Sitting of 8 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
(Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from
310
one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely—

MANCHESTER CARRIAGE AND TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]

  SAINT MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  (Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with).—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely—

  NEWCASTLE - UPON - TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
(Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAYS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
DUNDEE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
PETITIONS.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Against: From London (2), Brixton, West Wycombe, and Crewe; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Bristol and Whitby; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Against: From Kirkcaldy; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  In favour: From Paisley (2); to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Dysart; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES REGISTRATION BILL.
  In favour: From Gravesend; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Dosthill and Bradford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  INLAND TRANSIT OF CATTLE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.)
  Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into and report upon the Inland Transit of Cattle, with Copy of the Minute appointing the Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into and report upon the Inland Transit of Cattle, with Appendices and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 290 of Session 1897) as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Twentieth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1897–8, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2147 to 2151 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 469 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY AND MARINES.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 24th May; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table.

  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
  Copy ordered "of Return of Loss of Life at Sea for the year 1897 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper C. 8537)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 285.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WHARTONreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Beach, and had appointed in substitution Mr. Nicol.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 286.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 296.]

BILLS ADVANCED.
  ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 297.]
  LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 18th July, and to be printed. [Bill 298.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
POOR LAW UNIONS' ASSOCIATION BILL. SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND), LONDONDERY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
    Amendments to—

    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    without Amendment.
    NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL,
    with an Amendment.
    CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
    with Amendments.
QUESTIONS.

  ALIENS IN LONDON.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is able to inform the House how many aliens came in the course of the year 1897 into the custody of the Metropolitan and City police, and how many were convicted of the offences with which they were charged; and, further, in respect of how many fugitives from foreign criminal justice was application for extradition addressed to New Scotland Yard and Old Jewry in the same twelve months; and how many persons were deported to England by Ministerial decree of expulsion in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria-Hungary, and Russia?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Three thousand and thirty-five aliens came into the custody of these police forces in 1897, of whom 2,201 were convicted. Applications for extradition are addressed to the Government, and only in cases of emergency or by inadvertence is a direct communication made to the police; 43 applications were received in 1897, the number of fugitive criminals whose surrender was demanded being 50. In addition warrants were issued on direct application to a magistrate for the provisional arrests of 31 persons who were either not found or were discharged because the demand for extradition was not proceeded with. I have no information in regard to the last paragraph of the Question.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that a considerable number of persons are deported?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I can only say that I have no means of getting accurate information.
  MR. COHEN: I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he knows how many of these persons who were convicted answer to the description of pauper aliens?
  SIR M. W. RIDLEY: I imagine the great majority of them were pauper aliens, but I cannot say accurately.

  SHUTTLE-GUARDS.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the time has now come when he can lay before the House the Report on shuttleguards promised by him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: A complete return cannot yet be given; and, moreover, in consequence of the progress that is being made with the fencing of looms, the figures are materially changing, and any return would need repeated revision. So far, however, as can be stated at present, over 80 per cent. of the more rapid looms are already provided with guards.
  SIR C. DILKE: I have not asked for a return—I wanted the promised report.

SICKNESS IN THE ARMY.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of sick soldiers annually granted sick furlough for the purpose of residing with their friends; the number of soldiers suffering from incurable disease who die annually in hospital; the number of men who have served in the Army now in the workhouses of the United Kingdom; and the number who die annually in these institutions?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The statistics collected for Army hospitals will not afford the particulars asked for. As regards workhouses, a return was obtained for a particular night in December, 1897, when it was found that 8,952 men were present who claimed to have had Army service; but 5,710 of them were unable to substantiate that claim. As to deaths in workhouses, I have no information.

PAYMENT OF WAGES IN LIVERPOOL POST OFFICE.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the wages paid to the Liverpool postal and telegrah staff on Saturday, 2nd July, were drawn from the cashier in the case of the telegraphists at 2 p.m. on the previous Friday, and in the case of the postmen and sorters at 4 p.m., and held in hand by the pay clerks until Saturday; also that early duty men kept on overtime till 10.30 p.m. through the American mails, and then coming on afternoon duty, had their families deprived of their wages until too late for the markets; whether in the 40 years the indoor staff and the 16 years the outdoor staff have enjoyed the privilege of payment on Fridays, a single case of an employee decamping without completing the Saturday's work has been known; and whether the Department will return to the former practice?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It was, of course, necessary for the officer entrusted with the duty of paying the staff to draw the amount from the cashier beforehand. The Postmaster General regrets if inconvenience was caused to a section of the men by their receiving their wages somewhat later than the rest, and with a view to preventing this as far as possible in future, he has arranged for the wages to be paid as soon as the staff come on duty on Saturday. He is not aware of any post office servant at Liverpool having failed to perform the
318
Saturday's work for which he had been paid in advance on the day before, but he has no power to sanction the payment on Friday of wages to be earned on the following day.

THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although the staff of the Central Telegraph Office spend £25,000 annually in the refreshment branch, the executive officers of the branch—namely, the president, manager, and the secretary—are appointed by the Department without reference to the staff; also that the manager buys all provisions and pays all bills without referring the details of such transactions to the staff's representatives; whether he would consider the advisability of providing a more representative system of management to encourage the staff to endure the present discomforts whilst awaiting the proposed improvements; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists, he will conduct a personal inquiry into the whole matter?
MR. HANBURY: Since 1890, when the Department took over the control of the refreshment branch of the Central Telegraph Office, the president, the manager, and the secretary have been appointed by the Department, the two latter being also paid by the Department. The manager orders all supplies of food, but the bills are paid by the treasurer. The accounts are duly audited and submitted to the committee for approval. The committee consists of 12 members, four (including the president, manager, secretary, and one other) nominated by the Department and eight elected by the staff, who thus have a greater preponderance than exists in other similar cases. Under these circumstances it is not considered that a more representative system of management is needed. The standing Departmental committee on refreshment arrangements has been instructed to require into the whole matter and to report what changes, if any, can be adopted to improve the arrangements temporarily.

POSTAL TELEGRAPH CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state the reason why Mr. C. H. Garland, the local secretary of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, was excluded from the deputation of telegraph clerks who interviewed the Controller on 29th June with reference to the refreshment branch?
MR. HANBURY: I can only repeat what I said on the 4th instant. The Controller of the Central Telegraph Office told one of his superintendents that it was his wish to see telegraphists from each division, who should be generally representative of the staff. This superintendent, in exercising the discretion with which he was thus entrusted, excluded Mr. Garland. But at least two members of the association who are, it is understood, serving on the committee were included in the deputation.

WALES AND THE SCIENCE AND ART GRANT.
MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state what amount was paid to Wales in the year 1897, under the Estimates for the Science and Art Department (sub-head D, item 8), and what approximately was the share received by Wales of the total Vote of £249,050 provided for 1897–8 under the sub-head referred to; and whether, in view of the fact that Wales has no national museum, he will consider the desirability of further increasing the provision made in the Estimates for lending works of art to local centres?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): No payment was made to Wales in 1897 from sub-head D, item 8. The payments made to Wales out of the several items composing sub-head D amounted to £7,432 in the financial year 1897–8. Any applications received from Wales for loans of objects to local museums will, as in the past, receive the fullest consideration.

CRUELTY TO MAIL CART HORSES.
MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been drawn to the conviction last week of Edward Gibson, of Brierley Hill, Staffordshire, mail van driver, and Bernard Maginn, of Birmingham, contractor, at the Brierley Hill Police Court, for cruelty to a horse drawing the mail cart from Birmingham to Brierley Hill, the first-named being charged for driving the animal, and the latter for causing it to be worked, the evidence showing the horse to be in a deplorable state, with sores on both shoulders and elsewhere, and that the condition of the horse had been pointed out to Bernard Maginn; and whether, under these circumstances, the Postmaster General will cancel the contract now in existence, and direct that in future no other contract shall be given to Bernard Maginn in connection with Her Majesty's mails?
MR. HANBURY: Attention was called to the conviction of Gibson and Maginn for cruelty to a mare engaged in drawing the Birmingham and Brierley Hill mail cart, and a communication on the subject was made to the contractor on the 4th instant. The Postmaster General has given notice to terminate the present contract, and, of course, has no intention of entering into any other contract with Maginn.

CHANNELSEA RIVER.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attentions has been drawn to the condition of that part of the Channelsea river which lies within the county borough of West Ham; whether he is aware that, under certain conditions of tide and of weather, this water is little better than an open sewer, and therefore dangerous to the public health; also that for several years a conflict of opinion hits existed between the Lea Conservancy and the several local sanitary authorities as to the responsibility for the pollution of the river: and whether, having regard to the serious

321
annoyance and dangers arising from the present condition of these waters, he can take any steps to have the local responsibility determined and satisfactorily discharged?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I believe that the facts are practically as stated in the Question, but the powers of the Local Government Board are very limited in this matter, and I have no authority to determine the local responsibility. I am alive, however, to the fact that the present condition of affairs is very far from satisfactory, and I am taking such measures as I can to bring about an improvement. I may add that the corporation are disinfecting the Channelsea daily, and they promoted a Bill this Session which would have given them absolute authority to cleanse and scour the river, but the preamble was held not to be proved.
MR. GRAY: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of holding an inquiry of a public character?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I have already given instructions to the inspector to visit the locality and make a report to me. I should like first to see what he has to say in the matter.

ARREST OF ARROYO SEAMEN.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention was called to the arrest and imprisonment of two seamen named Victor Rolph and Arnold Alexander from on board the steamship Arroyo on the 1st of June, whilst the vessel was lying in the Northumberland Dock, in the port of Tyne; whether he is aware that the arrest was made by two dock constables in the employ of the River Tyne Commission; that they went on board the vessel and arrested and handcuffed the two men without any authority; also that these men were detained in the North Shields police station, and that no charge against
322
them was entered in the charge book or read over to the men until they were put in the dock before the magistrates; whether he is aware that the two magistrates trying the case were shipowners, and that on the uncorroborated evidence of the captain they sentenced the men to 14 days' imprisonment; also that it was afterwards discovered that the men had been unjustly convicted and imprisoned; and after they had been kept in gaol for eight days were released on an order from the Home Office; whether he can state if dock policemen have the right to board British vessels and make arrests without warrants or summonses; and whether, taking the whole facts into consideration, he is prepared to recommend that some compensation be paid to these men for the treatment they have suffered?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The honourable Member is not, I think, quite correctly informed as to the arrest of these men. Information was laid upon oath against them, and a warrant for their arrest duly issued by one of the Tynemouth borough magistrates. My attention was drawn to the case on the 7th June, and, after inquiry, they were discharged by my direction on the following day. I am afraid that it is not a case in which any grant can be made to the two men from public funds.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right honourable Gentleman if he is aware that these men were arrested at eight o'clock in the morning; that no warrant or summons was issued against them; and that no charge was read out to them until they appeared before the magistrate?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My information is that the warrant was duly issued by the magistrates.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the right honourable Gentleman make further inquiries?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, Sir; I made inquiries at the time, and was satisfied that there had been a mistake, and that the warrant was issued upon wrong

323
information. I released the men, but I could do no more.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: That is not compensation.

NEW YORK CONSULAR SHIPPING OFFICE.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any Report from Her Majesty's Consul General at the port of New York in reference to alleged abuses in and at the consular shipping office at that port; whether any steps have been taken to prevent crimps and so-called shipping masters frequenting the consular shipping offices during the time seamen are being engaged on and discharged from British vessels; and whether anything has been done to prevent exorbitant shipping fees being charged upon seamen seeking employment in British vessels?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am still in communication with the Consul General at New York with regard to the points referred to in the Question. Until I receive a further Report I am not in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

BRISTOL LOCAL MARINE BOARD.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has recently sanctioned the appointment of a ship captain as the representative of the Board of Trade to fill a vacancy upon the Local Marine Board at the port of Bristol; whether he is aware that this captain is in the service and employ of the Hill Line of steamship owners, and that the chairman of the said line of steamships is also chairman of the Bristol Local Marine Board; whether he can state what other applicants there were for the vacant position, and whether they were gentlemen independent of conflicting influences; and if he can state the reasons why a servant
324
of the chairman of the board was appointed?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Captain William Fitt, whom I have recently appointed to fill a vacancy upon the Bristol Local Marine Board, was for many years a ship master, and is now, I believe, marine superintendent of the Bristol City Line of steamers. There were three other candidates, all of whom were retired master mariners. I considered this to be no disqualification, and I appointed Captain Fitt because I thought he was the best man for the place.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Does this captain who has been appointed represent the Board of Trade?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member cannot put such a question without notice.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I shall bring the matter up on the Estimates.

GLEBE LOANS IN IRELAND.
MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the memorial of the Glebe Loan borrowers of Ireland presented to him last December, together with the reply of the Lords of the Treasury, and the answer thereto submitting proposals, invited by their Lordships, from the Most Rev. Dr. Healy, Bishop of Clonfert; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit any proposals for amending the Glebe Loan Act before the conclusion of the present Session; if so, will he please state the nature of the Amendments likely to be proposed?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): There would be no objection to laying on the Table a copy of the Memorial referred to, and of the letter written by the Irish Government on the 6th May to the Bishop of Clonfert, which conveyed the views of the Treasury in the matter, but no proposals have been sub-

325
mitted to Government by the bishop as stated in the Question. It is not the intention of the Government to introduce any proposals having for their object an amendment of the Glebe Loan Act.

OPERATION OF THE PATENT LAW.
MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet considered and come to a decision on the report of the referee appointed to inquire into the application for a licence made by an English firm to work in England a patent granted to a German firm; whether he is aware that a patent for the same discovery was refused by the German Patent Office; whether, seeing that the English manufacturer has been put to an expense of £1,800 in bringing a test case forward at the request of the Board of Trade, they will be prepared to pay the expenses of the applicant; and whether, seeing the advantage the present Patent Law is giving to foreigners, particularly in the manufacture of aniline colours, he is prepared to propose some legislation by which English manufacturers may compete on more equal terms with their foreign competitors in the English markets?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: More than one application for an order for the granting of a licence has been before the Board of Trade. If the honourable Member refers to the case of Levenstein and Meister Lucius and Co., the reply to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The order has, I believe, been issued to-day. I am not in a position to say whether a patent for the same discovery was refused by the German Patent Office, and I decline to admit that the English Patent Law gives an advantage to foreigners. The honourable Member does not state what sort of legislation he contemplates, and I can only therefore say that if it should in any respect be found necessary to amend our law on the subject of patents I will bring the matter before Parliament. The Board of Trade are certainly not prepared to pay the expenses of the applicant, and I demur to the statement that the case was in any respect a test case brought forward at the request of the Board of Trade.

INVALIDED ARMY MEN.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the average length of service of the 3,275 men annually invalided from the Army during the past five years, and of the 1,195 of those to whom pensions were granted; also the proportion of each of these classes suffering from disability due to climate or military service?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): This detailed information would require much labour and a considerable period of time to compile, as 16,000 discharge documents would have to be examined, and I fear the results would not be commensurate with the trouble.

LANDING SLIP AT VALENTIA ISLAND.
MR. FLAVIN: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why the Congested Districts Board have discontinued the work in connection with the landing slip at Coosheenkenny, Valentia Island; is he aware that distress prevails in the district, which could be relieved to some extent by the work being resumed on this boat slip; and whether steps will be taken to direct the Congested Districts Board to complete the work they have already begun?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The work was discontinued owing to a difficulty in connection with a right of way. The difficulty having been overcome, the work has been resumed, and is now, I understand, in progress. With reference to the last paragraph, I must remind the honourable Member that the Government has no authority to direct the Congested Districts Board to take any action whatever.

DOG PROSECUTIONS AT KENMARE.
MR. FLAVIN: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a

327
large number of prosecutions have been instituted by the police authorities in and around the district of Kenmare against people for not having their dogs muzzled; whether he is aware that the local district inspector of police allows several of his own dogs to wander on the public roads unmuzzled; and why this police officer has not been proceeded against by the head constable for a breach of the Muzzling Order?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There have been about 40 prosecutions for the offence mentioned in this locality, and in every case the offending party had been at least twice warned before proceedings were taken. On one occasion an un-muzzled dog belonging to the district inspector was found outside his residence; the district inspector was absent at the time, but his servant was cautioned. This is, I am informed, the only foundation for the suggestion in the Question affecting that officer.
MR. FLAVIN: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that this inspector allows his own dogs to wander unmuzzled, and is not prosecuted?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. FLAVIN: Then is this answer based on the report of the district inspector himself?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not muzzle him?

PROMOTION IN THE BRADFORD POST OFFICE.
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he recently sanctioned the promotion at Bradford of two sorting clerks and telegraphists, junior in service to five other men whose average length of service is 28 years; whether special facilities were afforded the officers promoted to qualify for the higher position, such opportunities being denied to the clerks who were passed over; and whether the Postmaster General will consider the advisability of giving all such officers equal opportunities to qualify for future vacancies?
MR. HANBURY: TWO clerkships on the telegraph side at Bradford were recently filled by the promotion of two officers who stood No. 6 and No. 7 respectively on the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists on the telegraph side, a class which numbers 55 in all. It was in this case essential that the two clerks should possess technical qualifications, which, unfortunately, four of their seniors on the class did not possess; the fifth was disqualified by inability to perform the duty efficiently owing to ill health. No exceptional facilities were afforded to the two officers promoted to qualify for the higher position; as a matter of fact, they have been employed on the same duty (test clerks) since the transfer of the telephone trunk lines to the State.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION.
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Department have done anything, and, if so, what, to assist the formation of local authorities for secondary education; and if the Department are exercising their influence to secure that such authorities shall contain at least one-third of their number members of school boards?
SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have assisted in the formation of local organisations for the promotion of science and art instruction in their districts. The Committee of Council have no power to prescribe the proportion of representatives of school boards.
MR. FLOWER: May I ask whether the Committee of Council will not in any case in which their advice is sought recommend the adoption of the proposal of the Royal Commission?
MR. YOXALL: Does not the Committee of Council decline to adopt that recommendation?
SIR J. GORST: They have no direct power to decline to recommend these bodies, and they have no power to prescribe the exact proportion of representatives of school boards.
MR. FLOWER: Will they recommend in any case the adoption of the proposal of the Royal Commission?
SIR J. GORST: I could not undertake that they will advise a fixed proportion of such representatives. The Committee of Council always advise the organisations to have representatives of school boards, but sometimes there are no school boards engaged in science and art instruction to be represented.
MR. LEUTY: Are not the Department, by not making the recommendation, practically departing from the recommendation of the Royal Commission?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is going beyond the Question; he must give notice.

LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL.
MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will cause to be supplied to members of the Standing Committee on Law, prior to consideration of the London University Commission Bill, a statement of the particulars of such of the recommendations of the Gresham University Commissioners as the Bill contains provisions for putting into effect, such of the recommendations as under the Bill would be modified, and such of the recommendations as the Bill contains no provision for putting into effect?
SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council could not undertake the preparation of such an analysis, and even if they did, it would be impossible to distribute it before the sitting of the Committee.

ORANGE DEMONSTRATIONS AT DONEGAL.
MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a circular
330
of a provocative character, and one calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, which, in announcing a forthcoming Orange demonstration, uses such expressions as "Papists, stand aside: we canquered you before, and can do so again"; and "To Hell with the Pope"; and whether, in view of the threatening character of this placard, which has been posted in the town of Donegal, he will take steps to see that the property and lives of Catholics residing there will be protected?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: At the same time, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an Orange demonstration has been announced to take place in the town of Donegal on Tuesday next (12th July), on the occasion of the opening of an Orange hall, and that Orangemen from different parts of the country will attend this demonstration; whether he is aware that after the ceremony of the opening of the Orange hall it has been arranged that the Orangemen are to march in procession with their emblems and colours, and parade the streets of the town of Donegal, whose population is overwhelmingly Catholic; whether his attention has been directed to a placard, which has been extensively posted in the town of Donegal and its vicinity, announcing the holding of a grand Orange demonstration, containing, amongst other inflammatory matter, these sentences: "Papists, stand aside, we have conquered you before, and can do so again; and our motto is, To Hell with the Pope," and concluding with the announcement that the procession is to be formed at the new Orange hall and to parade the principal streets; whether, having regard to recent occurrences in Belfast, and to the fact that the Government insisted that a Nationalist procession should not take its route through a quarter of that city in which the population was overwhelming Orange or Protestant, a similar provision will be made as to the route of the Orange procession in the town of Donegal, where the population is mainly Catholic; and what steps, if any, have the Government taken to maintain order and peaces in the town of Donegal on the occasion of the forthcoming Orange demonstration by strangers in that town?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the placard, the contents of which are correctly quoted, but which, I believe, is absolutely disowned by the Orange party. It is, I understand, the intention of the Orange party to hold a demonstration in Donegal on the 12th instant on the occasion of the opening on that date of an Orange hall, which has been erected a short distance from the boundary of the town. It is incorrect to allege, as is done in the Question of the honourable and learned Member for South Donegal on the same subject, that the Government insisted upon or prescribed any route for the recent procession in Belfast. The route taken by that procession was prescribed by the local magistrates acting in discharge of their duty to take such steps as they deemed necessary for the preservation of the public peace. Every precaution will be taken for the preservation of the peace in Donegal on the 12th instant, and a large force of police will be drafted into the town for the purpose.
MR. T. B. CURRAN: Does the right honourable Gentleman think that the placards were put up by Nationalists?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I express no opinion on the matter. But I understand the Orange party disown it.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not a fact that the placard was put up by the enemies of the Orange party?
MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the Irish Government intend to take any steps to trace the authors of this placard?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I have no reason to think that any such steps are necessary.

IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if the Treasury has yet consented to grant the necessary funds to enable
332
the Commissioners of National Education to make the proposed reduction of the average attendance in National schools from 70 to 60, in order to qualify for the employment of assistant teachers?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This matter is still the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury, and until the correspondence is finally closed I cannot make a statement on the subject.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IN SOUTH WALES.
MR. D. A. THOMAS (: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Registrar for Friendly Societies has been approached by the Board of Management of the Monmouthshire and South Wales Miners' Permanent Provident Society or on its behalf to certify any scheme for contracting out of the Compensation Act of 1897; and, having regard to the objection of the general body of miners in South Wales to accept at present the scheme propounded by the Board of Management, will he take special steps to ascertain the opinion of the workmen; and, in view of the difficulty of estimating the amount of the cost of the Act to the employers, if the Registrar unwittingly certifies any scheme that subsequent experience of the Act proves to be less favourable to the general body of workmen and their dependants than the Act itself, what steps must be taken to have the certificate revoked.
MR. HANBURY: No scheme for contracting out has been received from the Monmouthshire and South Wales Miners. On all schemes submitted the Registrar takes effectual steps to ascertain the views of the workmen. Application may at any time be made by workmen that a certificate may be revoked for any of the causes mentioned in the Act.

LLANBRADACH COLLIERY.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the

333
Caerphilly Petty Sessions on Tuesday last 15 summonses, taken out at the instance of Mr. Joseph Samuel Martin, the mines inspector for the district, against the proprietors, agent, and manager of the Llanbradach Colliery for various alleged breaches of the Mines Regulation Act, were in every case dismissed; whether he is aware that the Llanbradach Colliery is what is known as a non-associated colliery, not involved in the dispute now pending in the South Wales coal trade, and at which the men are at work at an advance in wages; and whether, having regard to the desirability of observing on the part of the Home Office the strictest neutrality in the dispute, he will caution the mines inspector for the Monmouthshire district to avoid anything in the nature of vexatious prosecutions or interference with the non-associated collieries now and after the general resumption of work?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: This prosecution was undertaken by my directions. When I gave those directions I had no information as to the mine being a non-associated colliery, or as to the rate of wages; they are entirely irrelevant matters to the question of the prosecution. I do not think that the inspector needs any such caution as suggested.

AFFAIRS AT VAN.
MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the reported outrages of Kurds upon the Armenians in the town of Van, and also as to Kurdish raids reported to have been made within the last few days on several other villages in the same locality; and whether any representations will be made to the Porte on the subject?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): Although we have received frequent communications from Her Majesty's Consul at Van, we have not heard anything as to recent Kurdish outrages on Armenians either in the town or in its vicinity.

12TH JULY CELEBRATIONS AT BELFAST.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what measures will be taken to provide for the preservation of peace and for the protection of life and property in Belfast on the 12th July, on the occasion of the Orange procession to be held on that day; whether the magistrates have objected to the drafting of any extra police into Belfast for that occasion, and have requested that the military should occupy the streets whether he is aware that, at a meeting of magistrates this week, a letter was read from Major-General Geary objecting to their arrangements; and whether any and, if so, what route has been laid down for the procession?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police in Belfast, the Lord Mayor and magistrates have unanimously approved of certain streets being blocked by a force of infantry soldiers on the morning of the procession and in the evening on its return. A squadron of cavalry with the remainder of the infantry will be available for duty if required. The police will be distributed along the route, and every precaution will be taken for the safety of life and property. The magistrates, presided over by the Lord Mayor, decided not to requisition extra police for employment in the city. This decision, as the honourable Member is doubtless aware, is in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners of inquiry into the riots of 1886. I have no official knowledge of any letter written by Major-General Geary such as mentioned in the Question. I am assured that the route selected is as safe a route for the peace of the city as could be adopted.
MR. DILLON: The right honourable, Gentleman has not fully answered the third paragraph of my Question. If it is true that the letter has been written, is it not the duty of the Executive Government to see that proper precautions are taken?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no official knowledge that Major-General Geary did address a letter; I have little

335
doubt that, he did. I am not sure to whom it was addressed, nor have I seen a copy of the letter. Whatever were the points in dispute, however, the magistrates and the military authorities were now acting in perfect harmony.
MR. DILLON: What route has been laid down for the procession? Will it avoid the Catholic portion of the city?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The official programme states that the procession will proceed from Crumlin Road, Clifton Street, Donegal Street, Royal Avenue, Donegal Place, Donegal Square North, and Bedford Street. Two districts will join the procession at Shaftesbury Square and one district at Donegal Pass, and proceed by Lisburn Road, Finaghy Lane, to Field. The procession will return by way of Malone Road, University Road, Shaftesbury Square, Dublin Road, to Carlisle Circus.

MILITIA AND THE REGULAR SERVICE.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the general orders regulating the volunteering of noncommissioned officers and men of the Militia by battalions for general service will be issued before the termination of the annual training?
MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: The necessary instructions are under consideration, and will shortly be issued. No unnecessary delay will take place in sending them out.

COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX.
MR. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether clerks to the Land Tax Commissioners are bound to give notice to each Commissioner of Land Tax of the time and place at which meetings for the election of Commissioners of Income Tax are held; and whether the notice of such meetings appears otherwise than by way of advertisement in the London Gazette?
MR. HANBURY: Meetings of Land Tax Commissioners for the election of General Commissioners of Income Tax are by law convened by the Board of Inland Revenue by notice in the Gazette. There is no statutory provision for any further notice.
MR. H. LEWIS: May I ask whether it is not reasonable that notice should be given to the Land Tax Commissioners?
MR. HANBURY: So far as the Government is concerned, it has to see that the statutory provision is carried out.

NEW BATTALION OF COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what was the parade strength of the new Battalion Coldstream Guards on 6th July; how many of the men on parade were recruited for the battalion; and what was the date of its formation?
MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: Information as to the strength of this corps was afforded the honourable and gallant Member, in detail, in answer to a Question which he asked a fortnight ago. There has been no material change. The corps was formed on the 16th November.
MAJOR RASCH: Will the honourable Gentleman give the information asked for in the Question?
MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: The information is contained in the answer given by my right honourable Friend on the 24th ult. As I tell the honourable and gallant Member, there has since been no material change. I have the figures here, and will show them to him privately if he likes.

IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether any provision is made in the Local Government Bill to fill the offices of mayors and sheriffs in boroughs for the

337
interim period between 1st January and 25th January, 1899; and whether any Amendment for that purpose will be introduced?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Yes, Sir.
MR. FIELD: How is it provided for?
MR. ATKINSON: It is provided that the present officials shall remain in office.

