said, that in regard to this particular Vote he had given Notice of his intention some time ago to move the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the extent of £2,000. The total salary was, he believed, £4,000, with some perquisites in addition. In making this Motion, he wished to point out the reasons which he thought justified him in doing so. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman last year made a statement to the House, which had by no means proved to be an accurate statement, although at the time it was made it virtually amounted to an undertaking on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It had been asserted that, as a rule, the rents charged by the Irish landlords were exorbitant; that the landlords insisted upon having them paid, and that where they found them- selves unable to succeed in getting the rents paid by ordinary course of law they evicted the tenants from their holdings. They had heard a good deal of sentimental and gushing talk from the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount of suffering occasioned to the Irish tenantry by the proceedings of the landlords; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman persisted in asserting his belief that the number of cases in which this tyrannical course of procedure was pursued by the landlords would not be very great; and he added that he had evidence before him which justified him in arriving at the opinion that the Irish landlords were not likely to continue to act in the future as they had been accustomed to do in the past. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, further, that if he found the landlords acting in an improper manner, he would consider it his duty to insist upon introducing remedial legislation at the earliest opportunity in the coming Session of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman further promised not to remain in Office to be a party to enforcing injustice. The undertaking was not made altogether in direct terms; but it was certainly quite as much a pledge as they were usually in the habit of getting from Ministers, who, for obvious reasons, did not like to make pledges in regard to what they intended to do, under certain circumstances, in the future. The right hon. Gentleman said two things—first, that he would not be a party to any conduct on the part of the landlords which would allow them to continue the system of evictions, without, at the first opportunity, introducing remedial legislation. In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman said he would also consider it his duty to enforce the statute law of the Realm; but that he would refuse to be the administrator of any unjust law. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had not acted as he (Mr. Biggar) contended he ought to have acted in regard to either of these matters. Instead of the landlords having, in accordance with the prognostications of the right hon. Gentleman, diminished the number of evictions, they all knew, as a matter of fact, that they had increased them, and that the right hon. Gentleman, placing himself entirely in their hands, had actually assisted them in carrying out their oppressive conduct to the utmost extremity of hardship and tyranny. And what had been the result? The right hon. Gentleman had not, as he asserted he would, resigned his Office of Chief Secretary, nor had he demanded to be transferred to some other post in the Government. If he had done that, it was quite possible that some other Chief Secretary might have been appointed who would have performed the duties of the Office in a much more satisfactory manner than the right hon. Gentleman had done. But, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman did not resign; and, further, he had not, as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, insisted upon remedial legislation taking place on the earliest opportunity in the present Session. Instead of introducing the remedial legislation he had pledged himself to inaugurate, as far as any pledge was usually made by a Minister, he had been a party to, and the prime mover in, bringing in and passing Coercion Acts. A Coercion Bill was introduced under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman as soon as Parliament met; and in introducing it the right hon. Gentleman stated to the House the reasons which induced him to propose it, and the grounds upon which he had arrived at the conclusion that it should become law. He (Mr. Biggar) was told, on the authority of an English Member who sat on the Government side of the House, that the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the Coercion Act was that the Irish landlords, being a tyrannical and an extortionate class, went to the right hon. Gentleman and told him that unless he would give them all the assistance they required, they would withdraw from the Commission of the Peace, and refuse to act in the capacity of magistrates, the consequence of which would be, as they asserted, that everything in Ireland would be left in a state of anarchy and disorder. That was a very idle threat, because the administration of justice would have been carried on equally well without their assistance, and probably a great deal better. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Coercion Bill, pushed it through the House in opposition to the wishes of the Irish Members, and then followed what the Government called their remedial measure. He (Mr. Biggar) had on more than one occasion stated his opinion in regard to the merits of the Land Bill brought in by the Government, and, at the present moment, he did not propose to criticize it further. It was on the representations of the right hon. Gentleman that the Coercion Bill was passed into law. During the progress of the Bill through the House, the right hon. Gentleman described the sort of people who were likely to be arrested under the provisions of the Act, and the persons whom it was intended to affect. The Act had now been in operation for some five or six months; and, so far as he was informed, the class of persons whom it was introduced to affect had not been taken prisoners, but an entirely different class of people altogether had been arrested under its provisions. In corroboration of his statement as to the ear-wigging of the right hon. Gentleman by the Irish magistrates, and the unfair means the landlords had resorted to in order to direct the right hon. Gentleman astray, he might mention the case of one very prominent landlord in Ireland, who was formerly a Member of that House—Colonel King-Harman. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been so frightened by the statements of Colonel King-Harman as to the violence which was proposed to be used against him, that he at once took steps for arresting all the persons against whom an accusation was made; whereas, in reality, the person he ought to have placed in safe custody was Colonel King-Harman himself, for having threatened to take the life of Assistant Keogh. This instance was sufficient to show that the right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself to be influenced by the wrong sort of people, instead of listening to the opinions of the Representatives of the Irish people, and those whose views were likely to possess real weight—not Members alone who sat on that—the Home Rule—side of the House, but of Members who sat on the other side, and generally supported Her Majesty's Government. The conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in regard to the administration of the affairs of Ireland had been a thorough failure, and he had altogether failed to discharge his duty. Another charge he was disposed to make against the right hon. Gentleman was this—Questions had often been asked of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to transactions of which he ought to have been cognizant; but in the vast majority of cases the right hon. Gentleman had exhibited either a great "want of knowledge, or an indisposition to supply the House with the information in his possession. Perhaps the House would permit him to give an illustration of his experience in this respect. Some time ago a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to a case of eviction, and he was asked to state what was the amount of rent claimed by the landlord, so that the House might be able to form an opinion as to whether the rent was exorbitant or not, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government having constantly been that a large proportion of the persons evicted were quite able to pay, but unwilling to do so. The Irish Members had always, on the other hand, urged that that statement was incorrect, and altogether opposed to the fact. He did not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman had intentionally made a misstatement; but, to say the least of it, he had exhibited a very gross amount of ignorance, because he could easily have made himself acquainted, in every one of the eases in which a decree was granted, with the amount of rent, because the extent of the claim, with full particulars, was stated in the process and in the decree. Therefore, there was nothing more easy than to get at the annual amount of rent; and as each Poor Law Union had a copy of the Government valuation in its offices, it could supply all the other part of the information with the greatest ease in the world. The production of these lie-turns would have shown at once whether there had been exorbitant demands or not; but the right hon. Gentleman refused to give the information. The same sort of thing was done constantly. Only the other day he (Mr. Biggar) asked a question as to the published rate in different Unions; but the right hon. Gentleman declared that the Local Government Board did not know what the published rate was in the different Unions in Ireland. The story was certainly a very strange one. The Local Government Board professed to have influence over the County Superintendents in the Unions, and they undertook to force the people to pay to the Guardians a rate of poundage, whether the people themselves considered it to be a reasonable rate or not. He held in his hand a letter which he had received from a ratepayer in the county of Sligo, stating that the Union rate in Sligo was 9d., and also that it was 9d. in the pound in one of the districts of the county of Limerick. Surely it was singular that he should be able to obtain this information by letter which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to obtain with all the power at his disposal. If the right hon. Gentleman really failed to obtain official knowledge on these subjects, he (Mr. Biggar) held that he neglected his duty, and that he was not entitled to the full payment of the salary which it was proposed to vote to him in the present Estimate. Then, in regard to the persons who were now in prison under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, some explanations had been given in regard to a friend of his (Mr. Biggar's)—Mr. Thomas Brennan. Mr. Brennan differed from him upon various matters of policy; but, at the same time, he was bound to state that he never saw a more preposterous charge against a man than that upon which the right hon. Gentleman had been pleased to base Mr. Brennan's arrest. Mr. Brennan was a very able gentleman, and, in all probability, he would be a Member of that House inside the next few months, if the Government would only create a vacancy by giving a situation to one of their respected friends. He had very little doubt that when the first vacancy occurred in the Irish representation Mr. Brennan would become a Member of the House of Commons. He hoped the time would not be long before a vacancy was occasioned, so that the House might have an addition to its numbers of one of the most able and determined critics of the misconduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary who could possibly be found. As to the police, the course invariably pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was to screen the police on all occasions. The right hon. Gentleman invariably professed to have no knowledge of any of the charges brought against them. Further than that, the right hon. Gentleman either refused or neglected to insist that certain salutary rules should be put in operation in different parts of Ireland in regard to the police, and especially the rule that in the ranks of the Constabulary itself there should be a mixture of the different religious persuasions. The experience of the past was that a very much greater amount of promotion was given to the non-Catholic members of the force than to those who happened to belong to the religion of the country. This occasioned a great deal of dissatisfaction and heartburning, and charges of favouritism and unfairness. He had not much more to say; but, before concluding his remarks, he wished to bring before the Committee two cases of arrest which had been brought under his notice. The first was the case of one of the "suspects" now in prison at Galway, whom he did not know personally, but who had written to him asking him to bring the case before the House. The man told his own story; and he would, therefore, simply read the letter which had been sent to him, in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might have an opportunity of inquiring into the circumstances, and ordering the release of the prisoner if the merits of the case should turn out to be as they were represented. Unless the most flagrant falsehood was uttered by the writer, the case was a very clear and straightforward one, and the unfortunate man ought never to have been arrested at all. The writer said—

