the Peace in England and in Ireland have at all times exercised the power of requiring persons to find sureties for good behaviour when, in the exercise of their judgment, a case is made out for it in evidence. The power is founded on their commission as justices and the Statute of Edward, and it is, and has been, the ordinary law."
  That was the jurisdiction which the magistrates exercised, and they exercised it to prevent conduct calculated to provoke crime and lead to a breach of the peace. It was a jurisdiction not peculiar to Ireland, but which existed in England. It was entirely inaccurate to say that Gleeson was ordered to give sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for merely stating that the sheep had been fed on a boycotted farm. He dogged the vendor of the sheep for three hours and warned off people who, in all probability, according to the evidence, would have purchased the sheep. No conduct was more likely to lead to a breach of the peace or to interfere with the lawful right which every man in the community had to sell his produce in open market. ["Hear, hear!"] It was for these acts that Gleeson was bound over to keep the peace. The hon. Member for Mayo had challenged him to point to any case under the late Administration where men were held to bail under this statute for similar offences. He had not a complete list by him, but he should be happy to furnish one to the hon. Member if he would put a question on the Paper. He had shown where Mr. Morley enforced this Act against the evicted tenants on the Massereene estate. [Mr. DILLON: "Tried to enforce it."] He did not see how the Executive was less to blame for having taken an abortive proceeding. ["Hear, hear!"] In 274 agrarian cases during the three years of Mr.
  1220
  Morley's administration, men were held to bail to give securities to keep the peace and be of good behaviour under summonses actually in this form, and 71 were sent to prison in default of bail. In those three years 941 persons were proceeded against under summonses identical with this and were bound to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, those who made default being sent to prison. ["Hear, hear!"] So far from the present Government giving a different direction to the administration of the criminal law and putting in force statutes which had been laid aside during the term of office of the late Government, quite the contrary was the case, and they had merely pursued the policy adopted for the last 15 or 16 years. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DILLONconfessed that he was surprised at the figures the right hon. Gentleman had given, and would take an opportunity of ascertaining whether they were accurate or not. He would only say that conduct similar to that adopted in this case would not be tolerated in England. When the bootmakers were on strike in Northampton they sent round men on bicycles to persuade country manufacturers and finishers not to take the boots of the Northampton makers. That was an analogous case to that of Gleeson, but it was not attempted to adopt the procedure in England which was adopted in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas not acquainted with the facts of the case to which the hon Member referred. He was responsible for administration of justice in Ireland, and he had, he considered, shown that in this case the magistrates acted quite properly in the course they took. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question in regard to the process-servers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no control whatever in the matter. It is a matter entirely for the County Court Judge.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that was all very good; but the salaries of the process-servers were included in this Vote. Had the Committee no control over their salaries? All he asked was that persons occupying quasi-judicial

  1221
  positions in the service of writs and processes should not be allowed to act as partisans. In England—that great and free and noble country—it would not be tolerated; and what he wanted was to have the law of England applied to Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for an expression of my opinion, I say it is undesirable that persons holding these positions should act as partisans.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make any inquiries into the case of Mr. Ambrose, who was refused a gun licence. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police sergeant gave this man a most exemplary character and supported the granting of the licence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he was not aware.
  MR. FLYNNurged that if a farmer applied for a licence for a gun for use on his own farm the political predilections of the magistrate should not be allowed to interfere. He believed it was perfectly impossible that cases such as had been mentioned could have occurred in England. He challenged any English Member to show that any case of the kind had happened in this country.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £56,178, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police,
  MR. T. M. HEALYcomplained of the legal disability of pawnbrokers in Dublin to form limited liability companies.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDpromised to look into the matter.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £675,461, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Constabulary,
  MR. DILLONsaid, he abstained from protesting against this Vote during the time of the late Government, because it was the policy of that Government to grant Home Rule to Ireland,
  1222
  and the Home Rule scheme contemplated the reorganisation and reduction of the police establishment. Fifteen years ago a most remarkable speech was delivered by the late John Bright on the Irish Constabulary Vote. He said that the speeches of the Irish Members had been of a character to produce an effect on the House, and that he agreed with a great deal that had been said. He referred to the Irish Constabulary as a force differing from any force in Great Britain for the preservation of the peace, and added that in the then condition of Ireland it was almost necessary. But that showed how much there was to be done to change the condition of the general mass of the Irish people; and he expressed the hope that the time would come when the police system of Ireland might be placed on a footing as judicious, and as conformable to English ideas of freedom as that of the English police. Mr. Bright made that speech 15 years ago, and since that time nothing had been done to carry out his views. The whole history of the Royal Irish Constabulary was most extraordinary, for, as the population of Ireland had decreased, the cost of the police force had increased. At one time the force was partly paid out of the local resources of Ireland, but at the time of the Repeal of the Corn Laws the whole cost was thrown on the British Exchequer by Sir Robert Peel. In 1860 the force cost £700,000 a year, and the population of Ireland was more than 6,000,000. In 1870 the cost was £911,000 a year; in 1871 it cost £913,000 a year; in 1880 it cost £1,134,000 a year; in 1886 it cost £1,396,000 a year; in 1888 it cost £1,412,000 a year, and at that figure it now stood. So that while the population had decreased by a million and a half, the cost of the police force had doubled since 1860. The facts and figures showed that there must be something radically wrong in the social system of Ireland; and there did not appear to be any prospect of change in this extraordinary position of things. The Constabulary cost £1,400,000 in 1887, and with a decrease of 300,000 in the population, the cost was still the same. In 1860 the Constabulary cost 2s. 4d. per head of the population, and to-day 7s. per head. The facts required