DESTITUTE ALIENS BILL.
COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, having regard to the fact that a Bill has now been sent down to this House from the Lords dealing with the immigration of destitute aliens, similar to that introduced by the Marquess of Salisbury in 1894, he will appoint a day for its Second Reading and take charge of the Measure on the part of the Government, bearing in mind the promises of Ministers and their supporters at the General Election and the statements in the Queen's Speech of 11th February, 1896?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My honourable and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that this Bill substantially reproduces the Bill introduced by the Prime Minister, and that the general policy embodied in the Bill is one with which we have the utmost sympathy; but he will also remember that I gave a pledge that no Measure not introduced by the Government at the time I spoke, when I asked for special privileges from the House, which was of a controversial character, should be discussed after that date, and under those circumstances I am precluded, even if it were otherwise possible to do so, from fulfilling my honourable and gallant Friend's wishes.
COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: Will my right honourable Friend endeavour to bring this matter forward next Session?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I can hardly pledge myself to construct a premature Queen's Speech, but it is a matter that does engage the earnest attention of the Government.

ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now name a day on which the discussion of the Army Estimates will be resumed?
MR. T. BAYLEY: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is intended to take the Vote for the Privy Council Office; and whether he will undertake that an opportunity to discuss that Vote will be given?
SIR H. FOWLER: Before these Questions are answered I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he is aware that, assuming that the arrangements to devote next Friday also to the Irish Estimates are carried out, there would only remain six days, including the three extra days, of the time allotted to Supply. I beg therefore to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will state to the House now or on an early day his idea as to how the remaining time should be employed, so as to allow of the Votes for such Departments as the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Post Office being considered?
MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman bear in mind when considering this matter that the time given for Irish Supply this year is entirely insufficient? He must not suppose that one night more will be nearly sufficient for its discussion.
SIR W. HARCOURT: As the right honourable Gentleman is probably aware, there is a strong desire that a day should be allowed for the discussion of the Vote for the Home Office. In reference to the Navy Estimates, I hope that the House will be in possession of the Supplementary Estimates which it is proposed to bring in for the Navy before July 22nd, the day fixed for the consideration of that branch of Supply. I also hope that the right honourable Gentleman will not take the Report of the Foreign Office to-night, but that it will be reserved, at all events, until next week.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall be very glad to comply

339
with the request of the right honourable Gentleman not to take the Report of the Foreign Office Vote to-night. With regard to his appeal that the Supplementary Navy Estimates should be laid upon the Table before the discussion is taken on July 22, I shall have to consult my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject, and if a Question is addressed next week, either to me or to the First Lord, we shall give the right honourable Gentleman all the information in our power. With regard to the other supplementary Questions which have been put to me, I think it would be premature at this moment to attempt any allotment of the days remaining for the Estimates, or to give any pledge in regard to Supply. To-day, of course, we are pledged to the Irish Estimates. Next Friday we are also pledged to the Irish Estimates. The Friday after is pledged to the Navy; and it would be impossible for me, and it would not be any advantage to the House, that I should attempt at this moment to deal with the days that remain after those days for the consideration of Supply. I fully recognise, however, the necessity that exists for giving some time to the Home Office Vote, as to which some questions have arisen. I shall have to make a statement on the whole subject at a later date; but I do not think the position at the present time is satisfactory, and I hope the House, agreeing as it does with the propriety of maintaining the new rule in regard to Supply, will do their best to make that rule a success by aiding the Government in rapidly getting through such Estimates as remain for consideration.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope that on Monday the right honourable Gentleman may be able to state—as the time has arrived in the Session for such a statement to be made—what are the Bills which the Government intend to proceed with before the end of the Session.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall be very glad on Tuesday, which would be a more convenient day than Monday, to make a statement both in regard to the state of public business and Supply.

COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT IN CHINA.
COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, having regard to the increasing pressure of commercial matters at Her Majesty's Legation at Pekin, and the necessity for the utmost activity and vigilance in support of the commercial interests and claims of British subjects throughout the Chinese Empire, he will consider the desirability of creating a commercial department under Mr. Brenan or other high official of Her Majesty's consular service in China, well acquainted with provincial governments, their languages, and divers methods, to conduct correspondence on commercial matters, to sift them with promptitude, and prepare for the political assistance of Her Majesty's Minister, with the several Yamens of the Chinese Government and the Grand Council of the Empire?
MR. CURZON: I think my honourable Friend must have forgotten that a commercial attaché has recently been appointed for China in the person of Mr. Jamieson, Her Majesty's Consul General at Shanghai, whose acquaintance with China is probably second to none; and it will be desirable to test the working of this arrangement before superseding it by the creation of a fresh department.

TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the principal items making up the sum of £7,500 under the head of "Commissions not specifically provided for" of Vote 1, Class 7, Civil Service Estimates, Temporary Commissions?
MR. HANBURY: The provision of £7,500 in the Temporary Commissions Estimate under the head of "Commissions not specifically provided for," is not made up of definite items. It is intended to provide a margin on the Vote to meet the cost of new Commissions which may be appointed during the year; and also to cover any balance of expenditure which may fall into that year in respect of existing Commissions which, so far as can be foreseen when the Estimate is framed, are likely to be brought

341
to a close before the commencement of the year. The total amount to be provided to meet these contingencies is determined by the experience of former years. Among Commissions which, contrary to expectation, have been prolonged into the present financial year are the Manual and Practical Instruction (Ireland) Commission, the Tuberculosis Commission, and the India Expenditure Commission. The new Commissions to be provided for include the Sewage Disposal and Intermediate Education (Ireland) Commissions.

IRISH HORSES FOR THE ARMY.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received recommendations urging that he would bring under the notice of the Secretary of State for War the advantage to the Army by purchasing horses in Ireland for remounts; whether he is aware that the purchase of horses in Ireland for cavalry purposes would benefit very much an important Irish industry; and whether he will use his influence with the Secretary of State for War to purchase horses for the Army in future in Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have communicated with my right honourable Friend the Under Secretary of State for War in reference to this matter, and he informs me that practically the whole of the riding horses of the Army in the United Kingdom are purchased in Ireland.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right honourable Gentleman represent to the War Office that there will be a capital opportunity of purchasing Irish remounts at Cahirmee great horse fair next week?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No doubt the War Office is fully aware of that.

BELFAST TELEGRAPHIC APPOINTMENTS.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General,
342
with reference to the recent appointment of a junior clerk in the office of the local telegraph engineer in Belfast, will he state the circumstances under which the vacancy arose, the number of candidates, the course adopted in making the selection, and with whom did this power and that of bestowing the appointment rest; whether he is aware that subsequent to making an appointment to a similar vacancy about two years ago it was then laid down that in future applicants for such vacancies should be provided with a certificate in practical telegraphy, have a knowledge of shorthand, and possess an acquaintance with drawing; are these conditions in force in other offices where similar vacancies arise; if not, why have they been made conditional in Belfast, and was an examination in these subjects held under the supervision of the local telegraph engineer in Belfast; and, if so, by whose authority; whether the person appointed had his request to be enrolled as an applicant for a junior vacancy refused some time previously; and whether, since the Belfast branch of the engineering department was established many years ago, no Roman Catholic has ever been appointed on its clerical staff?
MR. HANBURY: The Question appears to refer to the promotion of Mr. J. H. Shaw, sorting clerk and telegraphist, Belfast, to be a junior clerk in the engineering department on the 1st March last. The vacancy was caused by the promotion of Mr. T. Patterson to the class of sub-engineers. There were 10 or 12 local candidates, only five of whom possessed the necessary qualifications. The qualifications of these five were carefully considered by the engineer-in-chief, and on his recommendation the Postmaster General promoted Mr. Shaw. It has been laid down that proficiency in technical knowledge of telegraphy, in shorthand, and in drawing is expected of all candidates for junior clerkships in the engineering department, whether at Belfast or elsewhere. In no instance is a formal examination in these subjects held. A previous request of Mr. Shaw to be enrolled as an applicant for a junior clerkship has not been refused. The Postmaster General has no information in regard to the religious tenets of officers in his employment.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right honourable Gentleman answer the last paragraph of my Question?
MR. HANBURY: I have no official information as to that.

THE WEST INDIAN SUGAR INDUSTRY.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the present increasing depression in the sugar industry in the British West Indian Colonies, and whether the powers given to the permanent officials representing Great Britain at the Brussels Conference on Sugar Bounties are comprehensive enough to secure remedies which will effectively reestablish the main source of livelihood of the population of these islands and prevent the extinction of an important and once thriving branch of British home industry; and if the Government propose to take any immediate steps to effectively counteract the evils of the bounty system?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not think there has been any recent increase in the depression of the sugar industry in the West Indian Colonies. On the contrary, the prices prevailing in the United States are such as to enable the best managed estates to make a fair profit. The Brussels Conference has adjourned for the present, and meanwhile the Papers concerning it will be laid upon the Table, and will give all the information we have.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: As the right honourable Gentleman has mentioned the United States, may I ask whether he is aware that there is a possibility of the United States occupying some of the West Indian Islands, and, therefore, of the prices going down?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I do not think that is the immediate danger to the sugar industry.
MR. LOUGH: Will any further steps be taken in the matter this Session?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I think that before any questions are asked on the point it would be better for the House to see the Papers.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the Papers be presented to the House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I cannot definitely answer that Question, but it will be as soon as possible.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    IRISH ESTIMATES.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
    (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1898–9.

    CLASS I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £136,978, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the erection, repairs, and maintenance of public buildings in Ireland, for the maintenance of certain parks and public works, and for drainage works on the River Shannon."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to protest, as I have often protested before, against the method of classification with regard to this Vote. Many of the items debited to Ireland are, in point of fact, charges for Imperial services, which have no connection whatever with Ireland. I will briefly run through the items which I protest against in this respect, and which I maintain should be debited to the Army, the Navy, the

    345
    Excise, the Inland Revenue, and the Post Office, for they are really the Departments concerned. Now, Sir, I will take the very first item on the list—the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham—and I would ask any Scotch or English Member if it is fair to debit Ireland with this particular charge. The Kilmainham Hospital is exactly the same as the Chelsea Hospital, which is an institution for the maintenance of old soldiers who have given their services to the country, and I submit that, like the Chelsea Hospital, it ought to be made an Imperial charge. The Viceregal Lodge should also be made an Imperial charge. The Coastguard and Naval Reserve is another item which should be treated in the same way. Dublin Castle, again, ought to be debited to the Imperial service charges, in the same way as Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, and all the other buildings connected with the Royal Family. Then, Sir, I take three or four other items. There is a very large charge put down for public buildings; Dublin Post Office is down for a very large sum. But how is the Post Office a special Irish charge? You do not debit the General Post Office in London as an English charge. Then again, Sir, you will find that we are debited with the Quit Rent Office, which I really think you might have left out of the Bill altogether. In point of fact, nearly, if not quite, half of the total Vote ought not to be debited to Ireland at all. It is part of that bad system of book-keeping under which you attempt to show a debit balance against Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other night, sought to prove that Ireland was being run as a bad debt, when, in point of fact, there have been smuggled into the Vote items which ought to have been debited to the Army, Navy, the Post Office, and other Imperial charges. There is one point on which I should like some information. I have been worrying the Treasury for some years with reference to the Estimate for the Dundalk Post Office. After six years' agitation I find that the Estimate is "not quite settled." That, of course, appeases me pro tanto, and it is some measure of appeasement to the local authority which has been pressing for a settlement. But it is rather slow, even for the Board of Works, which takes four months to answer a letter, and three months and
    346
    three weeks to answer a postcard. There are a few more points. On looking down the Vote I find that it provides for the improvement of the police-courts in Dublin. This is a matter in which considerable interest has been taken, and I am very glad to find that the Treasury have decided to increase the accommodation, which has hitherto been most unsatisfactory. Well, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman will remember that upon a former occasion I suggested that the Vote for the Shannon was much too low. A Vote of £1,000 has now become more or less a standard charge, though I observe that last year it was £2,500. Now, I do not think the Shannon Vote ought to be reduced at all; on the contrary, I think the Vote in connection with this great highway for navigation—I might call it the great main drain of the country—ought to be increased. The rocks which impede the navigation of this great waterway might surely be removed, end if this were done it would enormously reduce the floods in the upper reaches of the Shannon. I submit that the Board of Works ought not to grudge an increase in the expenditure on this particular item. I observe that the Member for Mayo has a Motion down to reduce the charge for the Queen's Colleges, and I will only say, therefore, that I do not think it fair that Votes of this kind should be smuggled into the Board of Works Estimates. I protest against Imperial Votes being taken out of their proper classification. The charges should be put under their proper headings, and then we should be able to deal with them. I beg to ask one other question, and that is in reference to the law library in the Four Courts of Dublin. A year and a half ago a considerable improvement was made there, which gave great satisfaction. A large sum of money was set apart for the work, but only a year ago a large portion of the gallery in the new building, erected under the supervision of the Board of Trade, tumbled down. I protest against work of that kind. If the Board of Works have not consumed the entire sum spent on the building of the new library, they ought to be called upon to take in hand the reconstruction of that gallery out of the money.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: This Vote covers a number of items which

    347
    are to me very interesting. There are two institutions especially in which I take a very deep and very special interest; they are the National Gallery and the National Museum. I have repeatedly, year after year, brought before the notice of the Committee the case of the National Gallery, and the necessity for an increased grant. Each year we are given a certain amount of money for the purchase of pictures and for increasing the accommodation in those buildings. But, Sir, in the case of the Gallery, the accommodation is not by any means large enough for Ireland. We have a certain number of very interesting historical portraits there, but they cannot be hung. I do not know whether any portion of the Vote is intended to increase the accommodation in this respect—perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will give us some information on that point; but if it is not I respectfully urge the Government to see if something cannot be done to overcome the difficulty. Then, again, the amount of money which is annually voted is not by any means large enough. We only get £2,000 a year, and that, of course, goes no distance at all. You give the National Gallery in England £75,000 to buy a single picture. Contrast your treatment of the British National Gallery in this particular with your treatment of the National Gallery of Ireland. Our misfortune has been that hitherto we have not had anybody connected with the government of Ireland who has taken very much interest in art questions, and that is the reason why the case of Ireland has been placed in the background. I hope that a spirit of generosity will prompt Her Majesty's Government to give us a more adequate sum in the future. If they gave £3,000 a year instead of £2,000, it would be a very considerable advantage, and I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that the money should be expended very judiciously.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Vote for the National Gallery in Ireland cannot be discussed at this stage. The question of the extension of the buildings can be raised.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I do not know that, as far as the extension goes, I have anything more to say, except to
    348
    express the hope that the right honourable Gentleman will make inquiry into the matter, in order that the Treasury may be a little more generous in the future. Now, Sir, there is another Vote to which I desire to refer, and that is in connection with the Museum in Dublin. The Museum is an institution in which we take very great interest. The same remark which I made in connection with the Picture Gallery applies also to the Museum. There is no room in this Museum to exhibit many of the things which it contains, and, in fact, it is absolutely impossible to make any sort of arrangement or proper catalogue of the art treasures there. I hope this also is a matter which will not be overlooked by the right honourable Gentleman. It is one of the most important national institutions we have in Ireland, and I trust the Government will see their way to increase the grant in order to make the institution really worthy of the capital of the country, and the value and interest of the collection housed in it. In this connection I must draw the attention of the Committee to a very great grievance which has been inflicted on this Museum, and which we in Ireland take very much to heart. I understand that the Royal Irish Constabulary are instructed to secure all treasure trove found in Ireland for the Royal Hibernian Academy. Only recently one of the most valuable collections of Celtic curiosities which have been discovered in the world found their way to the British Museum, instead of to Dublin. These curiosities would go to make the existing collection in the Dublin Museum one of the most unique of the kind in existence, and their loss to Ireland is one which Irishmen most naturally deplore. We have been treated in this matter somewhat unfairly. When public attention was first called to it the statement was made that the curiosities were about to be restored, but we were told, after some little time, that they could not be restored immediately because there was some technical difficulty, but that a short Bill would settle the matter. A Bill was accordingly introduced, for the purpose of restoring these curiosities to their proper place, but night after night it has been blocked, and the matter is exactly where it was. There is no likelihood of these curiosities finding their way back to Dublin unless the pres-

    349
    sure of Irish opinion becomes so strong that the Government will be compelled to take notice of it. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that Irish opinion is unanimous on the subject. We have not made it manifest up to the present moment, because we had been hoping that our request would have been granted without any further trouble; but it has not been granted, and we feel intense dissatisfaction on that account. I have nothing whatever to say, Sir, against the authorities who have obtained possession of these curiosities. They have succeeded in getting hold of what are really absolutely unique specimens of art, the value of which cannot be over-estimated. I can quite sympathise with them in their strong reluctance to give up those curiosities, and I am aware of the debt archæologists owe them in many ways; but, Sir, no considerations can deter me from expressing in this House the intense dissatisfaction of the Irish people at the loss to the Irish National Museum of what is Irish national property, and we mean to insist upon our rights, Session after Session, until they are restored. I appeal to the Government and to the trustees of the British Museum to be generous in this matter. You have within the walls of the British Museum the spoils of Greece, of Assyria, of Egypt, and, indeed, of the world; why not allow us in Ireland to have at least one thing which would be distinctly and characteristically Irish? Why not allow us to have the finest collection of Irish curiosities that there is in the world? We ought to have, and if we had the particular ornaments of which I speak I am quite certain that we should have the finest collection of Celtic ornaments. I put it to the generosity of the English Treasury, and to the generosity of the trustees of the British Museum, and to the generosity of the public, and I ask them to allow us Irishmen to have this one thing, in which we take legitimate pride—namely, the possession of these Irish ornaments. I am perfectly certain that it is not worth the while of a great and rich country like this, and of a great and rich institution like the British Museum, to deal niggardly in this matter. If a Bill is necessary to enable those treasures to be restored to Ireland there ought to be no difficulty. If honourable Members would not night after night block the Bill to
    350
    restore these things to Ireland, the matter could be easily negotiated, but if that is not done I hope the Government will give an expression of opinion as to the justice of our obtaining the possession of these things.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I desire to support the appeal of the honourable Baronet. There is, I believe, no disposition on the part of the Government to stand in the way of the ornaments being restored. If the truth were known, I believe it would be found that the trustees of the British Museum are precluded by their trust deed from parting with treasures of which they have obtained possession. If that is so, the Government should give their assistance to pass any legislation which is necessary in order that these beautiful ornaments may be restored to Dublin, where it is reasonable and fitting they should find their home.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I sincerely hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury will make some response to the appeal of my honourable Friend the Member for the West Division of Kerry. The honourable Member for Belfast, who has given his support to this matter, is, I am afraid, not quite accurate when he says that the Government are sympathetic in the matter which has been referred to by the honourable Baronet the Member for Kerry. I am perfectly certain it is only necessary to call public attention to this matter in order to elicit sufficient sympathy in Ireland to have some effort made to restore these ornaments to that country. I endorse what has been said by the honourable Gentleman the Member for Cork. In my opinion it is scandalous that the Government should be spending vast sums of money in every possible direction, and yet make so little provision for the improvement of this great waterway of Ireland. The Government is prepared to spend two and a half millions of money in the erection of public buildings in London, and yet there is only this small sum of £1,000 for the improvement of the river Shannon. If when I go back to my constituents, and I am asked how it is that the Government will only spend this small sum for

    351
    this purpose, what reply am I to make? Is it to be wondered at, seeing there is this great disparity between England and Ireland in regard to the sums spent, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent? I think, it is simply scandalous that so little provision should be made for Ireland. I hope to see a thorough survey of the Shannon, no matter at what cost, and all obstructions removed.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he agreed with the statements that had been made on the subject of Celtic ornaments, and complained that the accounts were kept and dealt with in the Estimates so as to give a false impression of Irish expenditure. Out of the sum of £206,000 charged against Ireland, £80,000 was for buildings connected with the Inland Revenue, and the Army, and the Navy, and the Post Office. These were all Imperial charges, inasmuch as they were not for purely Irish service. The figures only puzzled and perplexed. It was not a fair system of book-keeping to charge these Imperial services to Ireland. Would the First Lord of the Treasury contend that these were purely Irish services?
    MR. DILLON: In the first place, I wish to call attention to the limitation of the grant for the building of the National schools in Ireland. Complaints have reached me during the last two or three years that National schools are badly wanted in some parishes, and that when all the preparations have been made to build a school delay was invariably caused, because the school grant had been exhausted. The result was that in some parishes a delay of one or two years occurred in the building of a school. I was led to understand that one of the main objects of the Government was to stimulate education in Ireland to the utmost of their power, and the limiting of these grants appears to me to be entirely irrational. All the grants are examined upon their merits, and if any one of them is found to be too large, or from any other reason to be objectionable, it is quite within the powers of the Commissioners of the Board of Education to throw it out. When the Board of Education has dealt with a
    352
    grant and certified that it is proper, then it has to go to the Board of Works, where there is a further check on it, because they can, if they choose, refuse that application also. Now, what do I find? I find that last year the sum taken for this purpose was £40,000, whilst this year it is only £35,000—considerably less than what was taken last year. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman in his reply to state whether there are any arrears of applications, whether there are any claims for National schools waiting to be dealt with; because, if there are, I think it nothing short of an outrage that these grants should be reduced this year. Now there is one other point which may appear to be a very small one, but which is of great importance, and that is the great desirability of providing some decent seats for the use of the public in the Phœnix Park. I beg to say that at the present moment there is not a public park in the world so badly provided with seats. I do not think, outside the Queen's Gardens, there are five seats in the park, and those are unfit to sit upon they are most uncomfortable, they are old and worn out, and placed in very bad positions. In the most beautiful parts of the park, where people would naturally desire to rest themselves or sit under the trees and read a book, there are positively no seats at all. Of course, the juvenile part of the population prefer the grass, on which they lie and sleep, or upon which they play, but a very large portion of the population would naturally prefer a seat, and a fair number of seats ought to be scattered about the park. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that although it is a small matter, it is one upon which there is considerable feeling, and had this matter been under the control of the local authority it would have been dealt with long ago. Although it is a small matter, it is one of considerable importance. Many people who cannot afford to go into the country for a holiday go into the park, and all those who go into the park to enjoy the fresh air can see how scarce the accommodation is. Now, when we look through this Vote, which contains the estimate for all public buildings in Ireland, one cannot fail to be struck with the extraordinary difference of treatment of Dublin and

    353
    London. These benches raised a feeble and ineffectual protest against a Vote for two and a half millions of money which is to be expended in the erection of public buildings in London. I have not taken much care in adding up the English Vote, but it amounts to an enormous amount of money; and, in addition to that, we granted the sum of £2,500,000 for the erection of public buildings in London. Now we have £10,000 for the continuation of the central extension, and for the purpose of adding refreshment and reading rooms to the library, but there is nothing for the erection of public buildings. There is another curious feature in these Estimates, to which my attention has been drawn: I turn to the Vote for the upkeep of the demesnes and gardens of official residences in Ireland. Now, the officials of Ireland have very good times; they have good salaries, and some of them have not much to do, and they have residences provided for them. What I wish to point out is that the officials of this country have not. The officials of Ireland, who reside in Ireland, have beautiful residences furnished for them, and gardens and demesnes, and for the expense of these gardens, demesnes, and so forth, they have a sum of £12,609, in addition to their salaries. Turning to the Vote for the Science and Art Department in Dublin, we find the total expenditure upon it is £6,607—precisely half the amount which is spent upon the gardens and demesnes of the officials who reside in Ireland. It is nothing short of a public scandal that twice as much should be spent upon the gardens, etc., of the officials who reside in Ireland as is spent upon the Science and Art Department of Dublin. If the State is so generous as to keep up these residences in Ireland at such an enormous expense the least they can do is to increase very largely the Vote for science and art in Dublin. Now I turn to the Votes for the Queen's Colleges, and I do not propose to move the reduction which I had proposed until the right honourable Gentleman has replied, partly because I do not wish to interrupt the general course of the Debate and partly because of the pledge given and repeated by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that he would agree to strike these out of
    354
    the Estimates. I would remind the right honourable Gentleman of a speech which he delivered in 1889, which has often been called to his attention before, in which he distinctly stated, when he had received an application from Queen's College, Belfast, for a large grant, that he would be ashamed to come to the House of Commons and ask them to vote money for purposes of Queen's College, Belfast, so long as the claims of the Irish Catholics remained unsettled. When that was challenged in this House the right honourable Gentleman said he would not retract one word which he had uttered. We, relying upon a friendly Government, did not examine the Irish Estimates so carefully as, perhaps, we should have done. The right honourable Gentleman bound himself to oppose a Vote proposed by another Government, but that was passed, and we do not expect to get back money which has been spent. But what was my astonishment to find that the Votes for the Queen's Colleges were scattered in the most curious and ingenious way through the Estimates. That is a breach of trust, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will now give his attention to the matter. I think all the Votes ought to be taken under the one head of "Queen's College Votes," but they are scattered all over the place. Not only do we find several sums of money placed in this Vote for public buildings, but you must go right through the Estimates, because you find them scattered all over them. I find here on this page, "Belfast, £160, natural history," and then on page 61, under the head of "Machinery and Alterations," "Queen's College, £170"—no intimation whatever as to what it is for or to what college it is to be devoted to. On page 63 of the Votes you will find different Queen's Colleges: "Queen's College, Cork, £423, maintenance and supplies," £146 for furniture and fittings, £48 for rent, and another item of £619; Belfast, under the same head, £718; Galway, £756; making in all about £2,506. I shall oppose any money being voted to Queen's College so long as the Government fail to give a pledge that they will deal with the Catholic University question within a reasonable time.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELLsaid there was a very strong feeling of indignation in Ireland at the fact that the ancient ornaments recently recovered there should have been captured by the Science and Art Department and removed to London, where they possessed very little interest indeed to the persons who frequented those buildings. There was a very strong desire to see them placed in the National Museum in Dublin. He would also refer for a moment to the condition in which the Royal College of Science in Dublin, which happened to be within his own constituency, was allowed to remain. He thought it was a scandal and a reproach to the English nation. Then there was the building in Abbey Street, in which the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts was housed. To him it appeared to be a cross between a dilapidated music-hall and a booth at a country fair. The Irish nation had substantial grievances in consequence of the miserly economy on the part of the Treasury in London in matters of this sort.
    MR. DALYsaid he was much surprised in looking at the Report issued last year to see that the Museums Vote was curtailed. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would not allow any money to be voted for the maintenance of police huts in Ireland in the present peaceable state of Ireland. Several times last year the chairmen of quarter sessions were presented with pairs of white gloves on account of the peaceful state of the districts, and he could not understand why £1,000 was to be spent in this way. It was an insult to the people of Ireland.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it would be a very mischievous thing if the Queen's College had to wait for necessary appliances until the First Lord of the Treasury had convinced the House of the necessity of passing a certain Measure. He called attention to the urgent need for providing further laboratory accommodation in connection with Queen's College.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): I have always thought that the form of this Vote might be considerably improved, but that could
    356
    not be effected without consulting the Public Accounts Committee; and for the purposes of comparison in succeeding years it is well that we should have the Vote as far as possible in the form in which it is generally presented to the House. As regards the form of the Vote, I cannot agree with the view of the honourable Member that it was framed with special regard to the financial relations. The honourable Member for Louth contends, and I agree with him, that some of the charges in this Vote are more Imperial than Irish, and that it would be quite possible to take those items out of the Vote and make them Imperial charges. We may take the case of coastguard premises. That is quite as much, and perhaps more entirely, for Imperial purposes than for purely Irish purposes. But the real reason why these items appear in this Vote is that it is the Vote for public buildings in Ireland, and just as public buildings in Great Britain are dealt with in the Votes for public buildings under the Office of Works in England, so public buildings have to be dealt with in Ireland under the Vote for the Board of Works in Ireland. That is a very simple explanation, and I do not agree at all that it would be desirable, as suggested by the honourable Member for Mayo, to take these items out of the Vote. The principle of all these Estimates is to put public buildings together in one Vote.
    MR. FLYNN: I do not wish to interrupt the right honourable Gentleman, but my argument is that in the calculation made by the First Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is quite obvious that the charge is made entirely irrespective of the question whether the charges are Imperial or Irish.
    MR. HANBURY: I cannot go into that question now. The question may arise as to how far items in this Vote should be considered Imperial or local, but the items for public buildings must necessarily at present be charged under the Vote for public works. I was glad to hear the honourable Member for Louth, and, I think, some other honourable Gentlemen, say that there was, at any rate, one item in this Vote of which they approved, and that was the provision for a central Bridewell. I hope that work will be gone on with at a fairly rapid rate,