"I shall be obliged if you will bring my case before the House. The alleged offence charged against me is having assaulted and beaten a certain person. The charge is quite false, as I had only risen two days before the date of my arrest from a sick bed, to which I had been confined by fever. I had been attended by a priest and a doctor for six weeks previous to my arrest, as those gentlemen can themselves prove."

The name of the man was Thomas Murray; and he (Mr. Biggar) thought it was only fair and just towards him that the Government should have an opportunity of communicating both with the priest and the dispensary doctor referred to. If the man's statement was true, there could be no justification for arresting him on a charge of assault, for it must be borne in mind that the charge was not one of sending a threatening letter, but of having committed an actual assault. The man distinctly asserted that he had been confined to a sick bed for six weeks before his arrest; and if his statement were true, it was preposterous that he could have been in a condition to commit such an assault as would warrant his arrest and detention. It would probably be found that it was a case of mistaken identity, and that Murray had been confounded with some other man of the same name. A second prisoner wrote as follows:—

"The offence alleged against me is that of assaulting and beating a certain person. I am a married man with eight children, with little or no means of support, and the charge is wholly false."

In this case the writer gave no details; and, therefore, the facts were not so clear as in the case of Murray. If Murray's statements were correct, there was not the shadow of a case against him, and he ought to be set at liberty at once. Another complaint he (Mr. Biggar) made against the right hon. Gentleman was this—that when an application was made to him in the House, in the way in which an application was recently made in the case of Mr. M'Carthy, he was in the habit of saying that he had no power to review the sentences of the magistrates and Courts of Justice in Ireland. That he (Mr. Biggar) believed to be an entire mistake, and was a proof that the right hon. Gentleman was at issue with the Home Secretary in regard to the view which that right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) took of the duties and powers of his Office. If he (Mr. Biggar) understood the rule laid down by the Home Secretary aright, it was this—that neither he nor the Chief Secretary had power to increase a sentence, but that they had power to reduce one if they thought the punishment too excessive. They had also power to investigate every case in which a complaint was made, and if they deemed the sentence harsh or unjust to lessen the amount of punishment, or remit it altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, over and over again, seemed to think it the correct thing to speak in a defiant tone towards Members of Parliament, and to deceive them in regard to any question they might ask. [Mr. WARTON: No!] He held a correspondence in his hand which related to this very matter; but he had no wish to trouble the Committee by reading it at length. It related to certain charges against the police in the county of Donegal, and he had received communications from various persons of the highest respectability, all reiterating the same charge against one of the Sub-Inspectors. But all the satisfaction that could be obtained from the right hon. Gentleman was the simple statement that the charges were not well founded. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make a full investigation into the charges made, and do something to comply with the demands of the people, that the ends of justice should be satisfied. He would also like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of Sub-Inspector Shaw, of the county of Cavan, against whom serious charges had also been made.

The hon. Gentleman would be in Order in discussing these cases under the Constabulary Vote; but he is not in Order in discussing them under the present Vote.

said, he would not press the matter further; but he simply wished to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary an opportunity of taking a note of these cases. The right hon. Gentleman would naturally wish to make an inquiry of some kind; and if he would undertake to institute a proper inquiry he (Mr. Biggar) would be quite satisfied. He had no wish to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily. In regard to the "suspects" who were in prison, it was said that they were likely to be kept in prison until the Land Act had had a fair trial. He did not think the Government really wished that Act to have a fair trial. He believed that many people who thought they were going to get some benefit from it would find themselves mistaken. No doubt, in some cases, there would be benefit; but in the majority of cases everybody would be striving to do the best for their own individual interests, and many of the people would get no advantage at all. One great object of the Government was to destroy an organization which hitherto had been of immense benefit to the people, and which, even under the provisions of the Act, might still be exceedingly beneficial to them in securing proper decisions from the Land Court. The right hon. Gentleman, however, wished to see this organization swept away, so that the people might be driven wholesale out of the land and exterminated. Then, when the country was desolated, they would say that, at last, it was at peace. He thought he had said enough to satisfy any impartial tribunal that there were good grounds for the Motion he now made to reduce the salary of the Chief Secretary by the sum of £2,000.