  1223
  some explanation, for, apart from agrarian disturbance, the Irish were practically a crimeless people. Outside the large towns it was purely an agricultural population, and it should cost less to police an agricultural than a manufacturing population. In the English boroughs outside London there was one policeman to 1,200 of the population; in Ireland, outside of Dublin, there was one to 300; in other words, there were four times as many policemen in proportion to the population. The reason was the Irish police were used for military purposes; they were a standing army to maintain the injustice of rent. The landlords had been encouraged in their oppression by an absurd use of the police. No landlord in Great Britain expected armed police to be put in motion at his wish to evict tenants. There was no civilised country in the world in which such performances went on as was constantly to be seen in Ireland in the shape of summary evictions for non-payment of excessive rent. The police, acting as bailiffs and servants of the Irish landlords, had caused outrageous expense for the Irish police, amounting to £1,000,000 more than should be required, and £700,000 or £800,000 for the Irish Land Commission to reduce rents which were too high. The Imperial Exchequer was bled to the extent of £1,500,000 a year to keep up the system of landlord government in Ireland. How long was Ireland to have a police force costing three or four times as much as that of any other country in the world? Some explanation for this state of things should be given before the House was asked to pass this Vote.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member had exaggerated the figures as to the Irish police. The force did not number more than 11,000. It was reduced during Mr. Morley's tenure of office by 688, and between August, 1886, and August, 1892, when a Conservative Government held office, it was reduced by 571 men.
  MR. DILLON: There has been no reduction in the cost.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, but in the number of men. The additional cost was to a considerable extent due to the Pension Scheme introduced by Act of Parliament. But, although the hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that
  1224
  during the past three years he did not think it incumbent upon him to attack the size of the Constabulary force and the amount expended upon it because there was a Government in office friendly to his own views of Irish policy, he could hadly expect him, immediately after coming into office, to do what he did not ask the late Government to do.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the late Government were pledged to a large scheme for the reconstruction of the Government of Ireland which entailed a great reduction in the police. A Unionist Government now came in not so pledged, and he wanted to know what their intentions on the subject were.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that a reduction had been made in the number of men in the force by the two last Governments. As, however, Mr. Morley did not find it possible to carry out any considerable reduction in the force, he did not see any prospect of the present Government being able to do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALYhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not confound them with Mr. Morley. They were Irish Nationalists, and had nothing to do with Mr. Morley. He protested against the whole system—the Government of Ireland as carried on by Mr. Morley and by Mr. Balfour, and by anybody else. Mr. Morley, however, did one good thing, inasmuch as he had issued a direction that one-half of the officers of the force should be chosen from the ranks. Instead of selecting the young men from Yorkshire to fill the ranks of the force they should be taken from among the Irish people themselves. He did not complain of the amount of the Estimate. The more wasteful the Government were the more he would like it, except in so far as he was a taxpayer himself. This was only a part of the great system of disease which affected the country. [Cheers.] When they attacked the Constabulary system, they attacked only, as it were, its big toe; the head and heart of the system were at Westminster, and it was here that they should be attacked. [Cheers.] The Constabulary were only an illustration of the system. He would not sit down without congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the most apt means he had devised for avoiding Irish