    357
    because I know that the conditions of some of the police stations in Dublin are very bad, and I think it is of very great importance that there should be better accommodation for the detention of prisoners in Dublin than there is at the present moment. Then there was some criticism by the honourable Member for Clare with regard to the Shannon navigation. I quite agree with him that we ought to do our best, as we are doing, to make the Shannon navigation as perfect as possible. Already we have taken very desirable steps in that direction, and if honourable Members will point out to me any actual improvement in the way of blasting rocks or doing away with shoals I shall be very glad to consider their suggestions in consultation with the Board of Works. The next point raised was in connection with certain works at the Four Courts. I have heard no complaint as to the way in which the work is being carried out, but as the honourable Member has complained. I promise to consult the Board of Works on the subject. Then the honourable Member for Kerry raised a question with regard to certain grants for pictures. Of course, we cannot discuss that upon this Vote, but there was a further question raised as to which I may say at once that the Estimate for the National Gallery this year is not yet complete, but provides £2,000 on account towards giving accommodation for pictures in connection with an offer—I am not quite sure whether the gift has actually yet been made—a very generous offer made by Lady Milltown of pictures and valuable furniture which she was willing to make over to the National Gallery of Ireland. Then an honourable Member raised a question as to which I confess, although I do not know much about it, I am to a great extent in sympathy with Irish Members, and that is the question of treasure trove. Why the law should be as it is I cannot tell, but the difficulties we are met with in that respect are technical difficulties. That is to say, the British Museum at the present moment is forbidden to part with any of its possessions. But with regard to the purchase by the British Museum authorities of these Irish gold ornaments I do not think that the comparison which has been drawn is quite fair, because,
    358
    after all, these ornaments were in the market, and I also believe that an Irish gentleman had the opportunity of selling them to his fellow countrymen. That may be so or not, but I candidly admit that I personally have considerable sympathy with Irish Members who desire to have these ornaments in the possession of the nation.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right honourable Gentleman give the name of the person who might have sold them?
    MR. HANBURY: No, I do not think I should do that. With regard to the Bill of the honourable Member for Clare, I think that he has gone much further than is necessary. He has proposed to enable the British Museum to part with any documents or any other things in their possession, and that seems to me to go a great deal further than is necessary to deal with this particular case.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Allow me to explain. The object of my Bill is perfectly clear. It deals with these special articles alone, and I have told the right honourable Gentleman and others connected with the Government over and over again that I should be quite ready to withdraw my Bill in order that another Bill might be introduced which was thought to be more suitable for the purpose. My Bill might be easily amended in Committee, but I think the right honourable Gentleman might give an undertaking that if I withdraw my Bill he will bring in a Bill more suitable for the purpose.
    MR. HANBURY: I could not undertake to bring in a Bill without the consent of the trustees of the British Museum. With regard to the complaint of the honourable Member for Mayo, I should have thought he was cognisant of the arrangement come to between the Treasury and the Board of National Education. If, as he implies, he was aware of it, I can hardly understand the criticism he has made, because the arrangement was this: it was found to be very inconvenient not to have a fixed sum, and what we agreed to was that during three years, of which the current year is the last, the sum of £110,000 should be paid for the purpose of school buildings—£40,000 in the

    359
    first year, £40,000 in the next year, and £30,000 in the present year. The honourable Member complains that there is a reduction this year, but he will find that of the £40,000 voted last year, the National Educational Commissioners were only able to spend about £35,000, and we are re-voting this year actually the amount which the National Education Commissioners were not able to spend last year. Therefore, when the honourable Member asks whether there are any arrears, I have to say that, so far from there being any arrears, the National Education Commissioners were not able to spend last year the money actually voted for this purpose. Then a complaint was made as to some deficiency of seats provided in the Phœnix Park. I shall be very glad to go into the question of the accommodation in the Phœnix Park, but as the honourable Member compared the Phœnix Park with other parks I must point out that there are very considerable difficulties with regard to the regulation of the Phœnix Park. Unlike any other park, I know there is very great doubt as to the authority with whom the regulations rest. The Board of Works have practically very little authority in this particular matter, and that may be one of the reasons why there are not more seats in the park. Now, with regard to the Queen's Colleges, I think the honourable Member for Mayo was fully replied to by the honourable Member for Belfast. I cannot go into the very large question which the honourable Member has raised with regard to the general policy. If the honourable Member is determined to oppose any Vote for the Queen's Colleges until the general question of a Catholic University is dealt with, of course that is his own affair, and no doubt he will oppose the Vote this year, as I think he has generally done; but I am bound to say that when he talks of nine years having passed without any Vote having been taken for works in Belfast, he is quite mistaken.
    MR. DILLON: No, no! I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that nine years ago the present First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the House declared that he would not advocate expenditure on the college in Belfast as long as the claims of the Irish Catholics were
    360
    disregarded. In the interval another Government came into power, and a large Vote was passed at the time when the Home Rule Bill was under consideration. Now, when the First Lord of the Treasury has come into office again, and is the Leader of the House, he is bound by his own pledge.
    MR. HANBURY: Sir, there has been a Vote passed for the college in Belfast while the present Government has been in office, and I think I defended it against an attack by the honourable Member. As a matter of fact, if there ever was a purpose for which we should be thoroughly justified in voting money, it is in connection with this additional grant of buildings at the Queen's College, Belfast, which, is intended for the Natural History Museum of that institution. The work is needed, and, considering the great amount of good work already done in connection with the college in Belfast, I do not think the Committee will grudge this small expenditure for that purpose. The honourable Member for Monaghan complained of a small reduction in connection with the National Library, but if the honourable Member had looked through the other parts of the Vote he would have found that, so far from there being a reduction, there was an increase of expenditure, for we are spending £1,000 this year in connection with those works as against £800 expended in the previous year, and that, of course, more than balances the small diminution of which he complains. Then with regard to the police huts. The honourable Gentleman appears to disapprove of police huts generally on principle. Well, that may be right or it may be wrong, but, at any rate, what we have to do is to maintain the police huts which are in existence at the present moment, and any charge that appears upon this Vote in connection with these huts is not for building new huts, but simply for keeping in proper repair those that already exist.
    MR. DALY: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman one question as to this item for a Divisional Commissioner's office? I was told the other day by the Chief Secretary that they were to be done away with, and, if that is so, why should this sum be required for an office for them?
    MR. DAVITT: The right honourable gentleman has been sympathetic in his reply, as he usually is, with regard to complaints made from these Benches, and I was very glad to hear him say that he sympathised with our complaint as to some of the items of Imperial expenditure being charged against Ireland.
    MR. HANBURY: I did not say that.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg the right honourable gentleman's pardon. I really understood him to say that he agreed that we were justified in some of the complaints we made in this connection. I notice that the right honourable Gentleman was silent with reference to the speech of the honourable and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green. The honourable Member complained, and, I think, rightly, of the shabby way in which the Treasury has treated the Royal College of Science in Dublin. I should have thought that if there was one thing in connection with education in Ireland that would excite the sympathy of the Treasury it was the extension of the work of that institution, because I think that that institution, notwithstanding the disgraceful way in which it has been treated by the Treasury, has rendered very valuable service in Ireland. Sir, I contend that the protests that have been made, and will continue to be made, against the custom of debiting Ireland with items of purely Imperial expenditure are amply justified by many of the items of this Vote, and it is nothing short of shameful.
    MR. HANBURY: I find, as a matter of fact, that in the financial relations returns all the items in this Vote that are considered really Imperial have been taken out of this Vote and treated as Imperial.
    MR. DAVITT: After the sophistical statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury a few nights ago, I really trust that the right honourable Gentleman will see that the items in this Vote are overhauled, and that Ireland is honestly dealt with in this respect in future. Take the Lord Lieutenant's household, for instance. That is not an Irish, but a distinctly anti-Irish, institution; in fact, we consider it a costly national nuisance. It serves some pur-
    362
    pose of an Imperial kind, I admit, but surely we ought not to be called upon to pay for this school of Dublin flunkeyism. Now, Sir, the honourable and learned Member for North Louth made an appeal on behalf of the Library of the Four Courts in Dublin. He apprehends that the building may fall down some day and overwhelm the lawyers. I ask the right honourable Gentleman not to rashly interfere with the manifest decrees of Fate. I do not want to see the roof come down, especially during the Long Vacation; but if it should elect to tumble down some day when all the Dublin lawyers are insider with the possible exception of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, the accident will only be registering the justice of the saying of Peter the Great when he declared that one lawyer was enough for any honest country.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I wish to protest against the sum of £4,860 being spent on Dublin Castle. About six months ago, in Dublin, we were conducting an election in the St. Stephen's Green Division, and, in investigating some bogus lodger claims for votes, we found that Dublin Castle was let out to lodgers at a pound a week, including board as well as lodging. Now, Sir, I am not interested in the reputation of Dublin Castle, but if it is to be let out as a common lodging-house I certainly think that the ratepayers ought not to be taxed to the extent of £4,866 per annum. In the interests of the ordinary lodging-house keepers in Dublin, who have to pay rates and keep their houses in proper order, I protest against the taxation of the country to the amount of £4,000 in order to keep up a rival establishment on Cork Hill. I endeavoured at the time these matters came to light to get some further information on the subject from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I drew his attention to the statement made by the Daily Independent in Dublin that certain persons were lodging there, but the right honourable Gentleman did not give the information I asked for. I think, therefore, this is the proper time to again draw attention to the matter. We took the precaution of sending a representative of the Press to investigate the

    363
    statements made in the paper, and it was found that there were lodgers on the premises at the small sum of £1 a week. But this is the main point—is it a lodging-house, or is it not? If Her Majesty does not care to use the Castle, and if it is to be let as a lodging-house, let us know it on the best authority. I, Sir, protest, in the interests of the lodging-house keepers, who have to pay rates and keep their houses in a thoroughly good sanitary condition, against this expenditure. If Dublin Castle is to be used as a lodging-house, then it ought to undergo the same sanitary inspection as the other lodging-houses.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Mr. Lowther, there are only one or two points which I should like to call attention to, and on which I desire some little information. Anyone who knows anything of Ireland is aware that every year there is great suffering caused from the overflowing of the Shannon, and from defects in the Shannon works. It is a very remarkable feature of this year's Estimates that the Government only charge for the year 1898–99 £1,000, whereas for 1897–98 the charge was £2,500. Now, can it be said that there is anything in the circumstances of the present year to warrant the underestimate for this year by £1,500? If £2,500 was necessary last year, clearly it ought to be estimated for in the present year. But what is the explanation? The Government want to keep their balance square, and, in order to balance the accounts, they reduce the necessary work on the Shannon by £1,000, while they increase the expenditure under the head of new works, alterations, and additions in connection with the constabulary offices, the Castle, and other places, by £4,435. So that they take from the one account which is most essential for the happiness and prosperity of the people living over the Shannon in order to spend money on those buildings in connection with another account. Now, I daresay the right honourable Gentleman will make some explanation as to that. But there is another point, and, in order not to give him the trouble of rising a second time, I will say a word
    364
    or two upon it now. I refer to the gold ornaments. These ornaments were found in the county of Donegal. They are, I understand, on very high authority, of the greatest historical and antiquarian value, and are of great interest to the Celtic race. These ornaments, being gold, are, as far as I can form an opinion on the information I have been able to get, clearly treasure trove, and, according to the law, are, primâ facie, the property of the State. The ornaments have not been offered to the Royal Irish Academy or to the public museum in Dublin, but they have actually been sold over the head of the Dublin Museum to the British Museum. No one has greater admiration for any institution than I have for the British Museum. It is one of the greatest institutions in the world. But these ornaments are, so to speak, a mere drop in the ocean, and quite thrown away at the British Museum. They are passed over there by visitors, whereas if they were deposited in Dublin they would afford valuable assistance to students of Irish history and Irish antiquities in their work. I presume the Government are sufficiently considerate towards Ire land to wish as far as possible to develop the archaeology and the history of the country. I understand, although unfortunately I was not in the House at the time, that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not given any assurance on the part of the Government to support the very reasonable proposal of the honourable Member for East Clare. This is only a question of some £800, and if the Government will restore these ornaments to their natural position, the Royal Dublin Museum, they can still exercise proper control over them. There is also the question of Imperial and local charges. I think we ought to come to a clear understanding as to what are Imperial and what are local charges. I am not, of course, going to enter into the question of over-taxation, but it is clear that the claim of Ireland in that respect has not been decided, nor the question set at rest, by the Debate and Division which took place in the early part of the week. It is important, therefore, to know what are local and what are Imperial charges.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise in the Vote under discussion.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I may point out that a great number of these items are of an Imperial character, and if I am in order I should wish to call attention to the matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is any dispute that these are Imperial charges. The fact that they are on the Irish Vote does not make them necessarily Irish local charges.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I listened with satisfaction to the sympathetic references of the right honourable Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, but unfortunately his sympathy does not seem likely to be translated into action. We are very much in earnest about getting these ornaments back, but, as I understand the attitude of the right honourable Gentleman, there does not seem to be any intention on the part of either the Government or the trustees of the British Museum to allow the ornaments to go back to Ireland. I wish, therefore, to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give a pledge to introduce next Session a Bill restoring these ornaments to Ireland. If so, we shall say nothing more about the matter, but will leave it in the hands of the right honourable Gentleman, and trust to the good feeling of the trustees of the British Museum to see that justice is done. We feel strongly on this point, and will leave nothing undone to have the ornaments restored. I believe the right honourable Gentleman is sympathetic, and will consider our views and take steps to meet them.
    MR. JORDANdirected attention to a sum of £1,000 for the erection of a new post office at Enniskillen, and asked if this represented the total cost of the buildings, or was only a Vote on account. He hoped the Treasury and the Post Office would not erect a plain, bald building, but would put up a substantial structure that would be an ornament to the town.
    MR. BUTCHERtrusted the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would use his influence—which, must be great—with the trustees of the British Museum and represent to them that these ornaments might appropriately and reasonably be handed over to the custody of the Royal Irish Academy. If the trustees of the British Museum have such representations made to them, I am sure they will see their way to grant this request.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have the warmest sympathy with the appeal that has been made by honourable Members on both sides of the House. As the House votes money to the Irish National Museum to enable them to buy antiquities, among other things; precisely of the description of these ornaments, it does seem an extraordinary thing that they should be taken away from Irish soil. I shall inquire into the matter. It is not possible for me to make a definite statement in the House beyond what I have already made, but my own feeling, after hearing the arguments, is very strongly in sympathy with the general sentiments that have been expressed. Having said so much, I venture to put it to the Committee that, from the general point of view of Supply, it would be a good thing if the Government could now get the Vote, and I trust honourable Gentlemen opposite will see their way to allow it to be taken.
    MR. DILLON: I feel bound to debate this question. There are still some important and contentious items to be discussed, and on that ground alone it is impossible for us to allow the Vote.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Can we not have it on Report?
    MR. DILLONwas unable to agree to that course. Apart altogether from the fact that it raised the question of the Catholic claims, this was a very important matter, and if the Vote were allowed to pass it would be taken as a precedent for the future.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I desire to thank the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the sympathy he has expressed with regard to the transfer of these gold ornaments

    367
    to Ireland. If the right honourable Gentleman can see his way to have the ornaments sent to Dublin, I am sure the result will be satisfactory to everyone.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £58,660, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland."
    Motion made, and Question put—
    "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100 in respect of the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
    MR. J. REDMOND: Sir, I beg to move to reduce by £100 the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland, in order that I may bring before the House a very high-handed and arbitrary proceeding in the dismissal of one of their officials in Ireland—Mr. Mark Delandre—who was one of the public prosecutors for the city and county of Waterford. In bringing this matter before you I wish to state that the dismissal took place last year. I was anxious to raise the question on the Estimates last year, but when the discussion came on at the end of the year I was prevented from doing so. I may say at once, Sir, that this has nothing whatever to do with politics. I am moving on purely neutral grounds, and in the interests of common justice. Mr. Mark Delandre is a Unionist, and it will be seen, therefore, that I am not moving on political grounds. Mr. Delandre belongs to the Unionist cause in Ireland, and I trust in this matter to have not merely the support of the Unionist Members for Ireland, but also the support of honourable Members on the other side of the House. This gentleman was public prosecutor for Waterford for 10 years; and I assert, in the presence of members of the Irish Bar, that during all the years of his term of office no complaint was ever made against him as to the manner in which he transacted his business. Suddenly, at the end of 1897, without a word of complaint, without a word of
    368
    warning to enable him to offer one single word in his own defence, he was summarily dismissed. I wish the Committee to consider the circumstances of that dismissal. When a solicitor in practice in Ireland is called upon to fill a position like this he has to give up his private practice; and, as a matter of fact, Mr. Delandre gave up his private practice immediately on his appointment; and surely, Sir, it is a terrible thing when a man, having lost his private practice, is dismissed without any complaint being made against him, and without having been heard in his own defence. The Attorney General asks for facts; well, I will give the facts as they appear from the correspondence; and I am very glad that in this instance we have the presence of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone [Mr. C. H. Hemphill] to hear what I have to say. He was for many years leader of the Bar on the circuit where this took place. He has had a long and intimate acquaintance with that circuit, and in particular with the conduct of Mr. Delandre. He has for many years appeared for the Crown in conjunction with Mr. Delandre, and I ask him to bear witness with me that Mr. Delandre was a competent and able advocate for the Crown; and my honourable Friend will bear me out, as well as my Friend the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin—who, I am sorry to see, is not present to-night—and who has also had a distinct and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Delandre. I would, further, ask the other counsel on that circuit who are present to bear me out in this: that Mr. Delandre has been an efficient, a painstaking, and a zealous servant. If, Sir, with this record attached to his name, Mr. Delandre has been dismissed from office, and practically reduced to beggary by his private practice having gone—given up 10 years ago—I think I make out a serious case of hardship against the authorities, and one deserving the favourable consideration and support of the Government. Now, Sir, up to January, 1897, no great complaint ever reached Mr. Delandre as to the manner of the transaction of the business of his office. At the commencement of 1897 considerable trouble arose in the city of Waterford in connection with the trade in bacon with the city; it is the chief trade of that city. It was

    369
    a most unfortunate and deplorable dispute, and took place between the men and masters in the bacon factories. Happily, that dispute has been closed for some time, but at the time I am speaking of it was the cause of considerable turmoil and distress. Well, as a result of it, a considerable number of men were prosecuted, and it was the duty of Mr. Delandre to undertake the prosecutions. Nobody complained that he was doing more than his duty. But suddenly, on the 15th January, he received the following telegram from the Chief Secretary—
    "The district inspector is to prosecute in the Waterford cases. Please see him from Attorney General."
    That was absolutely the first intimation he received that there was any dissatisfaction with the way in which he had discharged his office. The second telegram was—
    "In confirmation of the telegram sent to yon by the Attorney General yesterday evening, Mr. Smith, D.I., R.I.C., has been directed to take charge of these prosecutions. It will not, therefore, be necessary for you to take any further action in any of these cases."
    This was a very sudden intimation that he had not fulfilled the duties satisfactorily that devolved upon him in connection with those prosecutions. Now, Mr. Lowther, I think, if it could be proved that Mr. Delandre had any unfair leaning towards those whom he prosecuted there might be something to be said against him. But it does not stop there. That message which I have just read was followed by this letter, signed by the Under Secretary—
    "Chief Secretary's Office,
    "25th Jan., 1897.
    "Sir—With reference to my minute of the 16th inst., confirming the Attorney General's telegram of the 15th, asking you to hand over to District Inspector Smith the papers in the case arising out of the bacon trade dispute in Waterford, I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform you that under the circumstances which, unfortunately, rendered it necessary to take the conduct of these cases out of your hands, his Excellency feels that it is not possible to any longer entrust to you the discharge of the responsible duties of Crown solicitor. Before giving effect to this decision, which has been arrived at with very great regret, I have been directed to communicate it to you, with the object of affording you the opportunity, if you should think fit, of tendering your resignation."
    Sir, I have said that no complaint had been made before this gentleman was dismissed. These letters and telegrams bear that out. I repeat that there was no complaint made against Mr. Delandre as to his conduct. The first intimation he gets that they are dissatisfied with him is that he is not to be allowed to conduct certain prosecutions. In short, he is dismissed without an opportunity of hearing and answering certain charges made against him, and he is given the opportunity of resigning. Mr. Delandre, having received that intimation, writes on January 27th—
    "Sir,—Referring to your letter of the 25th inst., I have respectfully to ask for particulars of the circumstances to which you refer, and for further time to consider the matter before replying, as I am in total ignorance on the subject. I have always endeavoured to fulfil the duties of my office with faithfulness and energy, and can fearlessly refer to the several Crown counsel and constabulary officers with whom I have been brought into contact with respect to the performance of such duties. Mr. Whelan, Assistant Inspector-General, R.I.C., has known ma for years, both officially and otherwise, and I feel sure he will fully bear out what I have stated."
    Therefore it comes to this: he is told that he is to be superseded before any complaint is made against him, and before he is afforded an opportunity of defending himself. He asks what he has done, and for a chance to defend himself. He then receives, in February, particulars of the grounds of complaint on which he is dismissed. It is a long letter, giving him details of certain prosecutions, and the gist of it is where it is said that owing to a mistake that he made with regard to the value of certain evidence—which mistake was only corrected by the district inspector on the spot—it might have led to the case against the prisoner being dismissed. That, Sir, is the sole ground put forward for the man being dismissed. In reply, Mr. Delandre wrote a long letter, and asked—a perfectly reasonable request—that his dismissal should not be regarded as a settled matter until he had been heard in his own defence, and until some more serious accusation had been made against him than this particular bit of evidence, which in itself was of no very great importance. He received no answer. The only other communication he received was that, as he had not resigned, the Lord Lieutenant

    371
    had signed his dismissal at the Castle. The result is that this gentleman, who is advanced in years, who has a large family, and who, by reason of his former position, has lost his practice, and cannot possibly, at his time of life, resume it, is left absolutely penniless, after many years of devoted and efficient service. Sir, I think this is a very hard case. I have been induced to bring this matter up before the Committee for two reasons. First, I am naturally interested in a case of hardship occurring in the city of Waterford; but, more than that, I have known Mr. Delandre for many years as a member of the Leinster Circuit, and I am naturally indignant at the shabby, scurvy treatment which has been meted out to him. I think, Sir, it would be difficult for the Attorney General to justify so highhanded and summary a proceeding as this. This is the view taken with absolute unanimity by the whole of the profession to which Mr. Delandre belongs. Now, no one will say—the Attorney General will be the last man in this House to say—the Incorporated Law Society in Ireland, representing as it does the whole of the profession, would take up a case if they did not think it was a fair case to take up. I am perfectly certain that he will admit that they would not press on the Government as a case of hardship any case which they did not believe thoroughly merited fair consideration from the Government. What have they done? Here is a copy of the resolution passed last year by the Incorporated Law Society and sent to the Lord Lieutenant—
    "Resolved: The council of the Incorporated Law Society (Ireland), having given their careful consideration to the correspondence between the Under Secretary for Ireland and Mr. Marcus H. R. Delandre, solicitor, consisting of telegrams of 10th and 16th days of January, 1897, from the Under Secretary to Mr. Delandre; letters of 25th day of January and 2nd and 10th days of February, 1897, from the Under Secretary to Mr. Delandre; and letters of the 22nd day of January and 5th day of February, 1897, from Mr. Delandre to the Under Secretary, which correspondence terminated with the removal of Mr. Delandre from the office of Crown solicitor for the county and city of Waterford, and having made inquiries touching the circumstances relied upon in justification of this step by the Executive, are of opinion that it is due to Mr. Delandre, and to the solicitors' profession generally, that an inquiry"—
    372
    all they ask for is an inquiry—
    "into the particulars of the circumstances which resulted in his removal, should be instituted; and the council respectfully pray his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to direct a public inquiry to be held in Waterford, to ascertain whether the particulars of the circumstances as stated in the letter of the Under Secretary to Mr. Delandre of 2nd February, 1897, are in accordance with the facts of the case."
    That reasonable request made by the Incorporated Law Society on behalf of the whole profession of solicitors in Ireland was received with scant courtesy by Government House. The reply was simply a curt acknowledgment and the intimation—
    "I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to state that the request of the council for a public inquiry is not one that can be complied with."
    But the solicitors' profession in Ireland took so strong a view about this case that they did not let it drop even there, because they followed up the resolution by a second one, which was sent to the Chief Secretary on the 17th June, 1897. It was as follows—
    "The council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, having considered the letter dated 15th May, 1897, from the Assistant Under Secretary, in which he informs the council that he is directed by the Lord Lieutenant to state that the request of the council for a public inquiry into the circumstances concerning the removal of Mr. Delandre from the office of Crown solicitor of the county and city of Waterford is not one that can be complied with, respectfully pray his Excellency to direct an inquiry of a private nature to be held"—
    they had asked in the first resolution for a public inquiry, that was refused, and they now asked for a private inquiry—
    "at which Mr. Delandre, with such legal assistance and witnesses as he may require, may be present, in order to ascertain whether the particulars of the circumstances, as stated in the letter of the Under Secretary to Mr. Delandre, of 2nd February, 1897, are in accordance with the facts of the case;"
    and that communication of theirs was treated with still scantier courtesy, because they did not receive an answer at all. No acknowledgment nor reply whatever was received to this communication from Dublin Castle. Now, Mr. Lowther, those are, shortly, the facts in

    373
    this case. Personally I feel very keenly that this old gentleman at the end of his days and service has been badly treated. I think it is a case of extreme hardship, and I shall be extremely surprised if the members of the legal profession from Ireland in this House do not take the same view as I do. I beg, Sir, to move.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: In rising to say a few words in this House in support of the Motion of the honourable and learned Member opposite, it is hardly necessary for me to preface my observations by the remark that this Motion is in no way intended as any reflection upon my right honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, because, in common with the honourable Member who introduced this Motion, I am sure we recognise the ability and industry he brings to bear on the discharge of his duties both inside and out side the House. But I am confident that a consideration of the facts will show that a mistake has been made in this particular case, a mistake that has resulted in a very grave injustice to a deserving public official, a member of an honourable profession. In one respect I differ from the honourable and learned Member opposite, because I never, either privately or professionally, came in contact with Mr. Delandre, and do not know him by sight; but the facts of his case have been brought before me and pressed on my notice by a good many of his constituents. It appears that, having been engaged up till 10 years ago in the pursuit of his profession as a private member of it, he was selected, and we must presume and assume that he was selected after due inquiry, and after the Government of the day were satisfied with his qualifications—he was selected to fill the responsible position of Crown solicitor for this county. Now, that was only 10 years ago, and so far as anything is known to either myself or, I think, my honourable and learned Friend opposite, during the entire duration of that 10 years no complaint of any kind from the Executive ever reached Mr. Delandre until this month of January, 1897. Now that is a very important matter, because from my view of this correspondence it seems to me that the letters of the Executive disclose no ground for their action
    374
    in dismissing this gentleman, and I can only understand it being justified on the ground that some previous complaints existed; and if it is attempted to justify it on that ground I say nothing could be more unfair than to keep complaints pigeon-holed against an official of this kind which are never communicated to him, and which he has never had an opportunity of dealing with. I think, therefore, there will hardly be any attempt made to justify the summary dismissal of this gentleman by anything that occurred antecedent to the month of January, 1897, because no such attempt can be made in face of the fact that up to that month, during his 10 years of office, no complaint ever reached him. We therefore have to fall back upon the proceedings of this month of January to see what the justification is for the summary and arbitrary dismissal of this gentleman; and the House must bear this fact in mind, that when a professional gentleman, such as Mr. Delandre, is selected by the Government of the day to fill a position of this kind in a particular county in Ireland, the result is that he is entitled to look, and does look, upon it as practically a provision for his life, because the necessary consequence of his taking service for the Crown in a matter of this kind brings him into daily conflict with the people in the discharge of his duty. So that if he ceases for any reason to hold this office of Crown solicitor he is placed at a great disadvantage in endeavouring to return to the ordinary practice of his profession in that county. Now I am not going to weary this House by going through the correspondence that has already been referred to by the honourable and learned Member opposite, but I must again very briefly recall the attention of the House to a few dates disclosed by that correspondence. On the 16th January this gentleman, Mr. Delandre, received a Minute from the Castle to say that he was to hand over the conduct of two not very important prosecutions at petty sessions to the district inspector. Nothing further was heard by him from the Executive for 10 days, and it was not until the 25th January that he received a letter from the Under Secretary stating that he was to discontinue to hold his office from that date, or, in other words, calling upon