said, the Vote was a very important one. It was a Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and for the officials in his Office; and it further included the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums and the Inspectors of the Irish Fisheries. He had no wish to pursue the line which had been taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He would rather wish to withdraw the discussion of this very important Vote from all considerations of a personal character, so that it might become general, that being the direction in which he thought they would be able more profitably to pursue the discussion than by a personal examination of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary during the past year. He had always been disposed to think that while there was very much to be found fault with in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had executed the duties of his Office, and while he had been guilty, undoubtedly, of many sins of omission and of commission, he (Mr. Parnell) had always been disposed to think that the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was rather the result of the circumstances and nature of the case than of any special defects of the right hon. Gentleman himself. In point of fact, he did not think there existed in England, or in the world, anybody qualified to undertake the anomalous duties of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or to discharge them either with satisfaction to himself or to the people he was called upon to govern. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was certainly in this anomalous position, that he was the practical despotic ruler of a country where Parliamentary government was supposed to exist, and which was supposed to enjoy a Representative Government; and yet, at the same time, he did not form any part of the representation of that country. He was obliged to administer the government of Ireland not from the point of view of the people who sent Representatives to the House of Commons, but from his own point of view as a practically irresponsible agent of the Parliament of this country and the majority of the people of this country. Hence it happened that they found the right hon. Gentleman had, practically speaking, broken down, and failed in the administration of his Office in the most lamentable manner. But he (Mr. Parnell) did not wish, as he had said at the beginning, to impute the breakdown and failure of the right hon. Gentleman to any fault of the Chief Secretary personally. He thought that any other statesman in the position of the right hon. Gentleman would have similarly failed; and, therefore, he came back to what he had said at the commencement—that it was rather from the nature of things than from any inherent defects in the right hon. Gentleman himself that he had failed in the task of governing Ireland, on which he had entered with such a light heart some 18 months ago. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, which he (Mr. Parnell) presumed to mean that the heart of the right hon. Gentleman was not light when he entered on the task. At all events, it was probably lighter than it was now, and in that respect he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to agree with him. It was an encouraging sign for the Irish Party that a statesman of the ability, experience, and undoubted power and character of the right hon. Gentleman should have made such a signal failure in his attempt to govern Ireland from England, because it encouraged those who believed in the right of Irishmen to govern themselves to hope that at some future date England, warned and guided by successive failures on the part of her most prominent statesmen in the task of governing Ireland from England, would intrust to Irishmen at home the full right of governing themselves. If they failed in that, English statesmen and the English Parliament, at all events, would have the satisfaction of saying—"You have failed from your own fault, and you cannot throw the blame on us." He had not failed to notice that there were many signs of public opinion in this country, and many indications furnished by private conversations with Members sitting on both sides of the House, which led him to suppose that the opinion was very fast gaining ground that it was a practical impossibility to continue the government of Ireland by means of the over-centralized system of which the right hon. Gentleman was the sole Parliamentary embodiment. It was an old saying that Ireland was the most de-boarded country in the world. All the Administrative Departments were administered by a responsible head, who was not, practically speaking, subject to the supervision of the House; and they were only very slightly subjected, by the nature of their position, to the supervision of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The heads of these Departments were practically irresponsible. Their Offices lasted during life, or during good behaviour; and there was, consequently, no representative element whatever appertaining to the government of Ireland. It was hardly possible to say how many Boards there were in connection with the government of Ireland. There were the Local Government Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was head, the Board of National Education, and the Poor Law Board.

said, the Poor Law Board was the same as the Local Government Board.

said, the Board of Works was also in the hands of an irresponsible head. In point of fact, with the single exception of the Local Government Board, all these Offices were presided over by irresponsible officials having no seats in the House of Commons; and, from the nature of the case, it would be impossible for them to obtain seats in the House, unless they had seats given to them from some of the English constituencies. He thought this was a very serious matter for the House to consider. He presumed that it would be taken up at some future time—probably next Session, if the opportunity was available, and the attention of the Government would then be directed to the whole question of county and local government in Ireland. He did not see how they could satisfactorily enter into an examination of that question without taking also into consideration the cen- tralizing system of government which now prevailed. If they were to reform the system of county government, they must also reform their system of central government; and if, in the course of that reform, it might be found possible to dispense with the services of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and even of the Lord Lieutenant himself, and transfer some of the functions now performed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the heads of this branch of the Public Service to which he was referring, and to elect representatives either of the people, or delegates appointed by the County Boards, to discharge these centralizing functions, he was sure that no inconsiderable portion of the question of the Irish Government, so far as it was connected with local government, would have been solved. But, of course, there were a great many considerations connected with the matter which were exceedingly difficult of solution. They had, first of all, the fact that if, in the event of such a system being adopted as he had alluded to, and such a central system of government being inaugurated in Ireland, any minority in Ireland who wore dissatisfied with the proceedings of the central local government would have an appeal to the House of Commons. Personally, he would be glad that there should be such an appeal, on account of the difficulty of obtaining accurate information as to the real state of affairs in Ireland. They would have the House dragged in under those circumstances and made a sort of accessory to the contentions of different parties in Ireland; and, consequently, the House would be constituted the arbiter between different parties in Ireland. But even then there would still exist many of the evils which arose from time to time in the attempts of England to govern Ireland by means of the English Parliament. The question, therefore, cut deeper than the mere question of local self-government; and he failed to perceive how they could entirely reform the local government of Ireland without taking into account the undoubted national aspirations of the Irish people. He had ventured upon making these few remarks because he thought the time was appropriate for directing the attention of Englishmen to the very anomalous position occupied by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had, undoubtedly, failed to give any sort of satisfaction to any class in Ireland. He had not pleased the Conservatives, although he had pleased them more than the great mass of the Irish people. He was looked upon with horror and detestation by the great body of the Irish people, on account of the manner in which he had administered the Coercion Act and the general law which came under the control of his Department. He occupied a position, practically speaking, more despotic than that of the Czar of Russia; he had greater power of enforcing his demands than that Power possessed, because, at least, the Czar could be kept in check by the fear of a revolution. But what did the right hon. Gentleman do? He knew that the power outside—far stronger than the power of the Irish people—was always ready to support him in any act he might do, or in any matter he might undertake, and that he himself was practically in the possession of despotic power, the consequences of which he had no cause to fear in the slightest degree. They were now coming in Irish history to the second winter of the government of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not pretend to forecast the future in the slightest degree, or to state to what extent the land legislation of the Government might he productive of a return to tranquillity or contentment in the minds of the Irish people. It was impossible to forecast this, because it was impossible to forecast the nature and extent of the action of the Land Bill which had just been passed. But he should be disposed to think that if the Land Bill did give a substantial and fair abatement of rent the Irish people would go to work, so that a good deal of the turmoil which at present existed would disappear, and the Irish people, looking upon the Land Bill as an instalment of justice, would make the best they could of its provisions, and would endeavour to complete the Land Reform in conformity with the ideas which the great majority of the people had set their hopes upon. In fact, he thought that if the Land Bill gave the abatement of rent which was required by the circumstances of the case, a great many of the Irish landlords would disappear of their own accord, and without any necessity for exertion on the part of the people or the Land League, and that the result would be an extensive formation of peasant proprietors in Ireland. But all this was contingent on the hopes of the people not being disappointed in the expectation they had formed that they might get a suitable and substantial reduction of the rents they were paying at present. If the Bill failed to give them such an abatement of rent as the tenant considered himself entitled to, or something nearly approaching it, they might depend upon it that their Land Bill would be far from alleviating the disorder which now existed in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman would now have an opportunity of studying the condition of society in Ireland. He would be able to see how far the Irish people were practically qualified and capable of undertaking the important work of self-government; and he trusted that the result of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman during the coming winter would be such as to enable him to advise the Cabinet of which he was a Member, when they introduced the question of county government next year, to bring forward a measure of such a character and scope as to enable them to dispense with a considerable portion of the very centralized system of government which at present existed. He trusted that the measure might be one of a complete and of a thorough character, and that no fear of what the "Landlord House" might do in the way of mutilation would prevent the Government from bringing forward a bold and general scheme of legislation, based on the principle that the majority of the people of a country were entitled to have a voice in regard to what became of the taxes they contributed to the Public Exchequer. If they did that—if they gave the Irish people some control over the Government of their own country, and some right to dispose of the taxes they raised, and to direct the distribution of those taxes, they would, undoubtedly, have done something in the direction of solving the problem of local government in Ireland. But that must always be qualified by the further consideration that so long as Ireland was ruled from England—so long as they attempted to govern Ireland by a House of Representatives not elected by the people of Ireland, but elected, for the most part, by people of two other countries, unacquainted with the wants and wishes and the aspirations of the Irish people, so long they would have the people of this country, and the Government of this country, and the House of Commons dragged in as parties to every dispute which might arise in Ireland between the majority of the people of that country and those who composed the landlord party; while the support of the governing power of England and of the representative institutions of England would be, as a natural consequence, enlisted on behalf of the minority.