  1225
  Debate. He had driven them into discussing this most important Vote and other Irish Votes at half-past one in the morning, and then said that they were all tired and wanted to go to bed. Irishmen had seen many illustrations of the methods of Unionist Government, but this admirable addition and appendix to Unionist policy was a fit ending to this happy fortnight. [Laughter and cheers.]
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £69,883, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland,
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY rose to call attention to the case of the Maamtrasna prisoners, as to whose conviction, he said grave doubt existed. One of those prisoners had died. Some of them were Irish-speaking people and were denied the ordinary solaces of religion by being confined in a part which was not an Irish-speaking part of the country. Lord (then Sir Charles) Russell, Sir Edward (then Mr.) Clarke, and others had voted with them in a former Division on this question. Seeing that grave doubt existed as to the conviction of these men; in view of the strong minute which had been placed on the books of the prison by the visiting justices; and looking to the other points he had mentioned, he would suggest that the time had come when some re-consideration of their cases might be promised by the Government,
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the case of these prisoners had already been carefully considered.
  Vote agreed to.
  Vote of £56,095, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland—agreed to.
  Vote of £3,795, to complete the sum for Dundrurn Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland—agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  On the Vote of £528,807, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland,
  MR. FLYNNsaid the Irish Members would like to have an opportunity of discussing this vote on the report stage.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they could not foresee the course of the next day's Debate, but he thought they ought to finish the Navy Estimates before they separated on the next day. On the Army Estimates there were important questions to be raised, but he thought more important questions were likely to be raised on the Navy Estimates. It was possible that the hon. Member might not be better off the following day than he was that night, but if he liked to take the chance he had no objection.
  MR. FLYNNsaid they would take the chance.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote of £605 for Endowed Schools Commissioners in Ireland,
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked that some time during the recess the Chief Secretary would receive a deputation, so that he might learn the views of those interested in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he should be quite ready to receive a deputation.
  Vote agreed to.
  Vote of £1,254 to complete the sum for National Gallery of Ireland—agreed to.
  Vote of £2,450 to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland—agreed to.

  CLASS VI.
  Vote of £11,966, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland—agreed to.
  Vote of £6,846, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Charities, Ireland—agreed to.

  CLASS VII.
  £7,692 to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions—agreed to.
  Vote of £22,800 (including a Supplementary sum of £21,800), to complete the sum for Relief of Distress (Ireland)—agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.

  SUPPLY [28th AUGUST].
  Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS ESTIMATES, 1895–6.

  CLASS III.
  On the Report of the Vote for the salaries of the Law Officers,
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, he desired an explanation of the new Minute in reference to the salaries of the Law Officers. It appeared on the face of the Minute as if the country had got some advantage from the changes that had taken place. The Minute showed that the salaries of the Attorney General and Solicitor General were now £7,000 and £6,000 respectively, whereas, formerly, they were £10,000 and £9,000 respectively. But under the new arrangement, law officers were allowed to take fees for contentious business, and this seemed to make a great difference between the two Minutes and required some explanation. As to the fees to be paid, it was provided that they should be only those which were regarded as the ordinary professional fees which any Queen's Counsel of average standing might receive. An interpretation of those words in the Minute put that fee at 150 guineas, with refreshers of 30 guineas a day.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): That is the maximum.
  MR. LOUGHthought they were accustomed to find that the maximum was generally reached. He thought a fee of fifty guineas would be sufficient. In cases of exceptional importance an increased fee might be given in the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When it was considered that these fees had to be paid in addition to the salaries of £7,000 and £6,000 a year, it did seem to be a matter worthy of consideration. It was, to his mind, a retrograde step, and he would like to know why the arrangement arrived at during the last Parliament was to be upset. He thought it was a most mischievous thing, if, after a matter of this kind had been settled with great difficulty, it should be so soon reopened.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,)said, he could explain in a
  1228
  very few words what the Government meant by the change which had been effected in this matter. The last Minute of the late Government had been entirely adhered to in the matter of forbidding the Law Officers to take private practice, and that was done after careful consideration by Her Majesty's Government. It was in accordance with what they thought right and with what they believed to be the general opinion of the House. He could only express his very great regret that, owing to their feeling it right to take that step, they had lost the services of an old colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth ["Hear, hear!"] The other part of the Minute differed from the decision arrived at by the late Government under which the Law Officers were each paid £3,000 a year more in respect of contentious business. The present proposal was that in future they should be paid fees for contentious business, carefully limited with regard to the cases in which they should be employed, and the amount of the fees, so that, in the belief of those who were accustomed to deal with such matters, the amount paid in fees would not exceed the amount in salary paid by their predecessors in office. The details of the Minute had been settled after careful consultation between his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, the permanent officials of the Treasury, and the Solicitor to the Treasury. The reason for the change was, that it was considered better and fairer to all parties that in this matter the Law Officers should be paid for the actual work they did. They believed that by this means the Law Officers' services would be secured in a satisfactory way, which would accord with the established rules of their profession. The Government also believed that the result of the change would not be to cast any increased burden upon the taxpayers.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Other Resolutions reported agreed to.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 19th August, adjourned the House without question put.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'clock.