    375
    him to resign his office. He replied to that, and on the 2nd February he got from the Under Secretary the only document there is in the entire correspondence that gives any clue or any reason for this act of arbitrary dismissal. Now the two causes in that letter—and I ask the attention of the House particularly to this—the only two causes alleged in that letter for the summary dismissal of a gentleman who, so far as the records go, had fulfilled his duties for 10 years to the satisfaction of successive Governments, the only complaint put on record is, first, that he fails to produce some link in the evidence that was wanted to convict one of the accused persons; and, second, that he allowed the constabulary officer in charge of the case to prompt him during the course of it. Now, with regard to the first, Mr. Delandre, in his reply, pointed out the obvious and conclusive answer. He said it was quite true that he had not called the particular witness mentioned; but the reason of that was because the case had come up on adjournment, and the witness mentioned had made a deposition on the first occasion, and that that deposition was before the presiding magistrate on the second occasion, therefore it became unnecessary to call him. As to the second allegation, that he had received the promptings of the district inspector during the course of the case, Mr. Delandre does not take the trouble to deal with that, or to deny it, and I think he did very properly. I can say for myself, after an experience of 20 years in the conduct of prosecutions in Ireland, and also in the defence of accused persons, that it is the invariable practice for the district inspector, even in cases that are entrusted, not to Crown solicitors, but to Crown counsel, it is the invariable practice to sit in the vicinity of the Crown counsel and to make a suggestion and prompt him if he thinks it necessary. So far from resenting that, I have always found that of great assistance and importance in prosecuting. It seems to me to be childish that this gentleman, who for 10 years had filled this responsible office to the satisfaction of the Executive of successive Governments—it seems a childish thing that when he is dismissed in this arbitrary way, and he, challenges the Executive to tell him why, the only two reasons
    376
    that should be assigned are, first, that he failed to produce a witness who had made a deposition before the case had been adjourned; and, second, that during the conduct of the case he had listened to the promptings of the officer of the police who was in charge of the case. Now, assume that in neglecting to produce a particular witness he had for a moment made a slip or a mistake. Surely, at the outside, and as the most extreme method, a reprimand, a caution, would have satisfied the exigencies of the position. I do not really deal with the other suggestion about his taking the promptings from the district inspector who was there, acting for the police, in the course of the prosecution, because that is so trivial and so unreal. I really do not propose to deal with it. But assume that he had made this mistake, or this slip—because at the worst it was only a slip—what justification was that for depriving this gentleman not only of his livelihood as a Crown solicitor, and degrading him in the eyes of the public and of his professional brethren, but also for turning him adrift, practically, on the world, without any means whatever of returning to the ordinary work of his own profession, which had parted from him during the 10 years he had been doing the work of the Executive? The council of the Incorporated Law Society, representing the entire profession of solicitors, passed a unanimous resolution requesting the Executive to give this gentleman a public inquiry. Mr. Delandre writes back himself to say that the very district inspector who was mentioned and the very solicitor who was there conducting the defence of the accused person would testify that the charges alleged against him by the Under Secretary were false and unfounded, and I think he could not have taken a more fair or more reasonable course than to appeal to the very two persons, the solicitor for the accused and the. District Inspector of Police as the persons who were prepared to contradict the alleged neglect of duty complained of. Well, they reply to the Incorporated Council, representing the entire solicitors in Ireland, and the executive declines to give a public inquiry. That is immaterial. You have the resolution of the body saying, "Well, if you object to public inquiry, then give this gentleman a

    377
    private inquiry. Let him have a chance of meeting his accusers face to face; let him know what the charges are, and let him have an opportunity of bringing up his own witnesses; and then, after a fair investigation has taken place—as one against the other—then condemn him if you like." No answer was returned to that letter. Now, the position is this, that this gentleman, who held this responsible public position—a position in which he had discharged, from time to time, duties of the most onerous, and sometimes of the most unpleasant, character—a man, it must be assumed, whose qualifications for the office must have been proved before his appointment to the office were sufficient—this man is to be summarily turned adrift, his name degraded and his reputation challenged! I really suggest that the executive should admit that a mistake has been made, and I think, in the interests of justice, and also in the interests of other gentlemen occupying similar positions in Ireland, that, so long as they hold their office, they ought to let these gentlemen know that they hold their offices on some more secure tenure, and that so long as they discharge their duties it will not be open to the executive to dismiss them in this summary and arbitrary way; but if they do, they will, at all events, be doing away with the chance which is given to the worst criminal in the land—of giving his own answer to the charge brought against him.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: As I have been referred to in the speech of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Waterford, I think I am bound to say a few words. Now I am very glad that there is not a suspicion of Party aspect in this Motion; I am glad also that in bringing it forward there is no suggestion whatsoever of personal blame attached to the learned Attorney General, while I fully concur in the observations of the last speaker with reference to Mr. Delandre. The reason I trouble the Committee is this. I, for the best years of my life, was a barrister on the Leinster circuit, of which circuit the city and county of Waterford was an important part. I have known Mr. Delandre as a solicitor since he
    378
    joined the profession; he was not only a solicitor himself, but his father had been for years a most respectable solicitor, enjoying a most respectable business. He has been described by my honourable Friend as a Unionist. Mr. Delandre belonged to a family of the French Huguenot extraction, who were settled in Waterford; he was a Protestant of the Protestants, and a Tory of the Tories. Now, he was appointed to the Crown solicitorship only during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant; he was obliged to give up his private practice—at all events, in the county for which he was Crown solicitor. As Crown solicitor, as my honourable Friend will know, Mr. Delandre's office was worth £500 or £600 a year, and it is only by bringing the matter before this House that this gentleman is afforded an opportunity of getting anything like redress, not only for the loss of office and of his position as a solicitor, but also for his character. I may also mention, as reference has been made of it, that he was not only the son of a respectable solicitor to whom I have referred, but he was connected with another solicitor of note, Joshua Nunn, the solicitor for the University of Dublin.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: He is still alive.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: That being the character of the gentleman, you must also bear in mind that he was an appointee of a Tory administration, being, I think, appointed by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I, as a member of the Leinster circuit, was perfectly able to form a judgment of the qualifications of Mr. Delandre. Now I can say this, that before he was appointed I was thrown into professional connection with him in the county and city of Waterford; afterwards, when he became Crown solicitor, I had an opportunity of judging of his qualifications, and I say that this gentleman was a fair and competent representative of the interests committed to his care. It is very hard to weigh in golden scales the professional attainments of any gentleman, but for years within my own knowledge that gentleman acquitted himself with general satisfaction. Now, on what grounds has this man, still in the prime of life, been insulted

    379
    and degraded in the presence of those who know him? What hope has he of ever recovering any of his private practice? I confess there is no remedy unless by the vote of this House. He has no claim by Petition of Right, because he was appointed only during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. Is that fair play? I put that to any of you. If any of you should have heard of such a man, a friend of your own, being dismissed, how would you act? The best way to consider such a question is to ask yourselves what you would do under like circumstances. Mr. Delandre has no tribunal to appeal to except the House of Commons, and if you turn a deaf ear to his appeal it means for him no hope and no chance of redress. Now, it has been explained very clearly by both my honourable and learned Friends that it was arranged between Mr. Delandre and Mr. Allingham, representing the prisoners, that it would not be necessary to re-examine witnesses on the second trial who had been examined on the first, and the magistrate, I suppose, had no information as to what had occurred on the first hearing. If the magistrate had taken the trouble to ask the clerk, he would have found that the depositions taken at the former trial——
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDinterrupted.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It is no use interrupting me. Now, Mr. Allingham was asked if he required the depositions to be again read, and he said he did not, that he would take them as read. Mr. Delandre then said that closed the case for the Crown on the evidence before the court. The whole thing is this: some person who had some grudge against Mr. Delandre gave some information to the Crown, and then, without giving him any warning, and without giving him an opportunity of being heard, he is dismissed in a summary way. It is suggested that there were other complaints. All I can say is that no intimation has been given to him of such complaints. I was not aware of any complaint being brought against him in the discharge of his duties when I was responsible as a law officer of the Crown. In common justice, I am
    380
    bound to state that to the House. If there are any other grounds of objection to this gentleman, why not state them to the House? If not, it will be a replica of the Dreyfus case. I ask the Attorney General for Ireland, is there some reason for which the Government wished to get rid of this gentleman? If so, he ought to have brought it forward. On inquiry by the responsible heads of Mr. Delandre's profession, a demand for a public inquiry is made, but no answer is given, except that it is not a case for public inquiry. I cannot understand why a public inquiry is not given, except that it would throw a certain amount of light on those proceedings. Then a private inquiry is asked for. Why is not that private inquiry given? I hope the learned Attorney General will not take the responsibility on himself for that. I am sure there are Members of the Legislature who must have known Mr. Delandre, and I cannot imagine it possible that either my right honourable Friend the Attorney General or the Lord Chancellor must not have known Mr. Delandre's qualifications when his appointment was made, and I do trust that, by giving a very decided opinion on the Division that will be taken on this Vote, the members of the Committee on both sides will decide in favour of justice and fair play.
    MR. POWER: Any one who has listened to the speeches of honourable Members on this subject must be convinced that Mr. Delandre has received high-handed and unjust treatment, and deprived of his office before he knew that the authorities had any complaint against him. I know Mr. Delandre well. At the time he was deprived of his position he had a very good practice in Waterford, and was a competent pleader at petty sessions. It is possible that the Committee may be inclined to give additional weight to my statement, because Mr. Delandre and all his connections have been active political opponents of mine. That does not, however, blind me to my sense of duty, and I cannot help saying that he has been treated in a most shabby way, in a way in which no official of a company would be treated.

    381
    He was not told what was the complaint against him, but was summarily dismissed. If everyone is to be dismissed from the position he occupies for a mere mistake of judgment, very few men could hold any public position. Immediately after Mr. Delandre was superseded a gentleman was appointed to fill his place. He was a gentleman who had no connection with the district, but he was considered a competent man, and was ordered to take charge of the prosecutions in connection with the bacon strike at Waterford. But in the very first action in which he appeared before the petty sessions he was completely "unhorsed," if I may use the expression, and the case was scouted out of court. I have nothing to add to the very lucid statement of the honourable Member for North Tyrone. As I have already said, Mr. Delandre is no particular friend of mine in politics, but he has pleaded before me at petty sessions, and I have always looked upon him as a very competent man. I believe he has been particularly harshly treated, and I hope honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House will recognise this and see that justice is done.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The dismissal of Mr. Delandre was no act of mine; it was an act of the Executive Government, but it was done on my advice, and I accept entire responsibility for giving that advice. The advice was given by me with infinite pain, because—and here I may say that my right honourable Friend opposite is entirely mistaken as to the relations between this official and myself—Mr. Delandre was a friend and acquaintance of mine, and I have been employed as a barrister by him. But I gave the advice because of the position which I hold. Sir, I hold that it is not competent for a man in the position I occupy to consider what pain and loss he must inflict when his imperative duty demands that he shall take such a course as I took in the case of Mr. Delandre, and I consider I would have been false to my duty—which is to provide, as far as I can, and above all things, for the due administration of public justice—if I had for a moment
    382
    refrained from advising the removal of a man from office when he was no longer fitted for the discharge of his public duties, and whose office depends in a great degree on their due discharge. I think, in the first place, it is well for me to call attention to the extraordinary misconception which appears to prevail in the minds of honourable Members opposite regarding the terms by which Crown solicitors hold their office. They are appointed at the pleasure of the Crown. They must know that they can be dismissed at the pleasure of the Crown. I presume some good reason must exist why a not more stable tenure has been given, and it must be this. For the carrying on of public business it has been found to be absolutely necessary that the Executive Government of the day may, if it so pleases, remove these men without giving a reason to any public body, whether it be the Incorporated Society of Solicitors or any other public body, and it would be impossible to carry on the government of the country if officials of this character held such positions, that the Lord Lieutenant, or head of the Executive of the day was obliged to account to public bodies like the Incorporated Society of Solicitors for the exercise of his authority, or to submit his ruling to the investigation of third parties. The men who take these official positions must know that perfectly well. The honourable Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin said that some intimation should be given to these officials throughout the country that they could not be removed except for cause; so that the Executive would be reduced to this: that, if they attempted to get rid of one official they would be compelled to justify their position in a court of justice, and give some good reason why a jury should find in their favour. Mr. Delandre was not only a Crown solicitor, but Sessional Crown solicitor, and in the latter capacity it was his duty when called upon to take charge of the important prosecutions in the petty sessions court, or of police cases which assumed a gravity that made it desirable that they should be conducted by a special man and not by the ordinary police official. At the time in question, as the honourable Member

    383
    for Waterford knows, Waterford was convulsed by turbulence and by riotous disturbances, and the ridiculous spectacle was even presented of half a dozen farmers driving 10 or 20 pigs to the butcher's yard, escorted by a file of police 50 or 100 strong. It was absolutely necessary that the violence and turbulence should be checked by a firm enforcement of the law. It so happened that in this month of January two persons were to be prosecuted in connection with this strike. Under ordinary circumstances the case would be conducted probably by the sergeant of police or the district inspector, but in order that it should be more efficiently done, and that it should be presented by a skilled and competent man, I directed that the case should be taken charge of by Mr. Delandre. That was the occasion of the sending of the telegram referred to. He had been directed to take charge of the prosecution, and immediately after that direction was given I received a communication from the resident magistrate at Waterford to the effect that Mr. Delandre was hopelessly incompetent, that he had shown his incompetence on previous occasions, and that it would be more desirable to leave the conduct of the case in the hands of the police.
    MR. J. REDMOND: Was that ever communicated to Mr. Delandre?
    MR. ATKINSON: In due time: I will follow my own order. I did not, of course, think of acting on that communication alone save so far as to telegraph to Mr. Delandre asking him to kindly leave the conduct of the case in the hands of the police. That telegram is set out in Mr. Delandre's letter, and is to the effect I have mentioned—
    "District inspector is to prosecute in Waterford cases; please see him."
    The magistrate who had made the communication was asked to forward a full and detailed report on the matters he complained of against Mr. Delandre. That was received shortly after—on 17th January—and then the letter was written to Mr. Delandre, which has already been referred to, saying that his services could
    384
    no longer be continued, but that, if he desired, he would be given the opportunity of resigning. He did not resign, but he asked that the charges against him should be made known to him. That request was complied with, and the charges were set out in full detail in the letter of Sir David Harrel of the 2nd of February. Surely there could not be any greater perversion of fact than to say that this man was dismissed without having been given any opportunity for explanation. He was not dismissed. He was asked whether he would prefer to resign, and when he asked what were the charges against him they were distinctly detailed, and it was because his answer was not only unsatisfactory, but because it showed a hopeless ignorance of his profession, and that he was entirely unfitted for the position he held, that he was dismissed. Now, what were the charges? They have been already mentioned to the Committee, and arose out of his conduct of these cases at petty sessions. The case referred to by Mr. Bourke, as an instance of Mr. Delandre's incompetency, was that of a man named Cummins, who had been charged with malicious injury to property. I will read to the Committee the full and detailed statement of the charges against Mr. Delandre contained in Sir David Harrel's letter—
    "Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, asking for particulars of the circumstances referred to in my letter to you of the 25th instant, such circumstances being those which rendered it necessary to take out of your hands the conduct of the prosecutions arising out of the bacon trade dispute in Waterford. In reply I am to state that the attention of his Excellency and of the Attorney General having been drawn to the unsatisfactory manner in which you had discharged your duties as Crown solicitor in the prosecutions before referred to, his Excellency caused inquiries to be made, when the following facts were elicited:—On the 8th instant, at the Waterford Borough Police Court, you appeared as Crown solicitor to prosecute one Thomas Cummins, who was charged on the complaint of the police with maliciously breaking glass, the property of Thomas Quinn, hotel proprietor. You produced Quinn as a witness, and he duly proved that the damage in question had been committed, but stated, on cross-examination by the defendant's solicitor, that he could not say who had committed it. You thereupon announced that the case for the Crown closed."

    385
    That is to say, that a man comes up and says his windows were broken, and says nothing about the prisoner in the dock, and then the person prosecuting says, "That is my case." The letter proceeds—
    "The defendant's solicitor at once asked that his client might be discharged, on the ground that there was no evidence against him. Mr. Bourke, R.M., who was sitting alone, pointed out to you that you had in no way connected the defendant with the case. You, however, still maintained that your case was closed. At this point the defendant must necessarily have been discharged, had not Mr. Bourke been familiar with the evidence which was available, owing to the fact that he had previously taken the depositions of four police witnesses in the case. By his directions the depositions in question were produced, and the witnesses re-sworn. Two of these witnesses proved that when the window was broken they heard a crash of glass, and immediately saw the defendant running away from the spot. A third proved that for five minutes prior to the breaking of the glass there was a complete absence of persons in the street. The case having been thus circumstantially proved, the defendant's solicitor raised the point that the police had no power to prosecute in cases of malicious injury of property, the owner of which was known. In reply you argued that the police had the right to prosecute where the owner was unknown—a case which did not arise, and which was the direct converse of the case you were required to meet."
    That is an example of the intelligence of which my honourable Friend speaks, and the merits of the case are not affected by the fact that honourable Members knew this gentleman's father or grandfather. The letter continues—
    "The magistrate, however, held that the prosecution was properly laid, and convicted the defendant, fining him £1 and costs. Again, on the 15th instant, you appeared at the same court to prosecute one Thomas Donnelly, on the complaint of the police. Mr. Smith, the district inspector in charge of the case, had on the previous day given you a full statement in writing of the available evidence, and had also gone over the same with you viva voce. Notwithstanding this fact, and although you held in your hand the statement of evidence, it became necessary for District Inspector Smith to sit beside you, and prompt you continuously in your examination of the witnesses. His Excellency is advised that your conduct of these cases alone shows a manifest inability on your part to conduct prosecutions of the simplest nature. The cases in question were of the most normal character, and such as in ordinary circumstances would have been left in the hands of the police. The fact that the offences were committed in pursuance of the object of a lawless conspiracy alone invested the cases with importance, and rendered it necessary that they should be put before the court with care
    386
    and completeness—a function which you signally failed to perform."
    "I am, Sir,
    "Your obedient Servant,
    "D. HARREL."
    Before reading the reply of this gentleman allow me to state to the Committee so much of the law as will enable them to appreciate the point made against him, and his reply. This man Cummins was taken up for malicious injury to property. He was arrested and brought before a magistrate. The law on the subject is that if it turns out that the injury is not valued at over £5 the offence ceases to be an indictable offence, and must be dealt with summarily by the magistrates. That is the plain Petty Sessions Act. In this instance Cummins was arrested, taken before a magistrate, and depositions were made to justify his arrest, but no proof was given of the value of the property or of the person who owned the house. The case was adjourned, and when it came up at the petty sessions court in the usual form Quinn, the owner, appeared, and then it turned out that, the injury not being over £5 in value, the offence was not indictable, but an offence which then and there was to be tried and adjudicated on by the presiding magistrate, and the Act of Parliament requires, and common sense and justice require, that the whole case should be gone into de novo, and witnesses examined and cross-examined, and a case made, not for the return of the accused for trial, but a complete case to justify the magistrate in passing sentence. The idea that under those circumstances the person prosecuting in the case should only examine one witness to supplement the depositions, when it was well known the man was not to be returned for trial, shows a crass and culpable ignorance of his profession by this gentleman, and I submit to the Committee that I should have been false to my duty had I for one moment allowed him to take part in the administration of criminal justice in the city of Waterford, if he had ten thousand friends, and if they gave him ten thousand testimonials, when I found that he showed out of his own mouth that he was entirely ignorant

    387
    of the Petty Sessions Act and the Malicious Injuries Act. The merest attorney's clerk who was ever present at a court of justice ought to know that when it comes to a case of finally trying and deciding a man's guilt or innocence it is not competent for any prosecutor to put up a witness to prove unimportant facts, and then say that the rest of the case has been gone into before. Let us see the gentleman's answer, because my case is this: I submit to this Committee that, however numerous may be his friends, or however, by accident or design, they are all so much interested on his behalf, if it can be proved to me, and especially by his own letter, as I will show in a moment, that he was incompetent, it was my duty to act upon it, and I did act upon it. Now, what is the answer Delandre gives to that? Here is his answer: the depositions of course justified the arrest, and the depositions were taken before he received instructions in the case, and the case was adjourned, as I am informed, solely for the purpose of the production of the evidence to prove ownership. That was for a trial then and there upon the spot, and I said any person who would suppose for one moment that that was the ultimate tribunal to determine the man's guilt did not know the Act. When he had proved ownership, I asked if he required the depositions, and he said he did not, and that he would take them as read, and that was all the evidence that could be given before the court. That, Sir, is in corroboration of what Mr. Burke said, "That as the ownership was proved, I said my case was closed." He must have known that he was then engaged in the prosecution to have a sentence passed upon a man, and it was ridiculous to suppose that the solicitor for the prisoner could assent in any way whatever to one-half of the evidence being kept away from the court. Therefore, Mr. Lowther, I was convinced that the representation of Mr. Burke, which was embodied in a letter, was a true reason that he did not know anything about it. He supposed that all that was necessary was to prove this ownership. The depositions which had already been made were then verified. The man is mixing up two things. He is mixing up the depositions with an indict-
    388
    able offence when you are about to return a man to quarter sessions to stand his trial. There was no application for which his guilt is to be proved and sentence inflicted. His chief contention was that the police had no power to arrest the defendant, not having seen him in the act of committing the misdemeanour, but the police would have a perfect right to arrest him without a warrant. He quoted the section, but I pointed out that the section did not contemplate the defendant being seen committing the offence. Now, let me call the attention of the Committee to the section itself. Section 61, and I must apologise for troubling the Committee with these technical details, says—
    "Any person found committing an offence may be arrested";
    and he tells you that the argument of that section did not apply to a man seen committing an offence. That is, when he was seen he was not found. Now, really an appeal has been made to me, and my honourable Friend has been very complimentary to ask fair play from the Committee as to what this statement means. But did it not show absolute ignorance? The idea of any man being permitted and entrusted with the administration of justice in a town like Waterford who could stand up and say that, where the section provided that a certain thing might be done if he was found committing an offence, that he could be deprived of it if he was seen committing it.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: But that is the 64th section.
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg the right honourable Gentleman's pardon, but that is not so. The 64th section is worse. It is the 61st section. He stood up and contended that, when a certain thing was to be done when he was found committing the offence, that that did not apply to him when he was seen committing the offence. I pass on to the remaining points. There is the statement that the defendant's solicitor raised the point that the police had no power. But his contention was that nobody but the owner of the property maliciously injured could take proceedings. I relied on the 24th

    389
    and 25th Vic., cap. 27, section 67. That raises the point that the police had no right to prosecute where the owner was known. Let us see how this gentleman answers that point. He relied upon the 64th section, which provides for the mode in which damages are to be given when the owner is unknown. It provides that every sum of money which will be forfeited in respect of any injury done shall be assessed by the convicting justices, and shall be paid to the party aggrieved, except where he is unknown. The point was, as I have already said, that the police have no right to prosecute where the owner is known, and the answer of the counsel was that damages are to be applied only where the owners are known. I wonder that some of Mr. Delandre's friends were not more merciful to him than to bring his case before this House, and reluctantly drag from me the exhibition which this man made. Under these circumstances, Mr. Lowther, I gave advice to the Irish Government that he was no longer fit to be entrusted with the administration of the law in the court at Waterford. The right honourable Gentleman and the Members who have introduced this matter before the House have said that politics are not in it. Well, it is difficult to see that any motive could have influenced me, except the imperative sense of the necessity of getting rid of him. Had he been, of different politics, then this action might have been taken for that. Had he been a personal enemy of mine, it is possible that the accusation would have been made against me of gratifying my own feelings. But he was a friend of mine, an acquaintance of mine, and a man whom I knew, and whose family I knew well, and nothing but a sense of what I owe to the position I fill and my bounden duty to allow nothing to stand in the way of the proper administration of the law would have induced me to take the action which I did take. The honourable Member has suggested a pension. I wish heartily that there was some superannuation allowance to be made. I think this is probably a defect in the law that they cannot get superannuation. They are appointed to these offices, and it is a mistake to say that they are obliged to surrender their private practice. They do sometimes, because
    390
    they are so employed, but sometimes for other reasons; but there is no means of making provision for them, and no means of giving this man a superannuation allowance, and I say with all sincereity I wish there were. Therefore, the only choice was left to me to continue this farce in the sessions court of Waterford, or to do what I did—that is, to advise that the gentleman should be removed.
    MR. J. L. CLANCY: I do not think anybody is entitled to speak to the House with greater effect than the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and I am sure his closing remarks were heard with satisfaction. At the same time, the case he has made out to-night is one of a very remarkable kind indeed, and the Attorney General has apparently proved too much. Here is a man who has been dismissed, according to him, for exhibiting ignorance of the law which any ordinary law clerk could not be guilty of upon any ordinary occasion. Well, now, is it not an extraordinary thing that this man should have been appointed, it he had such a character as that, by Lord Ashbourne? I say that deliberately, because not only did Lord Ashbourne appoint this gentleman, but Lord Ashbourne was a member of that circuit, and knew Mr. Delandre, and must have known him for several years. Except for what I have heard here to-night, I am a perfect stranger to the facts altogether, but I have listened attentively to the Debate; and the most extraordinary thing I have found in this House for years is that Lord Ashbourne, who was at the head of the legal profession in Ireland and a member of the Cabinet of the Empire, who had practised on this circuit for years, and who had known Mr. Delandre for years, should have appointed for this position in the city of Waterford a man who had less knowledge than any ordinary lawyer's clerk. Well, Sir, the second extraordinary thing in the case is this, that this ignorance of the law on the part of Mr. Delandre was never found out for 10 years. Now, Mr. Delandre was appointed 10 or 12 years ago. During that period there had been very serious prosecutions taken on that circuit in the county. There were during that period