The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has made a very able, a very interesting, and a very suggestive speech, and, from his point of view, I must say it is a moderate one; but while I say that, I must also say that the speech is one upon general policy, and not the kind of speech which is generally made on occasions set apart for the discussion of the details of the Estimates. Therefore, I think the hon. Member can. hardly expect me to follow him by a full and elaborate reply to the statements he has made. The hon. Member has made some remarks as to my own personal position and the policy of the Government. With regard to myself, personally, I will say very little. I have nothing to say against the tone of the hon. Member in the rebuke he has conveyed to me; all I can say is that, under circumstances of some difficulty, I have endeavoured to do my best; and I really look forward to some allowance being made for those difficult circumstances, both by the Irish people and by the Irish Members. Whatever the impression may be with regard to my con-duct at this moment in Ireland, I have a confident hope that it will not last; but, if it should be the case, I cannot help it, and I can only express my regret. As regards the policy of the Government, that is a question which would require more time than can well be devoted to it at this period of the Session. At the same time, I do not object to the hon. Member's speech. I admit he is quite justified in taking this opportunity, at the close of the Session, of delivering it. I can only hope that the Committee will now be allowed to go on with the Business of Supply.

said, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had anticipated him in some of the observations he intended to make on the appointment of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but, before he made any remarks on that subject, he could not help adverting to the statement made by the hon. Member respecting the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman since he had been in Office. The hon. Member stated that the Chief Secretary was held in horror and detestation throughout Ireland. He emphatically denied that. He believed that the people of Ireland, who were a generous people, would do more justice to the right hon. Gentleman than had been done him by the hon. Member. They would recognize the great and embarrassing difficulties under which the right hon. Gentleman had laboured ever since he undertook the very arduous duties of Chief Secretary, and would respect and esteem the manner in which he had met bitter hostility and opposition and repeated taunts, which would have been borne very differently by a man of less imperturbable equanimity and less even temper. They should remember that, when his (Sir Eardley Wilmot's) own Party quitted Office, and the Ministerial programme of Leaders opposite was being arranged, it was generally expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have been selected for one of the highest posts in the Government to which his claims and aspirations justly entitled him; whereas, from a sincere desire to benefit Ireland, and to endeavour to raise her from her present unfortunate position, he accepted the Office he now held. But with regard to the principal object for which he had risen, it was to point out to the Committee the anomalous and peculiar position the right hon. Gentleman held as Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, being a Cabinet Minister in London and sending out instructions from hence to the Lord Lieutenant, and becoming, when he crossed over to Dublin, his inferior and subordinate. [Major NOLAN: No.] He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was speaking almost in the words of the late Sir Robert Peel, who, in a memorable debate on the 17th June, 1850, on the question of the abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant, forcibly pointed out these anomalies in the Office of Chief Secretary. On that occasion, the Prime Minister (Lord John Russell) proposed the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, and carried his Motion by a majority of 220, the numbers being 290 for it and only 70 against it. In the majority were to be found the names of the present Prime Minister and the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). The right hon. Gentleman the Premier, who had just entered the House, would remember that it was the last occasion but one that Sir Robert Peel spoke in the House of Commons before his lamented death, the last being on Mr. Roebuck's Motion on the affairs of Greece. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had wished himself to have had an opportunity of speaking on the question of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, on which he had long held a strong opinion; and he had waited for two days in expectation of the Vote on the Household of the Lord Lieutenant coming on, but it was taken in his absence at half-past 3 A.M. on that morning.

said, that the hon. Member could not now go into the question of abolition.

said, that he had not the slightest intention of doing so, as he felt it would be irrelevant; but he would appeal to the Prime Minister to take both the matter of the Chief Secretary and the question of local government in Ireland into his serious consideration, with a view to some comprehensive measure on the subject in a future Session. Many of the most eminent statesmen had held the opinion that the union between the two countries could never be complete while the present system of administration lasted. He might remind the Prime Minister that Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, and especially Lord Wellesley, who had twice been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, all held the same opinions. As he was addressing the Prime Minister, he could not help saying with what gratification and interest he had listened to his speech on the Coercion Act on the preceding evening. It was a noble and truly English speech; and if the right hon. Gentleman, now that the Land Bill had passed, would devote his statesmanship and abilities to the consideration of those reforms in the government of Ireland which all who had the interests of that country at heart had long felt to be necessary, he was sure that those who sat on his own side of the House would give him their co-operation and support.

desired to say a few words before the Vote was put to the Committee. He had no intention to follow the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), or to debate the question of Home Rule. It was not without pain that he and many other Liberal Members had accepted the Coercion Bill introduced in the early part of the Session; but in accepting it they felt they were bound to support and carry out to the full the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, and to indicate their approval of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in giving effect to the measures of the Government. He could not blame himself for having taken that course, and he was sorry that it had not been followed by every hon. Gentleman who sat upon his side of the House. With regard to the conduct of the Chief Secretary, now under discussion, he felt that any commendation he (Mr. Cropper) could give would be most inadequate. The Office of Chief Secretary had been to the right hon. Gentleman a very thankless office, because it had been accepted by a Statesman who could add very little to his reputation, however efficiently he might discharge the duties intrusted to him. But he regarded the Irish people, who were under the care of the right hon. Gentleman, as a practical people; and, although they did not like the teacher set over them at the present moment, it was not improbable that hereafter, as was often the case with pupils of a public school, they would look back upon the rule of the right hon. Gentleman as one which had really been of everlasting benefit to themselves, and which had helped them materially in understanding their position, and in beginning to enjoy the privileges of British subjects. He had watched with much admiration, during the long and arduous Session now about to close, the ability and power which had been displayed by the many distinguished statesmen who formed Her Majesty's Government. But in regard to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman who so ably represented Ireland, he could only add to the respect he entertained for him a feeling of sympathy for the difficult position in which he had been placed—a position in which it was impossible for him to add anything to his reputation or dignity. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had discharged his duties most ably, and, notwithstanding the fact of being compelled to resort to coercion, he had done nothing to discredit the position he had been called upon to occupy. The real Question before the Committee was not the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that a miserable sum of £2,000 should be struck off the Vote, and off the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, but a far higher and much more important question; and he trusted that the hon. Member would feel it his duty to withdraw the proposition he had made. He (Mr. Cropper) thought that they all owed a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government. He was thankful that the same feeling had been expressed on the other side of the House, and he felt that there should be a similar expression from that (the Liberal) side.

said, he thought, if it were not against the Rules of the House, that the proper thing to do would be to move an increase of the Vote. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone occupying his position, was really endeavouring to bear the world on his shoulders, for the government of the country, as decided in England, was really placed on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman. In England there was a Home Secretary at a large salary—larger than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary now enjoyed—and the position of the Home Secretary was far more rosy, and much less difficult, than that of the Chief Secretary. In addition to the Home Secretary, there was in England a President of the Local Government Board, who had a salary of £2,000; and a Vice President of the Council, with another £2,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman, besides discharging all these functions in connection with Ireland, was responsible for everything connected with the Board of Works, whereas the same duties in England were performed by a responsible Minister with another salary of £2,000. Under these circumstances, he could not believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was in earnest in proposing to reduce the salary of the Chief Secretary. Instead of moving a reduction, he really ought to move an increase. To be serious, he knew very well the anomalous position which anyone who filled the Office of Chief Secretary must occupy. In one sense, his duties were distributed between the two Kingdoms; he was here one day, and somewhere altogether different another. To-day he was a Minister, sitting with the Cabinet to settle the policy of the Government, and the next he was a mere Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. It would be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to discharge the duties of his Office if his whole time were devoted to them in one place; but, distracted as he was, and driven across the sea four or five times a-year, he really did not know how the right hon. Gentleman managed to get through his duties at all. The people of Ireland must necessarily suffer, for the most gigantic intellect and the greatest amount of administrative ability would fail to discharge all the onerous duties of the position. And yet, with all these responsibilities, the right hon. Gentleman, and the Lord Lieutenant, had not one-half of the power in England that the President of the Local Government Board had in Ireland. Only the other day there was an unseemly discussion as to the precedence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary, and the discussion resulted in showing that, although the Chief Secretary was a Minister, and one of the principal Governors in Ireland, he was only one of the four satellites who revolved around the great planet—the Home Secretary—in England. The right hon. Gentleman was merely on a level with various other Government officials here, while the Home Secretary was the person in whom the chief responsibility was vested. In Ireland the Chief Secretary had his hands tied in his action in reference to the Poor Law. As President of the Local Government Board in Ireland he had not one-half of the power which the. President of the Local Government Board possessed over Boards of Guardians in England. His action was restricted and tied up; he was unable to give out-door relief, and he was unable to exercise one-half of the power intrusted to the Boards of Guardians in England during the time of the Lancashire Famine. The mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman was called upon to fill a number of Offices, led to a confusion of dates and a confusion of ideas. It was impossible to avoid confusion when all these things were intrusted to the management of the right hon. Gentleman. There was also another matter to which he desired to call attention. The right hon. Gentleman had given him a share of the castigation which he had bestowed upon the Irish Members for what the right hon. Gentleman was fond of calling the disturbing councils of the Party. He (Mr. Dawson) was willing to bear the censure of the right hon. Gentleman, and to give him credit, nevertheless, for having acted in perfect sincerity. He appreciated keenly the difficult position in which the right hon. Gentleman had been placed; and supposing, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he was not at present appreciated in Ireland—and he certainly was not—the time might come when the right hon. Gentleman would be able to overcome the dislike with which he was at present viewed, and show himself in his true colours as a humane man and an able administrator. It would be very difficult, however, to do this, because the arrangements connected with the Office of Chief Secretary were such that, long before the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to retrieve the past, he would probably be wafted away to some other post, and, perhaps, replaced by another and even a still greater tyrant. He remembered accompanying the member a of the Municipal Corporation of Dublin in a deputation to a former Chief Secretary, and, after the interview was over, every one of them said—"This is a Secretary, indeed. He is a man who really understands his business, and he is already lifting himself out of the cliquism of Dublin Castle." That was the feeling with which the members of the Corporation came out of the interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). They said—"Now that the Chief Secretary is beginning to shake off the cliquism of the Castle, and is beginning to understand how things should be managed, and is consulting his own English heart and independent intelligence, there may be some hope for Ireland." But the very week after, and before the subject upon which the interview took place had been settled, the right hon. Gentleman was gone; and he was succeeded by another Chief Secretary, whose flippancy and utter contempt for the Irish people would not soon be forgotten. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had remained in the Office, he (Mr. Dawson) believed that the people of Ireland would have reaped great advantage from his wise and conciliatory rule; but Mr. Lowther was sent to replace the right hon. Gentleman, and it was not long before an entire revulsion of feeling was brought about. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork said that next year they might expect a measure of County Government for Ireland, which would set right a great many things that were now wrong and relieve the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of a great many matters which now pressed hardly upon him; but until the right hon. Gentleman came to realize that in Ireland the will of the Irish people should constitute the Government of Ireland, as the will of the English people did in England, all the amiability of disposition, all the ability and strength of mind, and all the honest-heartedness of purpose which the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Chief Secretary, might display would fail to render English Rule tasteful to the Irish people.