    391
    prosecutions for murder and for manslaughter, and other felonies, and Mr. Delandre had charge of these prosecutions. He was considered fit enough to administer the Coercion Act, and he was fit enough to prosecute men for murder, manslaughter, and other felonies of all kinds, and he never made a mistake during all those years, ignorant though he was. But now Mr. Delandre has suddenly been discovered to possess such a lack of knowledge as to be absolutely unfit to hold his post. I really think that the honourable and learned Gentleman has proved too much. But really, after all that has been said to-night, the point I am going to urge on behalf of this gentleman is this: that I think he was punished for a very trivial offence indeed. This offence, the Committee will observe, the right honourable Gentleman said was committed upon a very important occasion. He spoke of a crisis, and he led the Committee to understand that if that crisis had not been met in a firm, determined, and courageous manner, and by the punishing of lawbreakers, something dreadful would have happened in the south of Ireland. Now, in this very case I observe that this man was convicted and fined £1. Now, that was the crisis. As to this crisis I recollect another fact. Several men were prosecuted for disturbances, or participation in disturbances, in Waterford. They were tried, I think, before the Lord Chief Justice, and what happened upon that occasion? I think they were all convicted, or pleaded guilty, and what did the Lord Chief Justice do in order to meet the crisis? Why, he let them all out upon their own recognisances. So little did the Lord Chief Justice think of the peace of the south of Ireland being endangered by not administering the law in a firm, determined, and vigorous fashion, that he absolutely told these men to go home, and did not send one of them to gaol for a single day. Really, I do think that this offence was very trivial, and supposing for a moment that the right honourable Gentleman was correct in saying this man was very ignorant and incompetent, could he not possibly have found some other post for him if he could not have found a pension? [Laughter.] The right honourable Gentleman laughs at that sugges-
    392
    tion, but no man knows better than himself that amongst the official class in Dublin there are men as incompetent and as ignorant as Mr. Delandre, and I venture to say that there are men upon the magisterial bench in Ireland holding the office of resident magistrate who have been shown to be possessed of even less legal knowledge than Mr. Delandre. Could he not have turned Mr. Delandre on to the magisterial bench? I make that suggestion to the right honourable Gentleman. He was not here during the years that we were discussing the administration of the Coercion Act, or he would have known that on several occasions the resident magistrates were found either to have known nothing about the law, or to have entirely disregarded it; and, nevertheless, they were kept on, and when their administration was attacked, and when no defence could be made for them in this House, the present First Lord of the Treasury, who was then the Chief Secretary for Ireland, did not give up these men, and he never surrendered them for their exhibition of ignorance. Not at all, but he promoted them. He made one of them a commissioner. He turned them, anyhow, into something or other that would be better, and where, as far as I know, it was equally necessary for them to have known some law. Well, I say that there are plenty of posts in the gift of the authorities at Dublin Castle where ignorance is a good qualification, and where disregard of the law is not a disqualification, and where anything that would be a disqualification in any ordinary position is no disqualification. Why does not the right honourable Gentleman look about and see which of these incompetents is nearest to the age of 65, so that he can get rid of him and put Mr. Delandre in his place? I am, of course, speaking entirely on the assumption that Mr. Delandre is really as ignorant as the right honourable Gentleman has represented him to be. I really think, speaking as seriously as I can, that a man who was appointed by Lord Ashbourne 12 years ago, who knew him for years before he was appointed, who was retained in office by a Unionist Government and by a so-called Home Rule Government, and was then kept on again by another Unionist Government, and

    393
    never during all that time was found out to be the ignoramus which the right honourable Gentleman, knowing as much law as he does, eventually found him out to be—I do think to dismiss him under such circumstances was really too preposterous. The only other remark which I desire to make is this: that this case throws a very curious light upon the whole administration of justice in Ireland. We have found complaints made in this House of the practice of mixing up judicial and administrative functions in Ireland, and I think everybody will agree that it is highly desirable indeed that a person who is desired to act in his judicial capacity should not be acting in an administrative capacity at the same time. Well, what has happened? Here, in this case, Mr. Burke, the resident magistrate, is found by the contention of the Attorney General for Ireland to have been acting almost as a spy upon the local Crown prosecutor. He is allowed to send in a private report, and on that private report, without this poor man being given an opportunity of examining it, on that private report of the resident magistrate, this man was dismissed. I say that throws a fearful light upon the way in which things are managed in Dublin Castle. It may have been all right, perhaps, in this case, and I do not say whether it was or not. But, at all events, from this one example those who do not believe that these things are done in Dublin Castle as they ought to be done will be inclined to think that many things are done there, and have been done there in the past, which are as indefensible as they are represented to be in this House; and I venture to denounce here the practice of the magistrate, which is apparently not only condoned, but approved of by the Executive, acting as a spy upon this man, and sending in a private report, and the Government then acting upon that report in private without giving this man an opportunity of defending himself.
    MR. ATKINSON: The report was sent out to him almost verbatim in his dismissal.
    MR. J. REDMOND: Yes, but it was not sent until he had been asked to resign.
    MR. CLANCY: That does not affect the argument I was making. It is that the resident magistrate, who is supposed to stand as an impartial authority between the people accused, between the public and the Crown, is found acting as a confidant and intimate agent for the Crown. What respect can be had in Waterford, or in any other part of Ireland, for Mr. Burke, or how can he be regarded as an impartial magistrate in any case in which the Crown chooses to prosecute? Supposing some other crisis occurs in Waterford, and Mr. Burke is sent down there to adjudicate, what will be the opinion of any ordinary man under such circumstances? Will he regard Mr. Burke as an impartial agent, or as a man who goes into the court as any judge ought to do, without knowing anything of the case, without prompting the prosecutor and deciding upon the evidence that is brought before him. That is the idea of the judge, but what have we in Mr. Burke and the Irish resident magistrate as typified by him? He is an agent of one of the parties, the real confidant, the secret confidant, of the Crown, making a report when he thinks the Crown prosecutor does not do his duty, and getting the case adjourned when he thinks there is not evidence enough. Imagine a judge in the Royal Courts of Justice stopping a case because he knew from some private information if the case was resumed on a future day other evidence might be forthcoming. If any judge were found guilty of that, a Motion would be made here, and in the other House of Parliament, and especially in England, for removing him from the Bench, and the Motion would be carried.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the honourable Member that it is the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland that is before the Committee, and not the conduct of the resident magistrate.
    MR. CLANCY: In order to show what the conduct of the Attorney General was I had to show what the conduct of the resident magistrate was. That is the only way I can show it, and I say again that that was conduct on the part of the resident magistrate that ought not to have been tolerated by the Executive.

    395
    They ought not to have, and no single man in Dublin Castle ought to have, listened to that private report from a magistrate, who was expected to act by the public in a judicial and impartial character. They ought to have gone to some other source for information. They ought to have gone in mercy to their own servant for 10 years and their own political supporter for 10 years; they ought to have gone to him and said, "We have heard rumours of such and such a character; what have you to say about them?" But they did not do that; not at all. They acted on the private report of the resident magistrate, which ought never to have been presented. They dismissed the man, knowing very well that the trial was a farce, and that no amount of explanation on his part would have been of any use, and, as the Attorney General had said, they could not give him a pension. For my part, I regard this matter as not only a very serious and painful matter as regards Mr. Delandre, but I regard it as a matter of very serious consequences from a public point of view. It is intolerable that courts of justice should be polluted by such things as these, and the people of Ireland cannot have any confidence in the justice of the law which is administered in such a fashion as that. And though I should regret that any vote of censure should be passed upon the right honourable Gentleman which would lead to his resignation—("Oh, oh!")—well, I say that because we might get a great deal worse; still, in the interests of justice and in the interests of public peace, and in the interests of a
    fair and just and impartial administration of the law, I do hope the House of Commons will vote to-night upon this question in such a fashion that they will teach the Government that they will have to act in another fashion than they have shown in this case.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When I came into the House and heard the arguments I seemed to think that Mr. Delandre had a good case; but, having now read Mr. Delandre's own version of the correspondence, that has brought me to the conclusion that he has no case at all, and I was therefore prepared for the answer which the Attorney General, with so much accuracy, has made in proving that there was no case at all on behalf of Mr. Delandre. The only thing that I regret is that we have no hold in this country over the Irish Incorporated Law Society. Had it been the English Incorporated Law Society which was concerned we could have moved the reduction of the amount which is annually voted to that body, and I should have done so, but as it is the Irish Incorporated Law Society we cannot do anything. But having got rid of Mr. Delandre, in my opinion, the time has now arrived for us to ascertain whether we cannot find some means of disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Incorporated Law Society.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 127.—(Division List No. 196.)

    AYES.

    Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Caldwell, James

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    O'Malley, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Parnell, John Howard

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Hogan, James Francis

    Pinkerton, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Holburn, J. G.

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Daly, James

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

    Dillon, John

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Duckworth, James

    McDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Qn.'s Co.)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    McCartan, Michael

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

    McDermott, Patrick

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Maden, John Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Power.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morris, Samuel

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    NOES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Palmer, Sir Charles M.

    Baird, John George Alex.

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balcarres, Lord

    Garfit, William

    Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch.)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Purvis, Robert

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Heath, James

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Helder, Augustus

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Henderson, Alexander

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Butcher, John George

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

    Royds, Clement (Molyneux)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Rutherford, John

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Kemp, George

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Kenyon, James

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Knowles, Lees

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lafone, Alfred

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh.

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Warkworth, Lord

    Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lancs, SW)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    McKillop, James

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)

    Drucker, A.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Original Question again proposed—
    Motion made, and Question put—
    "That Item B (Crown Solicitors) be reduced by £600 in respect of the salary of the Crown Solicitor for Mayo."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLON: I desire to direct attention to the conduct of the Crown solicitor whose salary is provided for in this Vote. Whatever opinion may exist as to the merits of the gentleman to whom reference has been made in the discussion which has just taken place, I think the revelation of the proceedings of the magistrate and the ideas which were in that magistrate's mind is most extraordinary. I desire to direct attention to a very different aspect of the administration of the criminal law in Ireland, in the
    398
    proceedings of a Crown solicitor named Kelly, who conducted a prosecution recently at Westport. The prosecution took place on the 17th of February last, when there were three or four young men brought up, charged on a summons, so far as I recollect—I do not think they were arrested—with having formed part of a riotous assembly; charged with hooting a certain individual. It was not charged that they had done any injury, or that anything amounting to a riot had taken place; it was an extremely slight matter, as the proceedings and subsequent sentences of one month's imprisonment show. When these young men were brought before a bench of magistrates, Mr. Kelly, the Crown solicitor, who had been retained specially to prosecute in the case, appeared to conduct

    399
    the prosecution. An application was made on behalf of the prisoners for an adjournment for a fortnight; Mr. Kelly stated, on behalf of the Crown, that he had no objection to there being an adjournment, but, while agreeing to that adjournment, he made use of the following extraordinary and monstrous language—language absolutely, I believe, without parallel in this country—the Crown solicitor had agreed to the adjournment, and no evidence was gone into, the proceedings were on a summons, and the Crown solicitor had no kind of right, nor had the bench any right, to assume the guilt of the prisoners, or to use the language to which I wish to call attention—
    "Mr. Kelly, continuing, said he could not allow that occasion to pass without referring to what had taken place in that district recently; he wished to say that the clemency which had been shown would not be continued."
    When you remember that no one had been tried and found guilty, such language as that on the part of the Crown prosecutor is perfectly monstrous.
    "If there was a repetition of the criminal conduct which had been shown the Government was determined to put down disorder and protect individuals from insult and outrage, and for that purpose it would use all its powers of prosecution; and he desired to say the utmost protection would be given to individuals, and, if necessary, all the powers of the Crown would be employed to protect them. He desired to say that if occasion arose the authorities would be no respecters of persons, and that any person who broke the law, no matter what his position might be, would be treated as would be the humblest individual. He uttered those words of warning to let people know what was in store."
    If he had been judge, jury, Chief Secretary, and Attorney General rolled into one, he could not have made use of more outrageous language; and when we remember that this extraordinary harangue was delivered on the occasion of a summons on which the charge against those standing upon their trial was simply adjourned, and no evidence had been gone into with respect to the charge, nothing at all was charged against them, and the representative of the Crown had already agreed to the adjournment, then I say the language used was simply monstrous. It would be almost impossible to get anyone who is only acquainted with the
    400
    administration of the criminal law in this country to believe that language of this sort should be allowed; and do not we know also that the bench takes its view from the Crown solicitor, and that they are all part of the same machinery? Do not we also know what the purport of that language is? It is to tell the bench that they are expected by the Government, upon whose good will their daily bread depends—because there is no security of tenure to the magisterial bench in Ireland—it was to warn them that the Government would expect them to convict the men who were to be tried that day fortnight, and to convict any other men that the Crown saw fit to bring before them in pursuance of their policy. It is for that reason, and because such language is taken by the magistrates as a direction from men whom they dare not and cannot disobey, and have no idea of disobeying. This is an extreme illustration, I think, of the fact well known to many of us who have had an opportunity of testing it before the resident magistrates in Ireland, that you can expect no justice, or impartiality, or fairness from them; and that, when the Crown is conducting the prosecution, and they are aware that it is hostile, they have no consideration and have no mercy. At the present time I am condemning the conduct, not of the magistrates, but of the Crown solicitor. I am entitled to assume that Mr. Kelly would never have dared to have used such language without instructions. He was sent down to conduct this prosecution, and for the purpose of making an harangue of an intimidating character, and to make this into a sort of State trial. I have to admit that in many cases the magistrate does his duty fairly man to man, where he has no reason to believe his paymasters are not interested in the case, but the moment he is led to believe, or thinks he has reason to believe, the Crown is strongly interested in the case he becomes a Crown agent himself and ceases to be a magistrate. That being so, and the Crown in Ireland being aware that these men are absolutely in their power, the Attorney General ought to be extremely cautious not to give magistrates any direction in criminal cases. Bearing that in mind, the fact that a man is sent down from that town to represent the

    401
    Crown in order to deliver such a monstrous oration, is a very outrageous illustration of the depths to which the administration of criminal law in Ireland has fallen. In this particular case the matter acquires exceptional importance from the fact that this language was brought to the attention of the Chief Secretary shortly after the occasion upon which it was used, and, instead of giving some explanation of the quality of the language that was used, he fully endorsed it, and conveyed to us by the manner which he assumed that he directed this language to be used, and that it was a proper tone to adopt. Under these circumstances, I desire to bring the conduct of this matter before the Committee, and unless we can obtain some assurance from the law officer of the Crown that the prosecutions in the future will be conducted in a different spirit, and that Crown solicitors will not be allowed to harangue and threaten all who are before the court with pains and penalties, I shall have to move a reduction in the Vote on the question of his salary.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid this was the second time that the House had heard of the use of the language complained of, and that that gentleman's name had been brought before it. He might say at once that Mr. Kelly was one of the most respected solicitors in Ireland, he enjoyed a lucrative practice in Roscommon, and he was known to be a person of good character, and had been a most fair and effective Crown officer. The honourable Member for East Mayo had, in order to found an accusation, upon this occasion as upon the last, represented this language as if it were in some way connected with the case which was pending investigation. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact. What occurred was that certain men were brought up for assaulting a man named Conolly, and were sentenced to one month's imprisonment. The magistrates refused to increase that imprisonment, which was desired, in order that an appeal might be lodged. Then it was that an attempt was made to get up a riot. The honourable Gentleman had said that no riot had taken place, but that was probably due to the fact that a
    402
    great number of police were present to prevent it. O'Donnell was charged on the 29th of January with having, with persons unknown, to the number of 40, riotously assembled and intimidated a certain person. The charge came up for hearing on 3rd February, and an adjournment was applied for until the 8th, when the case was again adjourned to the 17th. The way in which O'Donnell had employed his time during the previous adjournments was by gathering together a riotous mob of 150 people armed with sticks, and going through the country at their head, visiting the houses of different people who happened to have herds and grazing farms, to consult the herd and reason with him by means of this kind of moral suasion and persuade him to give up his employment. When the case next came before the court, and when the language complained of was used, a further adjournment was asked for, and the language which was used by Mr. Kelly, as that gentleman explained, was not directed against that charge. He simply thought that he was right in giving a warning to those persons who thought it right to embark in such a course.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is curious that the warning should be given after the case was adjourned. It is surprising that this fellow dared to go on.
    MR. ATKINSON: It was on the occasion of the adjournment.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The fellow ought to have been put out of court for contempt.
    MR. ATKINSONpointed out that all Mr. Kelly did was to warn people that in future cases would not be adjourned from day to day, and week to week, for the benefit of the accused, who in the meantime headed riotous mobs. He thought, as his right honourable Friend had said on a previous occasion, that the language used was not only right, but wise, and really kind and considerate. It was addressed as a warning. Placed as he was in conducting the case, he was perfectly within his right, on the occasion of the application for the adjournment, in

    403
    warning the people that if they took action similar to that which had been taken by the accused individuals after the action upon which they were charged, then they would have to take the consequences. The honourable Member for East Mayo had suggested that this had been done for the purpose of warning the magistrates to convict, and that that gentleman had been sent down for that purpose. That was not the fact. Mr. Kelly was sent down because he was a competent solicitor, and he had no special instructions, no special instructions had been given to him as to the manner in which he was to conduct his case.
    MR. DILLON: I call that speech a direction.
    MR. ATKINSON: If that is an instruction I confess I do not understand the use of the language.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the right honourable Gentleman had favoured the Committee with a speech upon the working of the criminal law in Ireland. Mr. Kelly, a persona grata at Dublin Castle, was sent down to conduct the prosecution of these men. There was no case before the magistrates at all. It was intimated that an adjournment of the case would be applied for, and the man Kelly consented to the adjournment. The man Kelly had no more right to brawl at the court than any person had to brawl at other courts, but he was brawling there at the instigation of the executive Government. If the magistrates had been independent magistrates, they would not have allowed him to go on—they would have committed him for contempt. This man, who had his brief from the Castle in his pocket, was giving this moral lesson with his eye on the Castle and the Treasury Bench; and that he was not out of his sphere or mistaken in his point in the wording of his own speech was beautifully manifested when they had the Chief Secretary coming up, and, in such phrases as he could command, endorsing his words. There was no case before the court, and the man Kelly's observation was that they would not grant an adjournment again if the people did not behave themselves. Was he the
    404
    magistrate, or what was he? He had mistaken his vocation clearly as the agent, but as a responsible agent of the Crown the man Kelly knew his right and knew that if he did not come up to the mark probably the magistrates on the bench would have acted the part of spies, and have reported his failure to Dublin Castle. That was the reason why the people so loved the law in Ireland. It was because justice was only machinery for one party in the hands of the Government to set party against party. Not only was the man Kelly on his trial, but the Chief Secretary was also on his trial, because, although Kelly's brawling in court was bad enough, the part taken by the Chief Secretary in endorsing it in the manner in which he had done was intolerably worse. He (Mr. MacNeill) believed that it would not be difficult for anyone to become a magistrate who desired to do so; if he had been on the bench, and Mr. Kelly had commenced that performance, he would very quickly have found himself in gaol for seven days for contempt. He would watch with very considerable interest Mr. Kelly's future proceeding; that gentleman upon that occasion was speaking not for the good of the country but for his own promotion. Whether he had received instructions or not he perfectly well knew that observations of that kind would be approved by his employers. In all cases of that kind the point one had to consider was the nature of the tribunal before which the observations were made. One had to look to the connection of the parties, and to look at the directions that were given to the man upon the subject. He noticed that there was a sum of £20,000 put down in the Votes for the purpose of Crown prosecutors and Crown counsel. In the case of a Crown counsel it was not the same as in the case of a Crown solicitor. The Attorney General had the appointing of the gentlemen to the position of Crown counsel, and when a gentleman had been appointed Crown counsel in Ireland it had been the practice to maintain him indefinitely; that was a very bad practice, because it bred up a class of people whose whole duty is to act as prosecutors for the Crown against the people at large. He believed in the principle adopted in England, where, as the

    405
    Attorney General was well aware, the Crown cases were distributed amongst the barristers in each particular circuit, and which gave rise to the remark by a man who was acquitted, "God bless the Crown, who leaves us all the good counsel and take the bad for themselves." The result of the Irish system was well known. He would not mention any names, because it might give pain to people still living, but the Attorney General would no doubt remember perfectly well, after he had taken the silk, when he (Mr. MacNeill) was a young man at the bar, that there was an old gentleman, who had a large practice as Crown counsel, who, although he had long outlived his faculties, used to attend the court with a dummy brief in his hand, and two other counsel who did the work. That had been so for six years in his recollection, while in the recollection of the Attorney General it must have been so for at least 25 years; yet nobody thought, it worth while to alter it. It would be very much better to let the Crown briefs circulate through the circuit as they did in England, and not to breed up a single class of people who become by their training the natural enemies of the people. It would make the members of the Bar less dependent upon the Government of the day if they got their cases in the same way as they did in England. There would not be that army of harpies and spies in the guise of Crown prosecutors, and counsel would not be so demoralised and debased as they were. He did not know whether the Attorney General was aware that out of every three men at the Bar two had some small place in the Government given them, and were silenced and made to be respectful to the Government in the hope of getting something else. If this practice were discontinued, and there were a circulation of Crown briefs amongst the Bar, it would be of incalculable benefit to the Bar and the public at large, because it would be remembered that in Ireland the Crown was in every case the prosecutor, and certainly such a thing as a private prosecution did not occur more than once a year. In Ireland
    406
    all prosecutions were Crown prosecutions, or what was known in England as Treasury prosecutions. There was one other matter which he would like to bring before the attention of the Committee of a different nature; it would only detain them five minutes. The Attorney General would no doubt recollect the case which occurred in Dublin in which a Miss Brown was brought up on a charge of wilful murder of her servant. She was committed or remanded by the magistrates for 15 or 16 days, and then she received a private intimation that no further proceedings would be taken against her. That case abundantly illustrated the fact that in Ireland there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. Miss Brown, he believed, was a Protestant. She belonged to that dominant faith and dominant politics of Ireland, but had the misfortune to be poor. She led a life of genteel poverty, as people often do in the suburbs, letting lodgings. A servant whom Miss Brown had recently engaged, who had only been in the house one night, after some quarrel which she had had with her mistress, who had dismissed her for being lazy and doing no work, took prussic acid, which was in a cupboard in the house. Miss Brown, considering the girl's screams and shrieks were only the result of ill-temper, for some time took no notice. She eventually sent for a doctor, who refused to visit until his fee had been paid, and Miss Brown still thought nothing was the matter until the next day, when she found the girl was dead. There was some prussic acid in a cupboard in the kitchen where the girl had been, and Miss Brown was arrested on a charge of wilful murder. She had no solicitor and no counsel; she could not afford legal advice, and the solicitor who appeared for her was provided by public subscription. What occurred was that in the criminal proceedings before the magistrate Miss Brown was remanded without bail to prison for some 10 or 12 days in all. Then her solicitor appeared, and applied to the magistrate to hear her evidence. In England there is a Commission which says that magistrates must hear if the prisoner

    407
    desires evidence tendered on his behalf 24 hours after his arrest, but in Ireland there is not, and the magistrate in that case held that he was incompetent to hear her evidence, as he only had to make a primâ facie case for the Crown, who would produce the witnesses. The lady was kept in prison for some time longer, and at length she was told that no further proceedings would be taken against her on the charge of wilful murder. In his opinion, a very great outrage had been committed in respect of this lady, who had been deprived of her liberty, and of her whole means of earning her livelihood, and who had received no compensation whatever. She had had no opportunity, which she would have had if she had been brought before a jury, of vindicating her character. All that had been done was that, having brought a capital charge against her, the authorities had let the proceedings drop, and left the charge hanging over her head. He thought that, under all the circumstances, she was entitled to be compensated. The case was one in which great interest was felt in Dublin; the unfortunate lady was suffering under the awful imputation of murder, and he thought that the Government might act in a generous spirit, and restore her to her former position.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
    MR. DOOGANsaid: Mr. Lowther, I have heard the speech of the Attorney General, and, as far as I could follow it, it was to the effect that in making the speech at Westport, of which we complain, Mr. Kelly was animated by a spirit of pure benevolence. I would ask whether there is any precedent for a law officer making such a speech, when no charge had been proved against the accused? Is it not the theory of the Constitution and the law that no man should be assumed guilty until he is proved to be so? Proof was not given at all upon this occasion, and those accused persons in a remote part of Ireland pleaded for an adjournment in order to get an oppor-
    408
    tunity for their witnesses to appear, and to engage counsel. It was upon the occasion of the adjournment being granted that this violent harangue, threatening pains and penalties against the defendants and the locality was delivered by the Crown prosecutor. Had their legal adviser been present when this speech was made, he would have intervened to secure due and proper administration of justice. To say the least of it, that speech was a most suggestive one, and seemed to be an attempt to prejudice the bench against persons charged with only trivial offences. I would ask the Attorney-General whether it is not the duty of the Crown prosecutor in Ireland, or anyone prosecuting on behalf of the Crown, to do what he can, not to force a conviction, but to try to get a just finding? Why, no prosecuting counsel in England would ever think of trying to make his case except on evidence. Well, in the case to which I am referring the defendants were charged with going around the country trying to intimidate. At the next sitting of the court the evidence showed that there was no case for punishment, and the defendants were merely ordered to be bound over to keep the peace. One of them indignantly denied that he was guilty of any offence against the law. The position which he took up was that he did not break the law; that he had not been in conflict with the law; and that he would not enter into recognisances to keep the peace. Well, what was the result? He was ordered to enter into bonds of £5 to keep the peace, which he refused to do, and the alternative of three months in gaol was imposed by the bench. Now, I do not know whether the Attorney General would think three months in gaol a just equivalent to giving bail for £5 to keep the peace, but it seems to me to have been a very extraordinary sentence. I do not understand how the Attorney-General can seriously maintain that these proceedings were justifiable. The object of Mr. Kelly's coercive and unconstitutional speech was to intimidate and suppress the United League, which has been proved to

    409
    be a perfectly legal association, and, in fact, instead of its being suppressed, it is now a most flourishing and permanent institution in this very locality. All things considered, I cannot, for the life of me, see that it can tend to the better government of Ireland, or the preservation of peace and order in the rural districts of Ireland, that these political speeches on the part of the authorities should be defended and justified in this House.
    MR. PINKERTON: I wish to direct the attention of the right honourable Gentleman or the Attorney General to the item I find here of £1,000 for fees to the Attorney General and Solicitor General for contentious business. I want to know whether they pay this money for the purpose of preventing disturbances, and what is the nature of the contentious business for which this sum of £1,000 is paid. So far as I can understand, it is a mistake to pay any money to the law officers of the Crown for the purpose of carrying on contentious business; but, in my profound ignorance of the requirements of the law in this respect, I want an explanation of this Vote, and to know for what purpose it is paid, and on what occasions.
    MR. DALY: I also wish for some information from the right honourable Gentleman as to a large item in this Vote. There is a sum here of £2,500 for miscellaneous charges, and I think that should have been explained, and not left until we inquire in this House of the right honourable Gentleman what this large sum is for. I also observe that there is a charge here for Crown solicitors for special duty, although, to my mind, it would seem that the Crown solicitors have salary enough to enable them to do all their duty without getting £800 for special duties. I also notice that there is a further charge of £300. Now, Mr. Lowther, I am certain that these items require some explanation from the right honourable Gentleman of all the reasons for these large sums, and I hope he will be able
    410
    to make a satisfactory statement. With regard to the special question before the Committee now in reference to Mr. Kelly, I am sure the right honourable Gentleman regrets the action of the Crown solicitor as much as any Member of this House. It is certainly deplorable to see that an official goes into a court-house and makes a most inflammatory speech, intended to excite the people of the district. And it must be taken into account that the people in the west of Ireland, while they are well-conducted and law-abiding people, at the same time, in the smaller districts, as is to be expected, they are not very highly educated; and it is hard to tell what the incendiary language which the Crown solicitor used might have led to if the people were not loyal and law-abiding. I say that if this Crown solicitor had been practising before any other court than a court of landlords, he would have been immediately made to sit down and retract the language he had used to slander these pepole of the west of Ireland. I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will not forget to take into account the fact that an agent sat with his landlord on the bench, and adjudicated upon this case. I think that if the right honourable Gentleman is not prepared to take some action in this matter he will be very seriously neglecting his duty. To my mind, it is quite illegal and quite wrong for any land agent to act at the same time with the landlord in trying a case of this kind—in which an unfortunate peasant is concerned. Unless the honourable Member who has raised this question gets a very satisfactory answer from the right honourable Gentleman, I hope he will go to a Division. I think the right honourable Gentleman, after this time, ought to give a caution to Crown solicitors to curb their tongues in the future, and remember that the people who contribute to the salaries of these gentlemen have a right to be respected, and not hectored when they are looking after their own business. I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will, at least, give a caution to this Mr. Malachi Kelly. It has often been in the past that when an official insulted the people of the country he obtained immediate promotion, but I