said, he had never disguised his feeling that the policy of the Government towards Ireland had been a mistaken policy; but he saw no reason why it should be made the ground of a personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The complaints which were made against him came very badly from that quarter of the House. One complaint was that the right hon. Gentleman constantly refused to give information. Now, he (Mr. Warton) always felt that the right hon. Gentleman gave too much information. Many of the questions put were questions which ought never to have been asked at all, and every appeal of the right hon. Gentleman for time to enable him to procure information was rejected, often giving rise to debates on the adjournment of the House. He, therefore, thought that these complaints came with very bad grace from that (the Home Rule) quarter of the House. Hon. Members who had sat in the House night after night, as he (Mr. Warton) had done, would have some feeling of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the difficulties of the position he occupied. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could be accused of any want of sympathy with the Irish people. On the contrary, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had shown too much sympathy. He ought simply and sternly to have kept to the path of duty; and a man who was able to do that would administer the affairs of Ireland far better than a man who had too much sympathy and too much feeling. In addition to his other numerous duties, the Chief Secretary was bound to answer all kinds of questions in regard to the administration of justice all over Ireland. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take a lesson from the Home Secretary of England?—although he must admit that even the answers of the right hon. Gentleman were a little more effective than those of the Home Secretary. The Chief Secretary put himself to all sorts of trouble in making all kinds of inquiries about all sorts of questions, most of them of the most trivial character, and nearly all of them turning out to be based on inaccurate information. In. regard to the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he was quite willing to admit that he did not understand it. The hon. Member appeared to have two styles of oratory, each of which was perfectly distinct from the other. In some cases, nothing could be more temperate than the speeches of the hon. Member, and they even elicited expressions of approval from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The speeches of the hon. Member which were delivered elsewhere were couched in a very different tone, and it would scarcely seem possible that they could be made by the same individual. Although he heartily disliked the policy of the Government, he disliked these unjust and ungenerous attacks much more.

said, he was one of those who were favourable to the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. This was not because he had the least hope that the Office would be discharged to the satisfaction of the Irish people, but because he was glad to see a Statesman of his high personal character appointed to it. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his ability and experience would fail in the Office, and that the failure of so eminent a Statesman would draw the attention of the English Government and people to the impossibility of governing Ireland through that Office. It must be admitted that the administration of Irish affairs by the right hon. Gentleman had utterly and completely broken down. He said that since, possibly, the time of Cromwell there had been no name held in such utter detestation by the people of Ireland than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry to make that statement; but there was no greater proof than that of the right hon. Gentleman's failure in Ireland. Had the right hon. Gentleman been as obnoxious to nine-tenths of the people of England as he was to nine-tenths of the people of Ireland he would not occupy a seat on the Treasury Bench for a day longer; and that circumstance pointed to the remarkable difference which existed between the systems in the two countries. It was the fault inherent in the system of government that the administration of the right hon. Gentleman was a failure. There was no man living in England or Ireland who could discharge the duties of the Office of Chief Secretary to the satisfaction of the Irish people. He felt bound to express his opinion that the personal feelings of the right hon. Gentleman had in some degree exaggerated the situation; and, he believed, his great mistake was that he had surrendered his judgment unreservedly to the official class in Dublin. He noticed that whenever a charge was brought against a member of the official class in Ireland—in the Constabulary, or in any other Department—the right hon. Gentleman invariably threw the mantle of his protection over the individual. Considering the many cases of the kind submitted by the Irish Members to the House during the Session, it was impossible that their information should be at fault in every instance; and yet, on every occasion, the right hon. Gentleman defended the official charged. He thought that the mistake of the right hon. Gentleman had been that, in making his inquiries, he simply applied to the officials who were charged with the offence, or those immediately above them in office. His experience of Irish affairs was not extensive; but he must have been aware that, unfortunately, a feeling of hostility existed between the official classes and the people of Ireland. As the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had shown the other night, the magistrates in Ireland were appointed not because of their acquaintance with the general condition of things in the country, or on account of their knowledge of the people, but because it was known that they were in direct antagonism to the opinions of the people. The same feeling ran through the whole system of Irish administration; and, that being so, the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of an error in placing confidence in the statements made by those officials. In order to illustrate this, he would take the present opportunity for bringing forward a case, which he was anxious to call attention to on the previous evening. The case was a very glaring one, and, inasmuch as it had a bearing on the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, it was perfectly relevant to the Vote before the Committee. Two gentlemen had been sent to prison upon the mandate of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. It was charged against them that they had collected subscriptions under circumstances of intimidation. But it was a fact that each subscriber had been appealed to, and had explicitly stated that no threat had been used; that there was no intimidation, and that they gave their subscriptions cheerfully and voluntarily. In spite of this, however, when the charge was brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, he relied on the statement of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and sent the two gentlemen to prison. He could bring forward a great many other cases of a like kind, quite as strong as that which he had now instanced. An examination of these cases, he felt sure, would prove to the satisfaction of every impartial man in that House that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had surrendered his better judgment to the judgment of the official classes in Ireland. For these reasons he should vote with the hon. Member for Cavan if he proceeded to divide the Committee on his Motion.

said, he would not engage in a controversy as to the merits of the right hon. Gentlemen, nor enter into any charges of a personal character against him. He thought the Committee was to be congratulated on the tone which had been introduced into this conversation by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Hon. Members on that side of the House simply desired to make a necessary and justifiable protest against the system of government in Ireland of which the right hon. Gentleman was the Representative. Now, he would say no more than this of the right hon. Gentleman personally. He went to Ireland with opportunities, and his Party came into power with great opportunities of conciliating the Irish people. He (Mr. Redmond) did not believe that since the Union there had ever been a Government which had so great opportunities in that respect as the Government of the Prime Minister. When the present Ministry came into Office, the Irish people looked forward with expectations that their grievances would be redressed; and he was quite certain that when the right hon. Gentleman was chosen as Chief Secretary for Ireland, there was a universal opinion amongst them that a wise and judicious choice had been made, and that benefit would result to Ireland. But he was sorry to say that opinion had been entirely dissipated by the subsequent course of events. The great opportunities of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had been wasted. He was sorry to see that the good intentions with which he had been credited had been thrown away, and that the honourable reputation as a Statesman, which he brought with him to Ireland, had certainly not, by his administration of Irish affairs, been increased. He wished, as he had said, rather to protest against the system of government in Ireland than to say anything personal against the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he desired to add a few words against a system which was based on principles diametrically opposed to the principles of representative government. The Government of a free country was a Government which was elected by the people, which represented the people, and was Constitutionally responsible to the people. The Government of Ireland was based on totally opposite principles to these. It was in no way representative of the people; it was representative of another nation, and in no sense did it represent the feelings, wishes, and aspirations of the Irish people. It was not respon- sible to the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was the Representative of a Government as to which the Irish people had no voice whatever. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible to that House, and that House was responsible, not to the Irish nation, but to the people of England and Scotland. Against that principle he and his Colleagues desired to protest. He had heard on occasions of this kind arguments advanced against this theory. He had heard it said that Ireland formed part of one Kingdom, and that the Irish people had no more right to complain than the people of Yorkshire. But there was this great difference. Yorkshire was part of England, and Ireland was not. Ireland, no matter what Acts of Union might be passed, was not a part of England. It was a separate country, and the people of Ireland were a separate race. They felt they were governed by another race, which, unhappily, was hostile to them.

rose to Order. He desired to ask whether a general discussion upon Irish affairs was permissible on this Vote, especially after the long debate which had taken place last night?

said, the hon. Gentleman had made use of one sentence only which appeared to him outside the Question before the Committee; but as he felt sure the hon. Gentleman was coming back to the Question, he had not called him to Order.

said, he was sure the Committee would believe him when he said he had a sincere desire not to go outside the limits of Order. He was endeavouring to show that he and his Colleagues were making a protest, short but appropriate, against the system of government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was the Representative in that House, and he was saying that in making that protest they were doing what they believed to be their duty. Now, they had heard something of the past conduct of the right hon. Gentleman and his government in Ireland, and upon that subject he should say no more. But he thought it right to say one word as to the future. He was afraid he should be technically out of Order; but he desired to express the opinion that he and his Friends had been misrepresented, unintentionally, no doubt, at one period of the discussion which took place last night. He never said, and his Friends had never intended to say, that they would do all they could to prevent the Land Bill, about to be passed, having a fair trial in Ireland. On the contrary, they felt that whatever good was in that Bill should be extracted from it by the Irish people for their benefit, and that it should be used as a weapon for the purpose of getting the full measure of their rights, and for strengthening their hands to obtain a radical change in the system of government against which they protested. He would conclude by saying that if a division were taken he should vote against the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, although with them it was not a question either of salary or of money. In that division they were simply recording a protest against the system of government in Ireland, and not in any way endeavouring to cut down the salary of a Gentleman who, perhaps, had larger and more onerous duties to perform than had fallen on the shoulders of anyone who had before filled the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.

said, it had been remarked that there had not been for many years any politician whose name was held in such execration in Ireland as that of the right hon. Gentleman. But it was in connection with one particular measure that the right hon. Gentleman's name and the name of his Administration were so regarded. That measure was the Coercion Act; and he could not help thinking that if the unfortunate "suspects" now imprisoned in Naas and Kilmainham Gaols could have heard the chorus of admiration which had been offered up in honour of the right hon. Gentleman that evening they would have been very much astonished. But the people of Ireland knew very well that the Chief Secretary was not to be blamed for the Coercion Act. They knew that the responsibility for it rested not with him, but with the Prime Minister. With regard, however, to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had used the powers intrusted to him under that Act, there were many in Ireland who had some very emphatic opinions, and amongst them was one who, he thought, had a very fair ground of complaint, as would be recognized by almost every Member of that House. He had asked yesterday a question of the Chief Secretary to this effect—

"Whether, in the case of Mr. Timothy Harrington, editor of The Kerry Sentinel, at present confined in Galway Gaol on suspicion of having, in the county of Westmeath, incited persons to unlawfully assemble together and commit riot for the purpose of obstructing and preventing the execution of the process of the Law, the cause of his arrest will be inquired into at the end of three months; whether, with a view to furnishing evidence for that inquiry, he will state on which of two occasions on which Mr. Harrington was ever in "Westmeath the offence is alleged to have been committed; and, whether the testimony of eight Roman Catholic clergymen, and of the only reporter who attended the meeting, will be deemed sufficient to contradict the unsworn testimony of the person upon whose information the arrest has been made?"

That appeared to him to be a very reasonable question; but, notwithstanding that, the right hon. Gentleman refused to give any information upon the subject. Mr. Harrington was well known all over the South and West of Ireland. He was a leading Land Leaguer, and was looked up to with great confidence by those who took part in the Land League operations. That man, for no offence that anyone could find out or trace, had been put into prison. He was charged, however, with inciting persons in Westmeath unlawfully to assemble and commit riot. Now, he was only in Westmeath upon two occasions—once when he attended a Land League meeting, and again when he attended a Sheriff's sale—and he declared that he had not the remotest idea in connection with which of these two meetings he was suspected, and he denied that at either of them he had used any expression calculated to give colour to this charge, as at both of these meetings the process of law was fully carried out, his observations being directed to the subject of the local trade. The right hon. Gentleman had refused to give any information on the point, and Mr. Harrington, consequently, was not only not allowed to know the acts which his accuser had imputed to him, but he was not allowed to bring forward in his defence the testimony of such men as he (Mr. A. O'Connor) had mentioned—namely, the eight Catholic clergymen and the reporter who attended the meetings. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated the other day that when Irish Members used the word "respectable" with reference to some persons in Ireland they did so in a sense not used in that House—that was to say, that they did not mean trustworthy and respectable men whose words were to be relied upon, but successful men of business. Now, with regard to Mr. Harrington, he did not know that he could be said to be a respectable man in the sense of his being a successful one; but he was, undoubtedly, a man of character beyond suspicion, and all those who knew him trusted him in every way; and that he said, not only with regard to Mr. Harrington, who had been foully caluminated and imprisoned upon charges which he was not allowed to disprove, but he said it also in regard to other "suspects" from Queen's County, such as Messrs. Doran, Errington, and others— men whose characters were beyond suspicion, except it were the suspicion of a certain class.

asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in referring to the case of these persons?

said, the case put by the hon. Member for Queen's County was within the Vote; but it would be for the hon. Member's discretion whether it was desirable upon this Vote to go into a subject which had already been discussed for two days.