    411
    trust that Mr. Kelly will not be promoted so soon as he expected to be on account of his action before the magistrates of county Mayo.
    MR. FLYNN: It has been truly said that there are no people who love impartial justice more than the Irish, and that is the reason why cases of this kind excite so much indignation in Ireland, and are brought forward by Members on these benches. I am greatly persuaded that it is no part of the professional duty of the right honourable Gentleman to defend an official who acts like Mr. Kelly, for there is no man more likely to condemn conduct of that kind than the right honourable Gentleman, and certainly the unjustifiable language used by Mr. Kelly deserves that some notice of it should be taken by the law officers of the Crown. These proceedings, which were reported in the Irish newspapers, were followed with considerable interest by the people; and what was their effect? Charges were made against certain men in connection with a public movement. There is no more dangerous lesson to convey to the Irish people than that they are not to organise and hold meetings in public, and have the right of free speech in public meeting. If you want to teach them that lesson you will try to drive the expression of discontent below the surface. Everybody knows that thousands of people in Ireland were on the verge of starvation at the time this movement was organised. The object was to relieve the people in the congested districts from chronic poverty, and give them some chance of working out their lives in decency and comfort. That was the object of the league, and speeches in support of it were made in public and reported in the newspapers. The action of the Crown ought to have been, if there was anything wrong in these speeche anything contrary to law, to indict. Mr. W. O'Brien, or to indict some of the other speakers; but, on the contrary, attempts were made to bring about a surreptitious conviction. As if the tribunal before which a prisoner has to be tried for certain offences in Ireland is not already sufficiently hostile
    412
    to the accused, the Crown prosecutor must give the weight of his opinion and authority against them, too. What is the reply of the right honourable Gentleman? That the language of Mr. Kelly had no reference to the offence. I do not wish to be disrespecful, but, surely, that is contrary to the facts. Does not everybody know that the language had direct reference to the offence with which the accused were charged? It is juggling with common sense to say that the action of the Crown prosecutor was to serve as a warning to the general public. I contend that it was no part of the duty of the Crown prosecutor to indulge in language of that description in a criminal court. It is intolerable enough to have judges going through the country lecturing the community in this manner without having a Crown solicitor, panting for promotion, doing the same kind of thing. It is no part of his duty, at any rate, and, even if it were, he should not have done so while this case was undecided and the men were, in the eyes of the law, absolutely innocent. Is it conceivable that a Crown prosecutor would, under similar circumstances, indulge in language of that kind either in England or Scotland? We have had scenes of disorder in many parts of England from time to time in connection with strikes, and in connection with trade union movements. Do you think the public would tolerate for one moment, in any dispute which may have arisen in the course of the colliery strike in South Wales, the use of similar inflammatory language on the part of a Crown prosecutor? No, Sir. You would have had the adjournment of the House moved, and a very severe lecture given to any Crown official who acted in this manner. One of the evils of Irish administration is that, right or wrong, the officials are always upheld. It is not to be wondered at that under these circumstances there is not that confidence in the administration of the law which is felt very largely in a large part of Great Britain. Now, Sir, there is one other matter connected with the Vote, that I should like to bring before the Committee—namely,

    413
    the question of jury packing in Ireland. Some time ago I mentioned a case of jury packing in connection with Munster Assizes, but I was unable to obtain very much information. I am in possession of quite a long list of cases in which a large number of respectable men in the city of Cork have been ordered to stand by, even in non-agrarian cases, consequently creating a suspicion in the public mind that there is a lack of fair play. These jurors, in their busiest times, are made to attend the court day after day under a severe penalty, sometimes amounting to £10; they attend the court, without receiving a penny of remuneration, and they turn their backs on their business only to very frequently find that they have to stand by. Mr. Lowther, let me say, en passant, that I do not care whether the order under which this system is conducted was made by a Liberal or a Conservative Government, we condemn it as altogether wrong.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: If I am not out of order, I may point out that my recollection is—and I was in office at the time—that it was in 1894 that the order was made. It was made to mitigate the order which was in existence, and, if possible, to palliate the offence of packing juries.
    MR. FLYNN: I am very glad to elicit that information. Apart altogether from the question as to whether it was a Liberal or Conservative Administration that introduced the system, I say that it is one which ought to be abolished. I have several cases in my mind where jurors have been ordered to stand by, but I do not desire to press them this evening. I do, however, say that it is most unfair to the jurors. I am sometimes sorry that one of the few privileges of a Member of Parliament is that of not being obliged to serve on a jury, because, if I had not been a Member of this House, I should be qualified to serve on a jury, and I could then object before the Crown prosecutor and the judge to
    414
    the existing practice. It was bad enough 20 or 30 years ago, but the system to-day is an anachronism as well as a scandal.
    MR. DAVITT: I was very much interested in the Attorney General's defence of Mr. Kelly. The intemperate and unprovoked harangue of this Crown official might be to some extent justified if he had been speaking in a county or in a district where crime was prevalent, or where there was some disturbance going on. But is it not a fact that shortly after this performance two of Her Majesty's judges visited the county of Mayo and congratulated not only the grand jury, but the whole county upon the peaceful condition, of that part of Ireland? And this statement was made by these two judges in face of the fact that the United Irish League, from the date of Mr. Kelly's performance, had spread over the whole county and increased its organisation and membership almost everywhere. Now, I contend, Sir, that this conduct on the part of this gentleman was most unwarranted. He ventured not only to prejudice the case against men who were not virtually on their trial at the time but to utter threats against other men who were not only not before the court, but who had not been charged by anybody with a breach of the peace. He uttered his threats against Mr. O'Brien, and against some clergymen who had taken part in this movement, which, I contend, has a perfectly legitimate object in view. Well, I do not think he has succeeded in either frightening or intimidating Mr. William O'Brien. He is not a man easily frightened by men of the stamp of Mr. Kelly. But I would appeal to the right honourable Gentleman, in the interest of the administration of law and justice in Ireland, to see that conduct, which would not be permitted in England by public opinion, is not practised in future in Ireland.
    MR. DILLON: I rise for the purpose of moving the reduction of the Vote by £600, the amount of the salary of Mr. Malachi Kelly. I have listened with very

    415
    great interest to the Attorney General's attempt to defend the attack on this gentleman, and, Sir, I confess that my original astonishment considerably increased in the course of the right honourable Gentleman's speech. What did the Attorney General say? He said that the language of Mr. Malachi Kelly had no reference whatever to the offences with which these young men were charged. He said it had reference to certain riotous proceedings which had occurred immediately before. What right had that man to assume, in the first place, that these proceedings were either illegal or otherwise? I deny that they were either one or the other. There was evidence before the court as to the nature of those proceedings. According to the Attorney General, they had no bearing on the case, and so a more unfair attempt to prejudice a trial than for a Crown official to deliver from the petty sessions court a political harangue I have never known. The speech was nothing more nor less than a political harangue in defence of the Government, and I say, Sir, it is unjustifiable that it should have been delivered inside a court. What is the history of this case? This alleged offence—which, I say, was no offence at all, and I have strong grounds for that opinion—was committed about a fortnight or three weeks before the meeting at Westport, addressed by myself and Mr. William O'Brien. It was committed early in January, and for three weeks after the alleged riot no action whatever was taken by the Government, For the purpose of manufacturing a case, to justify the Chief Secretary in prancing about the floor of this House and insulting Members, this bogus charge was trumped up, not on the merits of the case, but because a meeting had been held at Westport. Now, I believe that if we had had no meeting at Westport on the 27th of January, you would never have heard of this prosecution, but in order to make out that this meeting had given rise to outrage and disorder, the police were directed in the usual style to find out some crime to prosecute as
    416
    a consequence of the meeting. And what followed? When the matter was subsequently brought before the House, what does the Chief Secretary say? He says that Mr. Kelly's remarks were directed against Mr. O'Brien and myself. You have heard of Dean Swift's description of Ireland of 60 years ago as a country in which everything was turned upside down, but I think that even Dean Swift could not have equalled this contention of the right honourable Gentleman. The police were ordered to summon these unfortunate young fellows, not because they had committed a crime, but because we had held a meeting at Westport on the 27th of January, and it was necessary to show what frightful effects came from our meeting; and in order to demonstrate the turbulent condition of things that resulted, this intelligent and able solicitor was requisitioned, and in his mouth was placed a speech which would have been more in order if it had been delivered at Belfast after 103 policemen had been sent into hospital.
    MR. JOHNSTON: The Orangemen had nothing to do with it.
    MR. DILLON: Not in Westport; but I would ask the Attorney General why these harangues were not delivered by the Crown prosecutor in Belfast, where there was real riot and disorder and danger to public life and peace, and where 103 policemen were wounded in a single night? Westport is a district which has been in a state of absolute peace for a long time, yet, in connection with a case of a most trifling character, a salaried officer receiving £500 a year is directed to deliver a political harangue in a court of justice. Sir, I say that the whole proceeding is disgraceful to the Crown, and disgraceful to everybody who took part in it, and it would not be tolerated in this country for a single moment. An honourable Member has asked what would be thought if a similar state of things occurred in South Wales. Suppose in South Wales a certain body of colliers had been summoned on the

    417
    terrible charge of having booed at a certain individual, and that the Attorney General for England had sent to South Wales an official with instruction to deliver in the court an oration on the iniquities of strikes, and on the determination of the Executive Government to show no mercy to anybody who was guilty of those wicked practices in the future. I should like to know what would be the result? Such language would not be tolerated for a single moment. The Attorney General used an extraordinary expression, which I took down at the time he was speaking. He said that the Crown prosecutor's speech was intended for the purpose of warning those who might be disorderly. I respectfully submit to the Committee that that is not the province nor the privilege of Crown prosecutors. They are not paid for the purpose of insulting and of bullying Her Majesty's subjects who are accused of no crime. They are paid for the purpose of administering the law, and not for the purpose of turning courts of justice into political platforms. We may be opposed to the Government, but until the Government are prepared to indict us, or to summon us, and to bring forward evidence against us, we ought not to be subjected to the insolence of hired officials.
    MR. ATKINSON: As I have already explained, the man O'Donnell abused the privilege of the adjournment of his case by conducting a riotous mob through the county armed with sticks. When the case came up again, and application was made for a further adjournment, Mr. Kelly merely cautioned the people against taking part in these riotous proceedings.
    MR. DAVITT: The honourable and learned Member forgets that when the Westport riots were last discussed in the House the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the warning uttered by Mr. Kelly was addressed to Mr. William O'Brien, and possibly to the Member for
    418
    East Mayo. The right honourable Gentleman's words were—
    "I suspect it had reference to Mr. William O'Brien, and possibly to the honourable Member himself."
    Which of the explanations is the true one—the Attorney General's or the Chief Secretary's?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the speech which he made when the Westport riots were discussed in this House the honourable Member for East Mayo ventured upon the proposition that Mr. Kelly's warning was meant for the priests, and in answer to that I interjected that I suspected "it had reference to Mr. William O'Brien, and possibly to the honourable Member himself."
    MR. DILLON: Does the Attorney General suggest that Mr. Kelly was afraid that I was going to visit the people's houses at the head of a mob armed with sticks?
    MR. ATKINSON: I do not think that any person has ever filled this office for us with more intelligence—
    THE CHAIRMAN: No matter can be discussed except the question of the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. DILLON: Was this warning addressed to me to prevent me going round with a stick—that is the suggestion that has been made—to prevent me being seduced into going round with a stick intimidating these people?
    MR. ATKINSON: I understand that in the course of the speech of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary, when these riots were last discussed in the House, somebody interjected that Mr. Kelly's remarks had reference to the priests; and the Chief Secretary replied that he suspected they had reference to Mr. William O'Brien, and possibly to the honourable Member for East Mayo. I do not know to whom Mr. Kelly desired to refer; he named no individual. I

    419
    wish, however, to repeat that Mr. Kelly had no instructions to make the statement complained of; but it seems to me that, under the circumstances, his statement was entirely right and thoroughly justified.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General has defended the language of Mr. Kelly on the ground that it was directed, purely and simply, to the case of O'Donnell, but the charge of the honourable Member for East Mayo is that Mr. Kelly made a general political harangue. The defence of the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is that Mr. Kelly did not make a general political harangue, but that he made a statement directed exclusively and entirely to the case of O'Donnell, who was then before the court, and the right honourable and learned Gentleman went on to justify those references to O'Donnell on the ground that the man had abused the clemency of the Crown by going round, at the head of a riotous mob, visiting people, and endeavouring to intimidate them. Therefore the whole defence of the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General is based on the statement that the language of the Crown solicitor was directed simply to the particular case and the particular individual then before the court; but the Attorney General for Ireland was forgetful of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the occasion when the Westport riots were discussed. I remember that speech. I had the honour of taking a small part in the discussion, and I remember very well that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in defence of the speech of Mr. Kelly, said across the floor of this House—in language and with a manner which I thought unduly provocative, and almost beyond the limits of the courtesy which should exist between even political opponents—the right honourable Gentleman threw across the floor of this House the taunt that this
    420
    speech, which, according to the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, was simply a piece of legal oratory directed to a particular case, was meant for Mr. William O'Brien and the honourable Member for East Mayo. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has himself just stated that somebody said, across the floor of this House, that Mr. Kelly's speech was directed against the priests, and that he (the Chief Secretary) corrected that statement, and said the speech was not directed against the priests, but against Mr. William O'Brien, and possibly the honourable Member for East Mayo. What relevance has that to the defence of the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General? Whether the speech was directed against the priests, as alleged from these benches, or whether it was directed against Mr. William O'Brien and the honourable Member for East Mayo, it comes to the same thing. It was a political speech, according to the Chief Secretary; it was a legal speech, according to the Attorney General. Which is the correct version? Was it a legal speech or a political speech? If that poor, unfortunate gentleman, who did not know the difference between the 61st and 64th sections of the Petty Sessions Act, had happened to have as charitable a master as the House of Commons he would have escaped, as the Attorney General has escaped now, although his statement is absolutely diametrically opposed to the statement of the Chief Secretary. I take my stand with the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. As Mr. Disraeli said, "I like to be on the side of the angels." I am told the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a member of a highly-refined, scholastic, and spiritualised body called "The Apostles." I do not know whether they are called "apostles," or "souls," or whether there are societies with such titles, but I am on the side of the Chief Secretary, and the right honourable Gentleman gives a political

    421
    meaning to this speech. That is just the gist of our complaint. What right has the Crown solicitor to make a political harangue? If in England a gentleman occupying the respectable and lucrative position of Crown solicitor went into a court of law, and à propos of nothing, delivered a political harangue, what would the people say? They would say he ought to be dismissed from the public service, and, like the honourable Gentleman opposite, ought to become a theological Member of the House of Commons. Sir, this Mr. Kelly goes into a court of law, and, à propos of the question of adjournment, says that the clemency of the Crown is almost exhausted; that, if the people go a little further, that clemency will be no longer extended to them, and he, as ambassador of the mercy or of the severity of the Crown, declared to the people of Mayo that his loyal patience was almost exhausted. It is almost like the figurative language of the Old Testament.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear!
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What is the meaning of it all? The meaning is that the government of Ireland is conducted on Chinese principles. In the earlier portion of the evening the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland got up, and, in defence of his own action, made a revelation of Irish legal and political methods, which, I think, was most startling, declaring that a judge on the bench reported to Dublin Castle that the Crown prosecutor of Waterford was not zealous. The Attorney General says he is a friend of the late Crown prosecutor for Waterford. In that case it was an unkind thing of the Attorney General not to utter a friendly word of warning in Mr. Delandre's ear. Why did not the Attorney General tell his friend that he ought to look to Mayo, and he ought to read the speeches Mr. Kelly had made, when, in place of attending to his legal duties, he uttered political harangues? Then, instead of being dismissed, and in his old age reduced, with his wife and children, to poverty,
    422
    his actions would have been pronounced legitimate, and his professional abilities and political zeal on behalf of the Government would have been eulogised. Mr. Kelly's speech, the Chief Secretary says, was a warning to an honourable Member of this House, the leader of a party in this House, and to Mr. William O'Brien. What strange functions these legal dignitaries have to perform! A judge on the bench reports the Crown prosecutor at Waterford because he is not sufficiently zealous, not in the cause of justice, but in the cause of Dublin Castle! The representative of impartial English law is employed to report an underling of the Government because he is not sufficiently eager in procuring a conviction in a case as to which the judge on the bench is supposed to hold an impartial position. Go to Mayo, and there you will find the great exemplar of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General. Let a Crown solicitor prejudge a case, try to create prejudice in a case, try to convict a man, not because of his offence, but because of a general political and social movement around him, and the Attorney General, who has exhausted his vituperation against one whom he considered a lukewarm servant of the Government, will exhaust his eulogiums and his encomiums upon him. I think this Debate will have the best results. I have heard many charges made against the government of Ireland from Dublin Castle; I have made many charges against the Government myself; but I have the satisfaction of knowing that the worst things I have ever said have never equalled in effectiveness the statement made this evening by the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): It is somewhat difficult to take seriously the speeches that have just been made from the other side of the House. At the same time honourable Members have said several things which I feel I cannot pass over. I shall not

    423
    dwell upon the misrepresentations contained in the latter part of the speech of the honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, the part in which the honourable Member repeated the statement that my right honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had advised the Executive to dismiss the Crown solicitor for Waterford on the ground that he was not sufficiently zealous in carrying out prosecutions. If the honourable Member had been present when the Attorney General made a crushing defence in reply to the attack made upon him, he would have known that the Crown solicitor of Waterford was dismissed, not for what the honourable Member says, but for sheer incapacity and want of knowledge of his profession. I shall not dwell upon that. What I rose to speak upon was the references to myself made by the honourable Member for Liverpool [Mr. T. P. O'Connor]. The honourable Member referred to Mr. Kelly's speech at Westport, and told the Committee that, whereas the Attorney General described that speech as a legal speech, I had described it as a political speech. I never did anything of the kind. I never thought of describing it as a political speech, and, with the permission of the Committee, I shall read what the Crown solicitor did say, in order that they may judge for themselves of the character of the speech. I may explain that application had been made on behalf of the accused that the case should be adjourned for the second or third time. The Crown solicitor consented to the adjournment, but, at the same time, made these remarks. He said—
    "He could not allow that occasion to pass without referring to what had taken place in this district recently. He wished to say that the clemency that had been shown would not be continued if there was a repetition of criminal conduct. The Government was determined to put down disorder and to enforce the law in the interests of the public peace and to protect individuals from insult and outrage, and for that purpose it would use all the powers of protection; and he desired also to say that the utmost protection would be afforded to individuals assailed, and, if necessary, the forces of the Crown would be employed to protect them should occasion arise, and should occasion for strong measures arise he desired
    424
    to say the authorities would be no respecters of persons, and that every person who broke the law, no matter what his position, would be treated as would be the humblest individual. He uttered these words of warning to let people know what was in store for them. Lawlessness would not be tolerated by the authorities. It had gone on long enough, and if there was any repetition of it the Crown would deal with it in a manner that would surprise all the parties concerned."
    The honourable Member for East Mayo, referring, not to the speech as a whole, but to one single passage in it, that in which Mr. Kelly said—
    "the authorities would be no respecters of persons, and every person who broke the law, no matter what his position, would be treated like the humblest individual,"
    remarked that he presumed that referred to the priests, and I said, across the floor of the House, that I thought it referred, not to the priests, but to Mr. William O'Brien and the honourable Member for East Mayo. I have read Mr. Kelly's speech, and I ask the Committee whether it could be, in any sense, a political speech. In my judgment, considering the state of disorder in the district, and the speeches delivered by Mr. O'Brien and the honourable Member for East Mayo, and the consequences which followed upon those speeches, the Crown solicitor, in consenting to the adjournment of this particular case, was absolutely justified in giving the warning he did, and my right honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has described the speech with absolute correctness as a warning in regard to the future. The Attorney General said, with absolute correctness, that Mr. Kelly's speech had no reference to the offences for which these persons were brought before the magistrate on this particular occasion, but was a warning for the future. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that, in my judgment, the Crown solicitor, considering all the circumstances of the case, was absolutely justified in giving notice to all concerned that the scenes of lawlessness which prevailed at that time would not be tolerated by the Crown, and that, if they continued, strong measures would be taken to put them down.
    MR. DILLON: I think the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has proved our case absolutely. The speech of Mr. Kelly, which the right honourable Gentleman read, was, I maintain without fear of contradiction, a foolish speech. It might or it might not be justified; but I do not think it would have been justified if it had been delivered by the right honourable Gentleman himself, or by some other representative of the Government. This gentleman, Mr. Kelly, undertook to speak on behalf of the Government, and to declare that strong measures would be taken. What strong measures did he mean? Was he authorised to say that the Executive was prepared to go beyond the law? Is the enforcement of the law a strong measure? I say that that speech was a violent political speech which no conceivable circumstances would make justifiable by a supporter of the Government, by the right honourable Gentleman himself, or by any politician undertaking to speak on behalf of the Government. Such a speech, whether the case was a small one, as in the present instance, or an important political one, was most unsuitable and unworthy, and utterly foreign to every proper conception of the duty of counsel; and I say, further, that I am perfectly convinced that if an English counsel or Crown solicitor had used such language, it would have met with the universal condemnation of his professional brethren. I traverse, to a certain extent, the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary with regard to the interruption that took place when the Westport riots were under discussion. In the report in "Hansard" I am made to say that I thought Mr. Kelly's speech was intended for the learned counsel.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is an error.
    MR. DILLON: My recollection agrees with that of the right honourable Gentle-
    426
    man, that what I said was that I presumed it was intended for the priests. I had read an extract from the speech, which concluded with the following words—
    "He uttered these words of warning to let people know what was in store for them. Lawlessness would not be tolerated by the authorities. It had gone on long enough, and if there was any repetition of it the Crown would deal with it in a manner that would surprise all the parties concerned. That was intended for the learned counsel."
    I think I said that was intended for the priests, and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary interrupted me, and said—
    "I suspect it had reference to Mr. William O'Brien, and possibly to the honourable Member himself."
    I say that more insulting and scandalous language never was used in the House of Commons. What right had the right honourable Gentleman to challenge me across the floor of this House, and say that his officials in Ireland were warning me of what was in store for me? The right honourable Gentleman had no more right to use such language to me than I have to use it to him, or to make such statements across the floor of the House, and it is a scandalous instance of the spirit in which the law is administered in Ireland. When we know that language was used for the purpose of prejudicing events against those unfortunate young men who were on trial; when we know, as the revelations of to-night have shown, what are the relations that exist between the Crown prosecutor and the magistracy and the Castle; and when we know that this Crown prosecutor, who used that language, was the direct representative of the master of the magistrate who sat on the bench, and who could in a single moment deprive that man of his living, I say it was a monstrous case of attempting to intimidate the bench by language which ought not for a moment to be tolerated in a court of justice. All I desire further to say is that I only wish

    427
    that Englishmen, who understand very little about these matters, would leave this question to the judgment of representatives of Ireland, and, if they did that, Mr. Malachi Kelly would get his deserts.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I hesitate in supporting the Vote for the reduction of this salary on two grounds. First, from the very words which have been now read out, attributed to Mr. Kelly, I think it is clear that if this reduction was carried, then that prerogative which has been so sternly insisted upon in the Waterford case should be at once exercised with regard to Mr. Kelly, and I, for one, am very reluctant indeed to condemn any man unheard, and without having an opportunity of explaining his conduct, more especially in this case, because, so far as I can appreciate them, the defences which have been made for him by my right honourable Friend the Attorney General for Ireland on the one hand, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the other, are somewhat inconsistent. If Mr. Kelly were here at the Bar of the House—and I am not sure that that would not be the proper course to pursue—we could learn under what circumstances this extraordinary harangue was delivered. I am not at all sure from the language that was used—we must remember that the case had been adjourned on two or three occasions is an admitted fact—that he may not have been acting on instructions from Dublin Castle. But if he was acting on instructions from Dublin Castle, he knew that was at the will and pleasure of Dublin Castle, and considerations that his bread and his salary depended on his pleasing Dublin Castle may have influenced him very much when, in obeying orders, he delivered this extraordinary harangue. I think, therefore, that to vote for the reduction of this salary without knowing whether he acted on instructions, would be, perhaps, a strong measure. Unquestionably that speech appears to me to be a speech carrying out instructions, and
    428
    not uttered on the mere spur of the moment, but probably the result of some communication which had taken place before. There is another reason why I draw attention to this Matter. I am not at all sure, in the interests of the poor, starving peasants of Mayo, that they might not go further and fare worse if Mr. Kelly were now dismissed, as he should be if this Amendment were carried. I do not know what protégé of some Tory landlord might be appointed as his successor. It is impossible to forecast these things; it is impossible to anticipate how far the poor peasantry of the neighbourhood of Westport would be gainers by the result. Again, the revelations in this case do appear to me to raise the curtain a little which hangs over the administration of justice in Ireland, and to afford an object lesson to this House as to the relations of the landlord, the agent, and the resident magistrate. There was a rule for several years subsisting in Ireland, and I thought it still subsisted, that if it happened that the principal and his agent for the same property were in the commission of the peace for the same county, they only received that commission on the express understanding that they were not to sit together. The bench generally consists of only three or four men, and if the principal and the agent sit together—that is, two rolled into one—of course, against the poor tenant, and against the poor fellows charged with offences directly affecting the interests of the estate, the result is a mockery of justice. In this case, however, until we have heard the explanation of Mr. Kelly, I would recommend that the mover of this reduction should be satisfied with the strong expression of opinion that has emanated from below the Gangway, and should put the saddle on the right horse, and either have Mr. Kelly at the Bar of the House to explain his conduct, or ascertain whether he was not really carrying out instructions from the Executive when this strange and extraordinary oration was delivered.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am rather disposed to agree with my right honourable and learned Friend who has just sat down, that, perhaps, after all, the real blame is not to be laid upon the head of Mr. Malachi Kelly so much as on the heads of his superiors. Mr. Kelly is in the employ of the Crown. He is a solicitor earning his living. He is bound to earn his living by doing his best for the Government which employs him. He knows now, as we all know, that he has on the bench a very vigilant critic of the manner in which he performs his duties. If he happens to be slightly ignorant, or slightly lax with regard to his interpretations of the Petty Sessions Act, the impartial, the calm, the high-minded judge who sits on the bench, instead of holding the scales of justice even between the Crown on the one side and the subject on the other, is engaged in writing secret reports to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to the Attorney General, as to the manner in which he discharges his duties. Why, Sir, was ever in the history of any civilised country a more grotesque or more odious exhibition than that of the Irish Government here to-night? What has the chief law officer given as his defence for the dismissal of Mr. Delandre, the prosecuting counsel for Waterford? A secret report against that counsel by the judge on the bench! Next, Sir, I must take notice of the language of the Chief Secretary. He considered it in accordance with Parliamentary courtesy to say that a speech—if I may so dignify it—a few observations I have made, was unworthy of serious attention. My statement was that you had a judge on the bench acting the spy on the Crown solicitor. Is that a serious question, or is it not? Why, Sir, let me tell the Chief Secretary that I never knew a man in his position who received more personal kindness—and I think I may go further, and say personal generosity—on the part of political
    430
    opponents than he has on the part of honourable Members on these benches. I do not know anybody in his position who has laid himself open more to attack than he has. He has used language the tactlessness of which, the heartlessness of which, has disgusted even his own supporters, and if it has not brought them into our Lobby, at any rate has not brought them into his. He thought it becoming to him to utter across the floor of this House words of menace against his political opponents, my honourable Friends beside me. Well, Sir, I do think there ought to be a little give and take in the personal relations of even political opponents in this House, and if the right honourable Gentleman is treated with singular and almost unprecedented personal indulgence and generosity by Members on these benches, he ought to answer a little better than by what I might almost call the gross remark that he has thought it right to make across the floor of this House to his political opponents. I feel it necessary to make this explanation. I do not wish to attack the Attorney General for Ireland it all. I know he is a kind-hearted and generous man, and discharges his duty with great ability. I do not blame him for speaking to his brief. I blame the man who instructed him in his brief. The Chief Secretary for Ireland just now read the speech of Mr. Kelly—a political speech.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURdissented.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right honourable Gentleman denies that. How can he deny it in face of the speech as he read it out? Mr. Kelly says the people will be surprised at what takes place. The people do not know what is in store for them! The Crown will not act with clemency any further! A stupid attorney, a miserable country solicitor, is wielding the coercive forces that lie in the hands of the Chief Secretary! What did it mean? It meant that the Chief Secretary had given him the hint. I hear laughter. Will the honourable

    431
    Gentleman the Member for West Belfast, who laughs and interrupts me, have the manliness to get up and say what he has to say?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I was so genuinely amused by the absurdity of the suggestion that I could not help laughing.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In my country it is said that a loud laugh bespeaks a vacant mind. Perhaps the honourable Gentleman's laugh might not be described as loud, but he interrupted me, in some form or other, by some unuttered expression which he had not the manliness to put into articulate language. Was Mr. Malachi Kelly acting on instructions, either expressed or implied, from Dublin Castle when he announced that the Chief Secretary was determined, was ready to employ the forces of coercion against the people of Mayo? Is that the duty of a Crown solicitor? The Crown solicitor's duty is to speak about the law and the legal bearings of the case. The duty of the Crown solicitor is to deal with the case immediately in hand. Why, Sir, in this country the commonest ruffian that is brought up to the old Bailey will not have brought against him a single conviction or a single act of his previous life until the jury has decided one way or the other. It is, I think, one of the finest principles of English law that a case shall be decided on its merits, and
    on those merits alone, and that there shall not be brought into it any extraneous or antecedent matter. In Ireland we reverse all that. A man is brought up to be tried for "booing" at a policeman, or some other charge of that kind, and against him are brought public meetings addressed by political men, and political or social movements all round, to influence the court. Why, Sir, it is a monstrous thing, a monstrous perversion of justice, that would not be permitted for one hour in this country, and against which, if it were introduced, the laughing philosopher on the other side of the House would be one of the first to protest. This Debate to-night, although it has not been heard by many people during its earlier stages, will have had good effect. We know what the Government of Ireland now means, with the Chief Secretary at the top and Mr. Malachi Kelly at the bottom. We have had an object lesson to-night in the manner in which the government of Ireland is carried on by the Chief Secretary, and although he may have a majority in the Division against us, the lessons that has been preached to-night will tell in time.
    Amendment proposed—
    "That item B be reduced by £600 in respect of the salary of the Crown solicitor for Mayo."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 107.—(Division List No. 197.)

    AYES.

    Allen, W. (Newc.-under-L.)

    Hazell, Walter

    Parnell, John Howard

    Billson, Alfred

    Hogan, James Francis

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Brigg, John

    Holburn, J. G.

    Pinkerton, John

    Caldwell, James

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Crean, Eugene

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Daly, James

    McCartan, Michael

    Warner, Thomas C. T.

    Davitt, Michael

    McDermott, Patrick

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morris, Samuel

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murnaghan, George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Dillon and Mr.Doogan.

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. Geo's)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Gosohen, G. J. (Sussex)

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Baird, John George Alex.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch.)

    Gretton, John

    Purvis, Robert

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne-

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

    Heath, James

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Helder, Augustus

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Henderson, Alexander

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Robinson, Brooke

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Howell, William Tudor

    Round, James

    Charrington, Spencer

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Kenyon, James

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Knowles, Lees

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Stock, James Henry

    Drucker, A.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Finch, George H.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Warkworth, Lord

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Lowe, Francis William

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Flower, Ernest

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Garfit, William

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    More, Robert Jasper

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    MR. FLAVIN: I would like to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to a recent case in which the constabulary, without any authority, arrested two boys and brought them before a magistrate. Subsequently an action was brought by the boys' mother for illegal arrest. When the case came on for trial the county court judge directed that the jury, notwithstanding their own opinions and the weight of the evidence, should sign the issue paper declaring that there was no arrest of any kind. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether a county court judge has the power of directing a jury to find a verdict against the weight of evidence?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The action of county court judges in legal matters cannot be challenged upon this Vote. Their salaries are placed upon the Consolidated Fund for the express purpose of placing their actions outside the scope of review in this House.
    MR. FLAVIN: In the case I refer to the jury had formed an opinion upon the facts, and wanted to express that opinion, but the county court judge told them they must not do so.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the county court judge cannot be discussed on this Vote.
    MR. FLYNN: May I call the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to the matter of the selection of juries at the last winter assizes in Cork? Some time ago I gave to the right honourable Gentleman particulars of two or three cases of jury packing, and I would like an expression of opinion from him in view of the approaching summer assizes and the probability that the old practices, will be repeated.
    MR. ATKINSON: It is perfectly impossible for me to give any undertaking that in future no jurors

    435
    will be ordered to stand aside. Every administration must maintain the right to enforce this power of challenge, but I think I may challenge the honourable Member to find any case in the last 20 years in which so few jurors have been ordered to stand aside as at the last winter assizes at Cork. There were only 55 jurors who were ordered to stand aside, and of those 39 were challenged by the prisoners. It is impossible for me to give an undertaking that this power of challenging jurors will not be exercised by the Crown, but I think I can give the assurance that the power is never used by Crown solicitors for any reason but one—namely, that there is some ground for thinking that the persons challenged, if sworn, would not give an impartial verdict. I can assure the honourable Member that he is under a great misapprehension if he thinks that Crown prosecutors wish to exercise this right. Everybody who is engaged in public prosecutions knows the amount of criticism and censure that such a course brings down. The power is only used in cases where there is real ground for believing that it is necessary in the interests of justice.
    MR. FLYNN: My remarks in the earlier part of the evening rather had reference to the Cork winter assizes of December, 1896. In December, 1897, there were a number of stand-bys, so large as to be absolutely alarming. I think we are entitled to have an assurance from the right honourable Gentleman that he will give a general instruction to solicitors and counsel representing the Crown to exercise less zeal in taking advantage of their right of challenge. I say it is a bad principle and it is fraught with danger when exercised in the wholesale manner in which it is by over-zealous and indiscreet Crown prosecutors and solicitors.
    MR. DAVITT: In connection with the Vote for law charges and criminal prosecutions, I should like to ascertain why it is that there is no diminution corresponding to the dwindling population and the general crimelessness of the country. There is not to-day any civilised country in the world that can show a clearer record in the matter of crime than Ire-
    436
    land. It is quite a common thing for judges at assizes to be presented with white gloves, and in connection with the county I have the honour to represent, the judges who went down shortly after the so-called disturbances in Westport declared that the county was in a most satisfactory condition in the matter of crime. In face of these things, which no one can deny, one would expect that something less than £62,660 would be required for criminal prosecutions in Ireland; and when we add to this the salaries of the judges and the enormous sum of money paid for the police, I think I can safely say that the administration of justice in Ireland is scandalously extravagant and without parallel in the history of any other country.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I desire to draw attention to one item in this Vote, namely—
    "For the defence of public officials, expenses in actions taken against resident magistrates, divisional and other magistrates, constabulary, and other public officials, £400."
    We are entitled to have details of the expenditure under such an extraordinary heading as that.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Estimates for this year for law charges are less than they have been for the last 22 years—very little more than half what they were in 1883–84. They were then £115,825, and they have been dwindling since that date until this year. I have not the figures further back than 1877, but for the last 30 years the figure has not been so low as it is at the present time. In 1891–92 the figure was £77,621; in 1892–93, £76,000; in 1893–94, £70,000; in 1894–95, £67,000; in 1895–96, £66,000; in 1896–97, £65,000; in 1897–98, £64,000; and this year, £62,000, or £1,500 less than last year, representing the lowest figure during the present century; thanks to the rapid and uninterrupted decline in Crown prosecutions, indicating a corresponding decrease in crime. With regard to the item of £400 referred to by the honourable Member for East Donegal, I think that is an exceedingly moderate and proper

    437
    charge. If an action is brought against a police sergeant for acts done in the execution of his duty, and it turns out to be totally groundless, the costs of defending himself might mean ruin to the officer, unless the Government came to his rescue. What is done is this. The Government refuse, in the first place, to undertake to pay costs at all; they wait until the result of the action, and if the officer is blameless they will pay his costs. It would be impossible, in many cases, for the officers to defend themselves against such actions unless the Executive came to their assistance, and I think the Committee will agree that the Government cannot be blamed for standing at the back of their own officials.
    On the Vote of £69,929, to complete the sum for Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments in Ireland,
    MR. DILLON: On this Vote I should like to ask the Chief Secretary to let us know what has been the net amount of saving made in pursuance of an Act, passed at the end of last year, called an Act to reduce the Irish Judiciary. I see that in the Supreme Court of Judicature there is a decrease this year of £4,829, as compared with last year. I should like to ask whether the whole of that saving has been carried to a separate Irish account, according to the promise that was made when the Bill of last year was under discussion? Having put that question to the Attorney General, I should like to say a word on the general question of judicial salaries, and to draw a comparison between the law charges in Ireland and those in England and Scotland. When we have thrown in our teeth the cost of the civil government of Ireland, and when we are told that we could not afford to run Ireland on a deficit of a million a year, it is well to make such a comparison as I suggest. The Supreme Court of Judicature and other legal departments in Ireland cost £112,000 last year, and £107,000 in the year now under discussion. In England
    438
    the Supreme Court of Judicature, with, at the lowest estimate, about 20 times the amount of business, cost only £326,000 this year. Then, the law charges in England, with a population of 28 millions, and an enormous commercial business, considerably greater in proportion than that of Ireland, were only £79,000, whilst in unfortunate Ireland, with its population of four and a half millions—less than the population of the city in which we now are—and with one-tenth of its commercial business, our expenditure for law charges and criminal prosecutions is no less than £62,000, nearly as much as the whole of the law charges of England. Then, in addition, there is a charge of £119,000 for the land court, which has no analogy in this country. Then we have county court officers £113,000, whereas in England the sum is only £38,000. If you take the case of Scotland, the law charges are £92,000, and for the Register House (I have not the remotest idea what the Register House is) £41,000, making in all £133,000, as against £300,000 in England and £107,000 in Ireland. Sir, I do not want to go into the details of this Vote, but I would ask the Attorney General to tell us what is the net amount of saving up to the end of the last financial year on the salaries of judges, and what arrangements have been made for carrying the savings to a separate account, and what will be the name of that account.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am afraid I cannot state accurately the amount of the present and prospective savings referred to by the honourable Member, and I am not sure that the Treasury are in possession of the information. Perhaps the honourable Member will put a Question on the subject to a representative of the Treasury. With regard to the law charges, I must say that I am really astounded at the comparison the honourable Member makes between England and Ireland. Surely he must be in ignorance of the fact that all the expenses of a criminal prosecution in Ireland that is taken up by the Crown are borne by the Treasury, and there is not one-fortieth part

    439
    of the total expenses that does not appear on the Votes. In England a considerable portion of the expenses of criminal prosecutions are borne by private individuals, and only a small proportion of the total cost falls upon the Treasury. Therefore, the comparison instituted by the honourable Member is wholly fallacious.
    MR. DAVITT: I think the right honourable Gentleman has evaded the real point of the remarks of my honourable Friend. He pointed out that the cost of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland—£107,000, for a population of 4½ millions—was altogether out of proportion to the cost of the Supreme Court in England—£326,000, for a population of 28 millions.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General is one of the most successful pleaders at the Irish Bar, and yet he expresses the opinion that, considering the average income made by professional men in Ireland, the judicial salaries are not large. I venture to say that all the occupants of the bench in Ireland, even the puisne judges, are overpaid if regard be had to the incomes earned at the Bar: £2,000 a year is a very large income for a Queen's counsel in Ireland, and a man when raised to the bench receives considerably more. In the case of this country, it is a well-known fact that any successful or eminent lawyer who accepts a position on the bench generally does so at a considerable sacrifice of income. We find the same exaggerated scale of payment not only in the case of the judges themselves, but in the case of the minor legal officials. I find that the chief clerks in nearly all the Irish judicial departments get £1,000 a year. The Attorney General knows very well that in Ireland a man earning £300, or even £250, a year is looked upon as having reached a position of security and opulence, which makes him the envy of all the men, and the courted of all marriageable ladies. Now, putting these facts into aggregate form, I find that in Ireland we have a total Vote of £107,900, as against a Vote in-England of £320,000. The population
    440
    of Ireland is four and a half millions, mostly law-abiding; England has a population of 28 millions, most law-abiding too, but with a larger percentage of the criminal class than there is in Ireland; and yet, despite of that enormous disparity between the populations of the two countries, we find that the law charges are, for Ireland £107,000, as against £320,000 for England. Now, the importance of this Vote has been pointed out by my honourable Friend. In the first place, it shows a diseased condition of the country where law charges are so high. These law charges are largely the result of political disability. But the second and more important feature of the Vote is this: these amounts are all charged against Ireland in the account between England and Ireland which we discussed a few days ago. And, to show the way in which these bloated Estimates are made up, let me draw the attention of the Committee to this item: we have, first of all, a chief clerk, with a salary of £1,000 a year; then, a "first-class clerk to the chief clerk, £400;" and a "second-class clerk to the chief clerk, £350." Was there ever such an instance of piling Pelion on Ossa? And all this in a country with a population less than that of this city! This is the heritage we have from the days when Ireland was governed by a certain number of great families, and when snug places were provided as a sort of outdoor relief for members or those families. It is a system that is no longer tolerated in this country, and I think it my duty to protest against its continuance in Ireland.
    Vote agreed to.
    On the Vote for Salaries and Expenses of the Irish Land Commission,
    MR. DILLON: This is one of the most contentious of all the Irish Votes, and must necessarily give rise to some considerable discussion. As it is just upon 12 o'clock, I beg to move, Sir, that yon report progress.
    Resolutions to be reported; Committee report progress.
    House adjourned at 12.1.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a quarter past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15). [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL
ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.

NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the orders made on the 4th instant and yesterday discharged; and Bill committed.
HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
Reported with an Amendment.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
COVENTRY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.
Read third time, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DROGHEDA GAS BILL.
Read third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CROMER GAS BILL.
Read third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
Read third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
CHARING CROSS, EUSTON AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SAINT THOMAS, SOUTHWARK, AND SAINT SAVIOUR, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
YEOVIL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Middlesex County Council Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Sheffield District Railway Bill and the Lincoln and East Coast Railway and Dock Bill; read, and agreed to; all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  I. Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2147. United States (Boston);

  No. 2148. Japan (North Formosa);

  No. 2149. Japan (Tainan);

  No. 2150. China (Kiungchow);

  No. 2151. France (New Caledonia).

  II. Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest:

  No. 469. Turkey (Sponge Fisheries at Tripoli).

  INLAND TRANSIT OF CATTLE.
  1. Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into and report upon the Inland Transit of Cattle; with Minute appointing the Committee.
  2. Minutes of Evidence; with Appendices and Index.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PILOTAGE.
  Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 290 of Session 1897) (as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities), for the year ended 31st December, 1897; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Against the sale of, on Sundays; of Inhabitants of Sutton; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Read first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 146.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  Read first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 147.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  Read first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 148.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 149.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read second time on Monday next.
  COMMONS REGULATION (RUNCORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read third time (according to order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Read third time (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Read third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  EDINBURGH IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read third time (according to order), and passed.

COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Colonial Marriages (Deceased Wife's Sister) Bill. I have very great diffidence in appearing to address you at this time, as it is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of addressing you as a Member of this House. Notwithstanding, it is also with very great confidence that I come before you, my Lords, as I know that you will have much consideration for one in the position I occupy. It is not proposed in this Bill to deal in any way with the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister within the United Kingdom. I may, however, advance as a reason for the favourable consideration of the Bill now before your Lordships, that a Bill for the legalisation of a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was passed through all its stages by your Lordships so recently as 1896. It would be out of place for the Colonies, however, to press that question upon the people of the United Kingdom, and I shall not raise the issue at all. They must decide it for themselves. Neither is it proposed that the Bill should apply to the
284
marriages of transients. This statement must also have its weight with those who may be opposed to such marriages within the United Kingdom. The Bill only purports to deal with marriages in the Colonies of legally domiciled residents, and in order to remove any doubt upon the point the Bill, if it passes the Second Reading, will be amended in Committee, with the permission of your Lordships. The Bill is also surrounded by other safeguards to prevent its provision being abused. The Bill is simply an act of justice to the Colonies in which marriage with a deceased wife's sister has been legalised with the actual consent of the Crown, and with the tacit approval of Her Majesty's Government and of the Imperial Parliament. In respect of the succession to real property, the children of such legal Colonial marriages are, in the United Kingdom, regarded as illegitimate, and cannot take such property by descent, and it is believed that they may be liable to other disabilities. It is to remove this stain from children who have been born in wedlock, rendered lawful by laws passed by Colonial Legislatures, and approved of by responsible advisers of the Crown in the United Kingdom, that the Bill has been introduced. A similar Measure to that now before your Lordships has met with the approval of the House of Commons on more than one occasion, and I believe I have considerable authority for stating that such marriages legally contracted in the British Colonies would be held as valid for the succession of real property in almost any country in the world except in the United Kingdom. I appeal with confidence to your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill by a large majority, and not to let it go forth to the world that you wish the children of marriages lawfully contracted in the Colonies, under Acts approved by the Crown, to be in effect branded as illegitimates in the heart of the Empire—in this their Motherland. The inhabitants of the Colonies are as much British and as much subjects of Her Majesty as your Lordships or any other residents of the United Kingdom, and they are accustomed to refer in terms of affection to their Motherland as home. It cannot be said, however, that those of them who contract such marriages in the Colonies

285
are at all encouraged to come home, and those who are not intimately connected with the Colonies cannot appreciate the intensity of the feeling which prevails in the Colonies on the subject. I feel sure that I may rely upon the support of those of your Lordships who have had the privilege of representing Her Majesty in our great self-governing Colonies. On previous occasions it has been said that the desire for legislation does not proceed from the Colonies. In that connection I may state that I am introducing the Bill with the approval of the Government of Canada; and, further, that I hold in my hand telegrams from the Premiers of most of the Australasian and South African Colonies, endorsing the Bill in the strongest telegraphic language. Surely no better evidence could be brought forward to prove that this legislation is desired in the outlying portions of the Empire. I have a telegram here from the Premier of New South Wales to the Agent General of the Colony, as follows—
"I authorise yon to make strong representations in favour of Marriages Bill."
The Agent General for Victoria has received a telegram from the Premier of that Colony instructing him to co-operate most cordially in support of the passage through Parliament of this Bill. The Premier of South Australia telegraphs to the Agent General as follows—
"Join other Agents General in representing most strongly to the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Government approves of the Marriages Bill."
The Premier of Western Australia telegraphs to the Agent General as follows—
"Make urgent representations in concert with Australian Colonies on behalf of Government here in support of Lord Strathcona's Marriages Bill."
The Premier of Queensland telegraphs to the Agent General as follows—
"I authorise you to make representations in favour of Lord Strathcona's Marriages Bill."
The Premier of Tasmania telegraphs to the Agent General as follows—
"Report strongly in favour of Lord Strathcona's Bill."
286
The Premier of New Zealand telegraphs to the Agent General that—
"The Government cordially approves of the Colonial Marriages Bill."
The Agent General for the Cape of Good Hope states that—
"The Government and people of the Caps Colonies are distinctly favourable to the Colonial Marriages Bill."
It has been said also that to pass the law would be invidious, as it would make the marriages contracted in the Colonies legal in the United Kingdom, the principle of such marriages not yet having been accepted in this country. In my judgment there is no parallel between the two cases, and the argument is not sound. Such marriages are not legal in the United Kingdom, and the question does not therefore arise in the same way; but such marriages are legal in the Colonies, with the assent of the Crown, and why should the children of such marriages when they come home bear a mark of disgrace? Why should they be legitimate in one part of the British Empire and illegitimate in another, when the marriage is perfectly legal, under laws passed by local Parliaments and assented to by the Queen? It may sometimes happen that persons contracting such marriages are obliged to come home—by family affairs or otherwise—and what a welcome they and their children receive! Such an Act, if passed, does injustice to none, but would extend justice, and would prevent injustice, to many. As the law now stands property in the United Kingdom might pass away from a family to others, simply because marriages that are legal in, say, Canada are not recognised as legal here. Is this a creditable state of things in our present civilisation? I am sure I need say no more to commend the Bill to your Lordships' favourable consideration. For some years past the different parts of the Empire have been drawn close together. The troops of the Colonies have fought shoulder to shoulder with those of the Motherland. Her Majesty's

287
subjects in the Colonies have shared in the joys and in the sorrows of their Motherland. Glad people from every part of the world where the British flag is paramount came to London last year to do honour to their beloved Sovereign. Then, again, to come to more material matters, British goods are receiving preferential treatment in some parts of the Empire, and the feeling in favour of its extension to others is growing. In fact, we are all doing our best to develop the Empire of which we are so proud, and to strengthen the ties which bind us together, and the removal of this grievance cannot fail to further consolidate the union. Let me therefore appeal to your Lordships to express your approval of this Bill, which seeks to remove what is regarded as a grave anomaly in the Colonies, to remove a restriction which operates against one of their most sacred rights, and to free the children of your Colonial brethren who contract perfectly legal marriages from the stigma which now attaches to them when they come to their Motherland. I may also be permitted to address a word to the most reverend and the right reverend Lords in this House. It is that the clergy, both of the Established Church, of the other Protestant denominations, and of the Catholic Church in Canada, and I believe also in the other Colonies, have accepted this Bill, and unquestionably many of them approve of it. I would now, my Lords, in closing, desire to say that I stand here—it is by the gracious will of the Sovereign that I have the privilege—as a colonist, as one of those coming from the Colonies. Every man in the Colonies looks upon himself as being as much an Englishman as if he were born within the bounds of the United Kingdom. He glories in the name of an Englishman, and he has all the aspirations that you and all those who are loyal to the Empire, have. This Measure affects—and affects very gravely—many in the Colonies, from the Minister of the Crown to the artisan, and many of them the most worthy and the most loyal. I would withdraw this last expression, "the most loyal," because it is unquestionably the case that throughout the Dominion of Canada, and I believe I can speak equally for the whole of the Colonies, there is but one standard, but one measure of loyalty. Such being the
288
case, and feeling as they do that they are, equally with those in this country, members of the great Empire to which we all belong, I am sure that you, my Lords, will on this occasion send a message of goodwill to those who are in the position that has been referred to, that you are desirous of doing full justice to them. I leave this Measure in your hands, and I trust that it will be passed, not by a narrow majority, but that you will give it a Second Reading unanimously.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will believe that, in opposing this Bill, I do not yield to him or anyone in the desire to exhibit respect and regard for our Colonial fellow-subjects; but it appears to me that it is not inconsistent with our respect and regard for each other that this country should claim to be entitled to have some consideration for the preservation of its own laws, while recognising the right of the Colonies to have some laws peculiar to themselves. I confess I do not regard this Bill as being what it purports to be—
"An Act to amend the law as to marriages contracted in the Colonies with a deceased wife's sister."
I am not quite certain that it might not, perhaps, have borne that character to some extent as long as it remained in its original form. The noble Lord has informed us that there was a doubt—I confess I do not know where the doubt can be—that as the Bill was originally framed it would have allowed anybody to go from this country to the Colonies to be married, and come back again, notwithstanding that the law in this country would have made such a marriage invalid. He now proposes to introduce, as a qualification of the operation of the Bill, that the parties to the marriage should be domiciled in Canada.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: In any one of the Colonies in which the marriage takes place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In one respect that may be very satisfactory, but it appears to remove from the Bill the character and the title it bears. It

289
has nothing to do with Colonial marriages. It does not affect Colonial marriages. What does it do? And the only thing it does is to alter the law of inheritance in England as to realty. That is the operation of the Bill. And it appears to me it is an unreasonable thing that the Colonies should suggest that there is any injustice done because we desire to maintain our own law of inheritance in this country. I wonder what the noble Lord would say if we were to introduce into Canada some of our peculiar tenures and rights of inheritance such as gavelkind and borough-english. I think he would say it was intolerable tyranny to impose on Canada laws of inheritance which have long obtained here but are unsuitable there. My Lords, I say this Bill has nothing to do with the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. It does not directly affect it, but it is obvious enough that it is intended by indirect means to remove one of the consequences of marriage with a deceased wife's sister in this country, and so facilitate that question here. When that question comes to be debated it will be debated on its merits. I do not deny that opinions on the subject are divided in both Houses of Parliament. A Bill legalising such marriages has never received the assent of the Legislature, and until then I do not understand on what ground it should be a Colonial grievance that the consequences of marriages which we think are not lawful should not follow in respect of land in this country. It is inverting the order of things. You try to prevent the consequences of a law as applicable to English land, and, having done that, you think it would be more easy to get rid of the law itself, because you have got rid of one of the consequences of the law as it at present exists. No doubt, if we remove the consequences of disobeying the law in England, it will be much more easy to get rid of the law itself; Taut are we to recognise a marriage in any part of the world, however contrary to English views? It is argued because this country has sanctioned such marriages elsewhere we must accept the law for ourselves with all its consequences. The argument is not new. I observe that Mr. Roebuck, in one of the discussions in the House of Commons, made use of the argument with reference to
290
some parts of India, where marriages were allowed between a Hindoo brother and sister, and that we ought to allow it to carry the right of inheritance in this country! The logical conclusion of the argument of the noble Lord is that we are to recognise any marriage in any part of the world. It appears to me that it is an unreasonable application of the general desire we have to allow our Colonies to govern themselves. It is not to govern themselves, but to govern us, and to induce us to alter our law of inheritance in accordance with their view. If it is suggested that our law of inheritance is defective, then let us amend it. No doubt cases may be put, as they may be put in almost every region of thought, where you bring things so near the line that you may say that one is an absurdity and anomaly, and another is not. If the law is wrong amend it; but so long as it is the law the Colonies have no right to dictate to us in what form we will allow our law to operate. To my mind the law is intelligible. It distinguishes between personalty and realty, or what in other countries are called movables and immovables. It is not unreasonable that the law should allow inheritance of land only to persons whom, in England, we regard as having celebrated a legal marriage. The concession the noble Lord proposes would, to some extent, modify the mischief of the Bill in one respect—it would prevent people going to the Colonies to evade the law of this country, and make a valid marriage, and come back. But in other respects it would make the matter much worse, because the moment you introduce this question of domicile as a condition precedent to the validity of marriage you introduce a degree of uncertainty and difficulty in establishing the rights of inheritance, which certainly is not desirable. No doubt we have to deal with this question sometimes as it is. That is no reason for increasing the difficulty, and in such a manner as to give rise to serious and greater difficulty hereafter. When we are dealing with the validity of marriages it should be remembered that that validity affects more deeply than anything can possibly do the happiness of those who have to rely upon them and the consequences to the issue. When you are dealing with the question of validity or invalidity of marriage,

291
depending on domicile, you have to investigate it under circumstances of great difficulty as to what has or has not been a true domicile. It is suggested that it is easy to establish domicile, but I have no fewer than 10 definitions of "domicile." I will not trouble your Lordships by reading them. The law of domicile has reference not only to English land, but what is received in all civilised countries as the law of domicile. English judges have certainly not underrated the difficulty of defining the term "domicile." Their language, on the contrary, generally points to the two conclusions—first, that a satisfactory definition of "domicile" is, from the nature of things, unattainable; and, secondly, that, even if the term be definable, every attempt to obtain a serviceable definition has hitherto ended in failure. It is proposed in the Bill to make the validity of these marriages dependent on where the parties to them were domiciled at the time when the actual marriage took place. That would mean, perhaps, that 30 or 40 years after the marriage investigation would have to be made to ascertain if the parties to the marriage had settled at such place with the intention of remaining there, unless unforeseen accident should induce them to go elsewhere. I do not believe that, except for the indirect object to which I have referred, this is a question which is practically important to anyone. The acoustic properties of this Chamber are certainly not amongst its most conspicuous advantages; but, so far as I have been able to hear—and I apologise if I am mistaken—the noble Lord has not given a single example in which the question had arisen as to the rights of children born of such marriages to inherit property in this country. This is an abstract proposition of law that the Colonies desire to establish for our benefit. Why should they? There is no agitation for the Bill. May I take the analogous case of Scotland? In the case of Scotland offspring legitimatised after marriage can inherit, and though they are debarred from inheritance in England, there is no agitation in Scotland that their law should be recognised here. It comes to this, that because there is a general desire in the Colonies that marriage between a deceased wife's sister and the husband should not be prohibited,
292
the law of inheritance in this country is to be entirely altered in favour of that view. Much as we desire the affection and regard of the Colonies, I submit it is not for the Colonies to dictate to England what England should do as to the English law of inheritance. This is no new question. I need scarcely remind your Lordships that a similar question was propounded to your Lordships in 1235 by the Norman priests, in order to introduce the Norman law of inheritance into England; but this House then said, "We will not allow the laws of England to be changed." On this ground I submit to your Lordships that this Bill would be a very bad precedent; it would not rest here. We have given the Colonies entire freedom in respect to their own land and their own legislation. Surely the Mother country is not to be the only country in the world which is not to be allowed to have its own law of inheritance. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, I am sure, wishes it to be known that he is expressing his individual opinion only, and not speaking collectively on the part of his colleagues, and I hope—in fact, I have reason to believe—that he will not disapprove of my emphasising that position if, briefly, I ask your Lordships to listen to a few words in opposition to the arguments of my noble and learned Friend. My noble and learned Friend and I enjoy the advantage of having rehearsed the arguments which he has addressed, and which I will endeavour to address, to your Lordships on this question. It is 20 years ago since I heard my noble and Learned Friend the Lord Chancellor make somewhat the same speech that he has made to-night, and I am sure he will be able to say, when I have concluded my remarks, that he has heard me make a similar speech before. I look back on that rehearsal with satisfaction. It was during the Parliament of 1874 that a similar Bill to this was presented to the House of Commons, and my noble and learned Friend at that time addressed to his Conservative colleagues, who were in a great majority in that House, the arguments that he has addressed to your

293
Lordships to-night, and the Members whom he addressed, by a majority of 51, disregarded the arguments of my noble and learned Friend. But, my Lords, a good deal has happened since that time. When we were discussing the matter in 1877 and 1878 I think only three Colonies had passed Bills validating marriages with a deceased wife's sister. At the present moment every legislative Colony, I believe, with one exception, has passed Bills making these marriages legal. The responsibility does not rest only with the Colonies. If those laws were immoral, unjust, or impolitic, they ought not to have received the assent of Her Majesty's advisers at home. Such advice has been well considered, and I would venture to remind my noble and learned Friend that the most important approval in respect of those Measures was given to Jersey, near at home, where the effect was more likely to be brought to England; and that approval was not given longer ago than in the year 1896, after the experience of the effect of these laws in the Colonies. I hope your Lordships will allow me very briefly to remind you of what the law is in this matter. It is true that these marriages are valid in the Colonies and they are valid here. If a man, after having contracted one of these unions, came to this country and married again whilst his wife was alive, he could be indicted for bigamy, and would be liable to punishment for that offence in the courts of this country, because there would be a valid marriage against him. There is also the fact that these marriages are so valid here that the children of such marriages, having been born in wedlock, do inherit personal or leasehold property descending from their parents. My noble and learned Friend is perfectly content that the children of such marriages shall take leasehold property existing for 999 years, and yet he shrinks from the prospect of their enjoying real property or freehold. The result is as stated in former Debates, that a man who has contracted one of these marriages, and who comes to this country and takes possession of a leasehold house, and afterwards builds a stable on a piece of freehold land, is a married man in his
294
house and a widower in his stable, and his son may sit at his table as legitimate, but the moment he goes into the stable he becomes illegitimate. There is this still greater anomaly: a man dies with children born of this lawful marriage, and these children have to pay some of those numerous duties affecting the estates of persons after death. I will take the legacy duty, for example. He leaves behind him a legacy of leasehold, house, which is personal property. The proper official on behalf of the Government appraises the duty, and he holds the children to be the legitimate children of A. B., and as such they pay 3 per cent. duty. But the same official, having to deal with the same will and the same testator, and with virtually the same property, has to declare that, because the deceased left freehold land, the same children are illegitimate, and that they are not the children of A. B., but are strangers in blood, and therefore have to pay 10 per cent. May I ask my noble and learned Friend how he would satisfy the conscience of that official? My noble and learned Friend has asked, "What right have the Colonies to dictate to the Mother country?" I cannot see why it should be said that Lord Strathcona is dictating to you. In what sense are the Colonies dictating? They are seeking to do nothing without the sanction of both Houses of Parliament and the approval of the Crown. Surely, when they come to this House or the other House of Parliament and say, "We place before you arguments which we think are valid," it is not right to assert that they are dictating to us. I should be sorry if any colonists should suppose that the doors of this House or the other House are closed to them, and I am sure my noble and learned Friend would not wish them to suppose that. But I would ask him to consider whether it is not really a wrong impression to convey that there is anything worthy of censure in the appeal made to us in a constitutional way to alter a law which is anomalous and unjust. Surely the Colonies had better appeal to us within the walls of Parliament than agitate against the Mother country outside them. My noble and learned Friend made very strong use of the argument that we should not, at the dictation, of

295
the Colonies, allow any interference with the law of inheritance in this country. I assure my noble and learned Friend that there is no desire to alter the law of inheritance. The law of inheritance now is that a man's children, lawfully born in wedlock, shall succeed to his property. The question is whether all children born in wedlock shall or shall not be regarded as the lawful and legitimate children of the parties for all purposes. That alters the status of the individual, but the law of inheritance will remain in this country as at present. My noble and learned Friend's argument that there is no real grievance here, because no instance has occurred in which anyone has been affected by the present state of the law, is rather an argument in favour of the Bill; for, if it would make no difference, why not accede to the wishes of those who desire the alteration? We must remember, though, that these Bills have not been passed very long in all the Colonies, and cases in point might not yet have arisen. Are you going to allow the law to remain as at present, and permit of a state of affairs in which, if a man who was lawfully married in one of our Colonies, and whose children have been born in lawful wedlock, should desire to return and enjoy his remaining years at home, his children would for the purposes of heirship to land and honours have always the stain of illegitimacy in this country? My noble and learned Friend used the argument that there would be great difficulty in proving what domicile was. Your Lordships will, of course, understand that this Bill is intended to apply not to the mere passenger who goes to a Colony for the purpose of marrying, but only to domiciled colonists. The Bill will be presented to your Lordships in that form for Third Reading. The domicile will have to be proved in this country before a jealous tribunal in the case of a person who seeks to obtain land. It is not a question of what the law is in the Colonies; it must be domicile according to the law of this country. The same difficulty would apply if a person came here and appealed to obtain possession of that property to which I have referred—leasehold of 999 years. Whatever the difficulties in defining domicile, its application is not very difficult. There
296
has never been any difficulty in determining domicile, and I believe there never will be any difficulty in the future. My noble and learned Friend said he did not believe there was any real feeling in the Colonies on this subject. If it were a mere matter of sentiment, probably you would not listen to such a demand; but it is not sentiment for a man to say, "I wish my child to be certain of his legitimacy on returning to the Mother country." Two years ago the Agents General of all our legislative Colonies were instructed directly by their Governments to appeal to the Colonial Office for assistance to carry this Bill, and last year the Colonial Prime Ministers, every one of them, in a body approached the Colonial Secretary and begged his assistance. You have, therefore, this twice-repeated appeal from the Colonies. Your Lordships have the privilege of having amongst you many Members of this House who have been Governors, representing the Queen in our Colonies. I know a good many of them; some of them have already given proof of the fact that they approve of this Bill. I would ask my noble and learned Friend, when the record is made of those who vote on this question, to see if one of these ex-Governors of our Colonies will say "Not content" to this Bill. They know the feelings of the Colonies they have ruled over, and the wishes of the people, and I now make the statement that I do not believe that any one of those distinguished men who are ex-Colonial Governors will do other than give his support to this Bill. I regret that I should have occupied so much of your lordships' time, but long ago I became convinced of the justice of the demand made by this Bill, and as time has passed on that conviction has grown and become firmer. It is this feeling and faith that have caused me to address your Lordships with almost too much earnestness, and also to take the course, which I do with much regret, of opposing the views of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships' indulgence for one moment. It appears to me that the speech we have just heard confirms the opinion I have long entertained,

297
which I believe embodies the only solution of all these questions, and which has the advantage of being founded upon a hint that was thrown out by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, two years ago in reference to a kindred matter. My Lords, it is not to be denied—the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down proves it up to the hilt—that our marriage law is at the present moment absolutly anomalous. There is one law for Scotland, another for Ireland, and a third for England. We have a different law in regard to the Colonies, and perhaps we may have a fifth law for India. I cannot understand anyone approaching this question and not coming to the conclusion that such an anomaly is one which it is the duty of the Legislature to remedy if it can. We are all agreed that it is desirable to draw closer and tighter the links which unite the Mother country with the Colonies. We not only desire to draw the links closer, but we are at this present moment rejoicing in an increase of friendship and good feeling between this country and the United States of America. In view of the anomalies which, as Lord James of Hereford has pointed out, exist between the law in the Colonies on this important subject of marriage and the law in this country in regard to a matter which touches the devolution of property and the legitimacy of children, I venture to suggest that it would be well within the wisdom of Her Majesty's Government to consider the question of appointing a Commission, which need take a very short time to consider the whole condition of the marriage law as it affects the United Kingdom and the Colonies; and if, as the outcome of that Commission, We were able to arrive at some uniform law which should apply equally to this country, to Scotland, Ireland, and the Colonies, I would suggest that that law should be embodied in a Statute, and that civil marriage Should be compulsory upon everyone, as is the case, under the Code Napoleon, on the Continent, leaving the Church and all other religious bodies free to enforce their own discipline and their own law as to marriage. Let the same law apply to all religious denominations, whether it be the Church of England, Roman Catholics, Nonconformists, or what not, and allow each, separate community to enforce their
298
own regulations as to marriage. By adopting some such course the State would do what it has a perfect right to do, and what is undoubtedly its duty to do, which is of primary importance to the well-being of the community. I venture to say that if something of the sort could be done we should all find ourselves in agreement, and we should put an end to these extremely unpleasant discussions, in which the real issues are never discussed, and in which, as in the present case, the question is being determined by reference to a side issue which is outside the general object of validating in England marriages legally contracted in the Colonies. I venture to submit that the best solution of the present difficulty is to make civil marriages compulsory upon everyone—as it is abroad—leaving the different Churches to enforce their own law according to their own principles.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in explanation of the vote which I am about to give. I am about, for the first time within my memory, to vote contrary to the view of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I am about to vote in favour of this Bill. I doubt very much whether the Bill is legally necessary—it has become necessary by reason of that which is really embodied in the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord desires the House to pass—namely, to refuse the passing of this Bill. I doubt very much whether it is a true proposition to say that without this Bill the children of these marriages will not or cannot succeed to real property in this country. It has never been so decided, and it may be—and I for my part should anticipate that it would be—decided that you cannot take away from them their rights as the lawful children of a lawful marriage. It cannot be questioned that after the marriages have taken place, subject to a law passed in the Colonies, which law has been acceded to by the Sovereign, those marriages are lawful. They are lawful in the Colony, and they are equally lawful in this country. Nobody could say anything in this country in any process of law that these parties were not legally married. Then comes the question of the children—the lawful children of a legal

299
marriage. It is said that the law of inheritance in this country will be altered unless this Bill is rejected. What is the law of this country under such circumstances? It is this: that the children lawfully begotten of a lawful marriage, which is lawful in this country, are the people to inherit the real property of their parents. That is the law. It is the Amendment which will alter the law, and which will say: Although you are a lawful child, a lawful male child of your parents, who were lawfully married, yet, on the death of your father, although according to the law of England every lawful child is entitled to inherit, you are not entitled to inherit. Why? Because your mother was sister of the person who had been your father's wife before. That is what the noble and learned Lord's Amendment would come to; and that would be, as it seems to me, to alter the law of inheritance, because it would say, although your parents were lawfully married—although they remained lawfully married, not only in the Colonies, but here—you are not the heir-at-law. In my view he is the heir-at-law; and, if he is, what else remains to be argued? He must inherit, according to the law of England, the real property which is real property in England. The lawful son of a lawful marriage, who is a subject, is, under any circumstances, entitled to succeed. I do not say anything about anomalies. I do not vote one way or the other because it is said to be an anomaly. The law is full of anomalies; the question, to my mind, is: it is an unjust anomaly—it is contrary to every view that we take of the rights of the children, and for this reason I shall vote in favour of the Bill and against the Amendment and against that which is really embodied in the Amendment.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: With the leave of your Lordships, I will venture in a very few words to state why I shall vote with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I will premise by saying, as he did, that I yield to no one in my desire to meet, as far as I possibly can, the reasonable wishes of the colonists, and in my sympathy with them, and in the hope to see them always closely united with the Mother country. I trust I may, without boastfulness, refer
300
to five and a half years' service as Secretary of State, during which time I think I must have shown that sympathy with the colonists which I believe they themselves fully recognise. I shall not, of course, venture to discuss the question of law that has just been raised by the noble and learned Lord, but I will point out that, at all events, he is the only one that has ever advocated that view; and it certainly is not the view that is taken, and has been taken for 20 years, by the promoters of this Measure; and, as will be seen by the petition which has been referred to, the view of the supporters of this Bill is the view that has been taken by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The marriage is valid in this country, and the children are legitimate and can inherit, so far as regards personalty, but they are incapacitated from inheriting real property, because, though they are the children of a valid marriage, they are not the children of a marriage that can be validly contracted in this country. I wish to endeavour to keep clear of the legal aspect of the case, but, at all events, let it be observed that the legal proposition just put forward that these children could inherit real property is not accepted by the promoters of the Bill, whose sole object is to secure that these children should inherit real property. That is the short point at issue. There is no principle better established than this—that the succession to real property is governed by the lex loci—the law that applies where the property is—and it is that lex loci, that ancient and well established law of inheritance in this country, that we are now asked to change. I cannot conceive there being any question upon that point, because it is admitted by the people who promote this Bill that they are asking for a change of the law of inheritance. Well, my Lords, surely there must be some very strong—I had almost said, some overwhelming—reasons to induce us to make this serious change in our law. We have been told that a great interest is felt in the Colonies upon this question. Of course I do not for a moment deny that there is a great interest felt in the Colonies upon this question, but I venture to think that too much stress has been laid upon that interest, and the overwhelming character of

301
it, for I observe that this Bill is spoken of as an "Imperial concern" in one of the papers that have been submitted to us. I think too much stress is laid upon that interest when you come to consider the history of this Measure. Very shortly I would like to remind your Lordships that in 1877 a Bill was brought in for this purpose. It passed a Second Reading in the House of Commons in the February of that year by a majority of 51, and it was then dropped. In 1878 another Bill was brought in amending the previous year's Bill by omitting certain clauses and words which had been objected to. That Bill received a Second Reading, but by a reduced majority of 21, also in the month of February, and then was dropped. That seems to show that there was no very strong pressure at that time on the part of the promoters, when it is considered that the Bill received a Second Reading so early in the Session as February, and was then dropped. I would also call your Lordships' attention to this: that the great argument used in the discussion upon the Bill in 1878 was the interest felt in the Colonies, and Mr. Baxter, who, I believe, had been Under Secretary for the Colonies, said that if the law was not altered the question would soon give rise to angry feelings, and would weaken the union between this country and the Colonies, and he went so far as to say that the rejection of this Measure was more likely to lead to the separation of the Colonies than anything else. Such, my Lords, is the value of prophecy. Twenty years have passed, and never at any time have the Colonies been more closely united to the Mother country, and more determined to remain part of the Empire, than now; and, moreover, during the 20 years that have elapsed since that prophecy was made not a single Bill, so far as I know, has been brought in in either House, nor even a petition presented. I am not disputing that there is a strong feeling and a strong interest felt in the Colonies on this question, but I do venture to say that it has been rather exaggerated, and that too much stress has been laid upon it on this occasion. I would also point out that in 1887, at the Colonial Conference, at which I had the honour to preside as
302
Secretary of State, a discussion was initiated by Sir John Downer, the Premier of South Australia, upon this very point, and I should like to call vour Lordships' attention to what took place. In the first place, Sir John Downer was very anxious that a Bill should be introduced and passed in this country declaring these marriages valid in this country. That was the main object, because he, and those associated with him, were under the impression that there were doubts entertained as to the validity of these marriages in this country, and it was their chief desire to get any doubt upon, this point removed by legislation. And, in the second place, the Colonies, as a whole, were not agreed at that time upon pressing us for a change in the law of inheritance. The delegates of Canada, Newfoundland, the Cape, Western Australia, and New Zealand dissociated themselves from any desire to press for a change of the law relating to real property in this country. With your Lordships' permission, I will read two passages only, which will prove this. Sir A. Campbell, of Canada, said—
"We altered our law to suit our position in conformity with the desire of the people, and we are quite willing that the people of England should retain their laws until they see a necessity for changing them."
And Sir Thomas Upington, then, I think, Attorney General for the Cape, desired that marriages lawfully entered into in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies should be looked upon as valid marriages in every portion of Her Majesty's dominions, but that nothing contained in this proposal should be taken to affect the existing law of the United Kingdom or of any Colony
"with reference to property situated within the United Kingdom or Colony."
And, speaking generally, I may add that the view that—
"because the Colonies had been allowed to legislate on this subject of marriage it did not well become them to turn round and say you sanctioned the law, and therefore now you must alter your law to suit it,"
was held by the delegates of West Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland. That was the opinion of the delegates at the Conference of 1887 upon the question. Of course, after what Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal has said, I understand that,

303
at all events, the Dominion of Canada has certainly changed her opinion, and is prepared to disown the opinion of the delegates of the Conference. I am not so certain that other Colonies must be taken to disown the opinion of the delegates by merely instructing their Agents General to support this Bill. Naturally, the Governments of these Colonies, if they felt that there was a strong feeling in favour of such a Measure, would be willing to instruct their Agents General to support the Bill, but I want to know whether the Colonial Governments have deliberately considered the question, and changed their minds, and are prepared to disown the opinion of their delegates, expressed at the Conference, and I should like to know whether there has been any discussion in the Colonial Parliaments. I have not been able to find that there has been any upon this question, but, of course, I have not the advantages possessed by the noble Lord for looking that up. It would, however, be interesting to know whether the opinions of the Colonial Parliaments have been shown to be in favour of this Bill. I desire, further, my Lords, to enforce a point that has been brought forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that we may fairly consider that there are not a great number of people who will be affected by this Measure, at any rate, for years to come. I will venture to point out now, as I did in 1878, that it must not be assumed that there will be a great number of marriages in the Colonies of this kind, nor must it be assumed that there will be children of these marriages, nor that the people who contract these marriages will break up their homes in the Colonies, and settle down in the Mother country, nor that they will all buy real property, and die intestate. There can be no pecuniary hardship in any of these cases, because the parent has simply to leave his real property by will. I will also add, that I do not feel the full force of the alleged hardship. These persons enter into the marriage with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. They know that the marriage is valid in the Colonies; they know that it is valid here, and that the children are legitimate, but that the full benefits that flow
304
from the marriage in the Colony do not flow from it here, because of the incapacity of the children to inherit real property, owing to their not being the issue of a marriage that can be lawfully contracted here. The case of Scotland is a similar case. The marriage contracted there is valid here, but one of the consequences which, flow from the marriage there—namely, the legitimisation of children born before the marriage—does not flow in this country. I admit that it is not a very pleasant thing to resist what is, no doubt, a strong wish on the part of the Colonies, but it is a question for this House to consider, whether that wish is so overwhelming that we are prepared to meet it by changing our ancient law of inheritance.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I must say that I am a little surprised at some of the arguments of my noble Friend opposite, particularly at his appearing to think that it is not necessary to deal with this subject because no angry feeling has been manifested in the Colonies. Now, of all the arguments which I think are dangerous, the most dangerous is to say that there is any subject in which they are interested, and which we are not disposed to deal with, because it does not excite angry feelings. Above all things, I should imagine that my noble Friend himself and every Member of this House must sincerely desire that our relations with the Colonies shall, if possible, always be so conducted that nothing shall arise which shall create any angry feeling. My noble Friend ended by saying that there was a strong feeling in the Colonies at the present time, but he also sought to cast some doubt upon what was said by Lord James that the Governments of the different Colonies had expressed an opinion upon the subject. I understood—I have no knowledge myself—that all the Agents General of all the Colonies which had Legislatures had expressed to the Colonial Office the strongest desire, speaking on behalf of their Governments, that this Measure should be adopted. I do not think we want any further authority than that. I should be very sorry if it should ever be considered necessary to go behind what the Colonies themselves, through their Governments and through their agents, submitted to

305
the Government and Parliament of this country, because I believe that to be the only safe way of dealing with the question. My noble Friend also used an argument which I cannot say I thought had any great weight. He said there would be no pecuniary loss, because, of course, the parents of these children might by will direct a certain disposition. My noble Friend forgot that in this country, under the circumstances, as the law now stands, they may be mulcted in 10 per cent. as illegitimate children, which I consider to be not altogether a small matter. I cannot possibly see what injury the people of this country can suffer by the alteration of the law. I am afraid that, not being a lawyer, I have not that extraordinary veneration for the law of inheritance which would lead me to consider that to touch this sacred ark of the covenant must in itself be a calamity. If this were a case of altering the general law of inheritance of this country that might be a very different affair; but that is not the case. The point before us is this, that we have deliberately granted to our Colonies the right of exercising and of contracting marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and the Bills enabling them to do so came over to this country, and they received the assent of the Crown. Now, my view is this, that no injury can happen to this country, because the only injury which could be supposed to accrue would be that injury which I know is felt by some considerable number of noble Lords—namely, that it affects the marriage law, and that to allow such marriages is contrary—I will not say to morality, but is likely to produce very evil consequences. But as regards this Bill, it will alter nothing. The marriages will take place all the same, and any injury which there may be by such marriages will remain, and all you do is this: that after recognising solemnly in a large portion of Her Majesty's dominions the right to contract these marriages, you are then—because it happens that these children, if their parents were married here, would be illegitimate—to refuse to grant them their rights and inheritance, as lawfully-begotten children, and you, in point of fact, inflict a fine upon them, for no possible reason that I can conceive excepting that it is a
306
wrong thing to alter our law of inheritance. It is not really an alteration of our law of inheritance; it is simply bringing the actual facts of the case in accordance with what we have done in our Colonies, and it seems to me that the Colonies will have just reason to complain if we refuse them this very natural request on their part. But I wish to put it upon a broader ground. I have always been an advocate of a change of the marriage law in this country in this respect. But I do not advocate this Bill on those grounds. It is because I believe that to refuse to pass a Bill of this kind asked for by the Colonies in this way is inconsistent with the manner in which we are now governing our Colonial Empire. The very ground upon which we are enabled now to have such admirable relations with them is that we have always been ready to consult their wishes whenever it was possible, and whenever it did not injure the existence of this country. I cannot see anything in granting this request which can inflict any real injury upon any man, woman, or child in this country, or in any way affect the general law of this country, or can induce us to change our law because we have made this concession. The argument in favour of a change in the law of marriage in this country is derived from the fact that so many of our Colonies have adopted this change. The passing of this Bill is simply to prevent an injustice which will arise from the fact that the marriages can take place in our Colonies, and yet when our fellow-colonists come over here they cannot enjoy those rights and privileges which I consider on all grounds they are entitled to enjoy. I ask you, my Lords, to seriously consider this, whether even if you do feel some objection to making this concession as regards our law of inheritance, you ought not to be prevailed upon to make a change by the far higher considerations of the importance of maintaining the most friendly and closest relations with our Colonies, and in a matter of this kind, even where you have a doubt, I think you ought equally to take that away, which will show that you are ready to meet their wishes upon every legitimate and proper occasion. I therefore earnestly hope

307
that the House will allow this Bill to pass into law.
Question put.
The House divided:—Contents 129; Not-Contents 46.

CONTENTS.

Wales, H.R.H. Prince of

Annaly, L.

Barnard, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President)

Battersea, L.

Belper, L.

Boston, L.

Bedford, D.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

Fife, D.

Grafton, D.

Brassey, L.

Portland, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Westminster, D.

Burghclere, L.

Burton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Calthorpe, L.

Ripon, M.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Abingdon, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Annesley, E.

Coleridge, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Colville of Culross, L. [Teller]

Carrington, E.

Cathcart, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Crofton. L.

Cowper, E.

Davey, L.

Craven, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Crewe, E.

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

Dartrey, E.

Farquhar, L.

Derby, E.

Farrer, L.

Dundonald, E.

Glenesk, L.

Durham, E.

Greville, L.

Ellesmere, E.

Hastings, L.

Fortescue, E.

Hawkesbury, L.

Granville, E.

Headley, L.

Harewood, E.

Heneage, L.

Kimberley, E.

Herschell, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Hobhouse, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Hood of Avalon, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Howth, L. (E. Howth)

Minto, E.

Morley, E.

James, L.

Northbrook, E.

Kelvin, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl) [Teller]

Romney, E.

Rosse, E.

Kinnear, L.

Russell, E.

Lawrence, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Leigh, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Lingen, L.

Spencer, E.

Ludlow, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Macnaghten, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

Verulam, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Methuen, L.

Esher, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monkswell, L.

Portman, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wolseley, V.

Morris, L.

Aberdare, L.

Mount Stephen, L.

Alington, L.

Muncaster, L.

308

Newlands, L.

Southampton, L.

Norton, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Plunket, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Poltimore, L.

Reay, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

Ribblesdale, L.

Templemore, L.

Sackville, L.

Tennyson, L.

St. Levan, L.

Thring, L.

Tollemache, L.

Say and Sele, L.

Tredegar, L.

Shand, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Sherborne, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Sinclair, L.

Welby, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton)

Windsor, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Gloucester, L. Bp.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

Oxford, L. Bp.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

York, L. Abp.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Addington, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

Aldenham, L.

Balfour, L.

Richmond, D.

Blythswood, L.

Rutland, D.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

Ailesbury, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Salisbury, M.

Clinton, L. [Teller]

Carnwath, E.

Colchester, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Dunning, L. (L. Rollo)

de Montalt, E.

Egerton, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

Feversham, E.

Mar, E.

Foley, L.

Stamford, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage)

Waldegrave, E.

Hatherton, L.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian)

Halifax, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Knutsford, V.

Lovaine, L. (E. Percy) [Teller]

Llandaff, V.

Raglan, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Scarsdale, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Stanmore, L.

Bill read the second time accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

POST OFFICE (LOCAL AUTHORITY GUARANTEE) BILL.
Read second time (according to order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
EX-OFFICIO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read third time (according to order), and passed.
POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
VIGORS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
Read second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Read second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
Read second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.
To be read second time on Monday next. (The Lord Privy Seal [V. Cross]).
House adjourned at 5.15.