said, that on a previous occasion the Chairman had ruled that the Vote for the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which was concerned with the general administration of Ireland, was the proper Vote on which to raise this question. Therefore, he thought it would be clear to his hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches that he was strictly in Order in referring to the gentlemen he had named. Mr. Doran emphatically denied that he was guilty of the crime imputed to him. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was very well acquainted with Mr. Doran, whom he knew to be a truthful and high-minded man, and he said that statement of Mr. Doran ought to weigh against any suspicions on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The word of Mr. Doran was quite as good as the word of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and, therefore, his word against the Chief Secretary's suspicion ought to be sufficient to put an end to the case. The same thing might be said of the two other gentlemen arrested, and of others who lived in another part of the county, all of whom had declared that there was no foundation whatever for the charge which had been brought against them. Similarly, in the extreme west of the county, another man had been arrested, whose arrest had been a matter of great surprise to those who knew him. All these persons had been imprisoned, not for being "village ruffians," but because of their being members of the Land League. There was no other charge that could be brought against them. But every one of them, it was well known, took a foremost part in the district work of land agitation; they were all of them either presidents or secretaries of the local branches of the Land League. And it was perfectly well understood in Ireland, and nothing could remove the feeling from the minds of the people, that the Coercion Act was now being worked, through the agency of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant, for the purpose of putting a stop, if possible, to an agitation which was regarded with hatred and fear by landlords and magistrates in Ireland. Under these circumstances, he did not think there was room for that chorus of laudation which, a little time ago, was heard by the Committee with regard to the way in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had discharged the duties of his Office. He believed the right hon. Gentleman approached those duties with every good intention; but he soon fell into the hands of the officials in Dublin Castle, and had carried out their wishes to a greater extent than, probably, any previous Chief Secretary had ever done. Moreover, he had placed himself in a position of hostility to the feelings of the Irish people, which would forfeit for him in future anything like cordial support at their hands.

said, that during last Session discussions arose with respect to the Irish magistracy which were postponed pending the receipt of reliable official information. On the 1st of September last an Order was made for a Return giving the names and dates of the appointments of magistrates in each county in Ireland, as well as their property qualifications as occupiers and lessors. The Return in question was essential for the purpose of supplying information of a reliable character in order that the question with regard to the Irish magistracy might be raised. But, without any Notice being given to the House, the Order to which he had referred had not been put in force. It had been, indeed, deliberately suppressed in the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—deliberately suppressed, although that House renewed the Order on the 27th of January last. In that month, a statement was made by the Chief Secretary in the House that the Return in question was in course of preparation. But he (Mr. Callan), having been in Ireland since the beginning of the year, had gone to the different Poor Law Unions in the county with which he was connected, and found that, up to the 12th of May last, no steps whatever had been taken to comply with the Orders of the House, which the Chief Secretary was bound to obey, and which the officials of the Government in Dublin were bound to comply with. Those Orders had so far been suppressed that it was then within 12 days of 12 months that the Return which was essential for the purpose of thoroughly understanding the position of the Irish magistracy had not been furnished to the House, although its preparation need not have occupied more than a week or two. He himself made out the Return for the county of Louth in a few hours, which showed that the task was not a very difficult one, and that there was no reason whatever, except the disinclination of the Government, to supply the requisite information why the Return should not have been furnished. Without that Return it was impossible for Irish Members or the House to enter with accurate knowledge upon the consideration of a question which excited the warmest interest and feelings amongst the people of Ireland. It must be borne in mind that the magistrate was the poor man's Judge. He had great power vested in him; and, under the Coercion Acts, a farmer in Ireland had no right to have arms in his possession, or carry arms upon his farm, unless he was certified by two magistrates to be a fit and proper person to have them. Therefore, he said there had been, with regard to this Return, a gross violation of the Order of the House; and it had, moreover, been committed deliberately and not in ignorance, because no Orders had been issued to the Local Government Board for at least six months after the Order was made. This was a very serious matter in itself, and it showed that the Chief Secretary, who knew so little about the real state of affairs in Ireland, was completely in the hands of the officials of the Department in Dublin. If that Return were laid on the Table of the House, Irish Members would be able to show how unequal and unfair in. its application was the system of appointing magistrates in Ireland. It was a fact that Protestants without property qualification, and some without even intelligence or character, were appointed, while Catholics far better qualified were not upon the Bench. He would only say, with reference to the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that he could not agree with the statement of the hon. Member who had spoken of the great gratification which the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman had caused last year in Ireland. For his own part, he believed that it caused a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the people. It was remarkable that in an Administration which represented the Liberal views of the United Kingdom, there was not one single Irishman with the exception of the Law Officers of the Crown. Was there no Irishman fit to be appointed to the Office of Chief Secretary? It was an unfortunate thing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was an Englishman, because surely there must be some Irishmen capable of this Office; and whether Catholic or Protestant, Whig or Tory, he would be very incompetent indeed if he could not govern the country better than it had been governed of late. It was clearly wrong to commit the government of Ireland into English hands. It should be in the hands of an Irishman; and he believed that the appointment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would be one that would give great satisfaction to all classes of the Irish people. That hon. Member knew the wants of the people, and would certainly not be governed by the officials in Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman, it was true, was unpopular in the country districts of Ireland; but he believed that for many years there had not been any Chief Secretary more popular amongst the officials at the Castle in Dublin. The case was different with the Chief Secretary under the late Tory Administration, who was most unpopular in the Castle, because he did not allow himself to be ruled by the officials there; nevertheless, he had left behind him in Ireland a certain character for statesmanship, which was not so with the present Chief Secretary, the result of whose administration showed how incompetent, notwithstanding the greatest advantages and the best opportunities, any Englishman was to govern Ireland.

said, he thought there were very few Members of the House who would doubt for one moment, putting aside political opinion, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Ireland was a most honourable and conscientious man. But although the right hon. Gentleman had considered it his duty to advocate coercion for Ireland at the commencement of the Session, they might still regret the mode in which that system of coercion had been carried out, and they might be allowed still more to regret that when a message of peace was being sent to Ireland that it was not accompanied with an assurance that those persons who were imprisoned would be released. He inferred that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) merely wished to express the views entertained with regard to the political administration of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he did not mean that it would be a good or sound system to regulate the salary of a Minister of the Crown by the amount of accordance felt by hon. Members with his conduct of affairs. He hoped that the hon. Member would rest satisfied with having had an opportunity himself, and affording other hon. Members an opportunity, of expressing their views on this matter, and that he would not push this Motion to a vote.

said, he had received a reply with respect to the Return which was the subject of the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) to the effect that all the requisite information was received from the clerks in the Unions in three months. He thought the hon. Member was mistaken in saying that no efforts had been made to obtain this, and that a small amount of labour was necessary. It was perfectly untrue that no steps were taken to get the Return, or that the Order had been suppressed.

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had made a statement that was untrue. Did the right hon. Gentleman apply that word to his statement?

said, he had understood the hon. Member to state that, instead of carrying out the Order of the House, it had been deliberately suppressed, and that there had been no attempt made to obtain the Return. Certainly, the hon. Member was wholly misinformed in supposing that to be the case.

said, he was quite aware of what had been done. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would contradict him when he said that up to the 12th of May last, eight months after the Return was ordered, no steps had been taken to obtain the Return, and that no forms had been furnished to the clerks of the Unions for the purpose of making it? Why was it that eight months had been allowed to elapse without any steps having been taken to carry out the Order of the House?

said, if the hon. Member would give Notice of his Question in detail, he would endeavour to give him an answer. It had been found impossible to carry out the Order made last year, and another had to be issued in January, 1881.

said, the first Order was made on the 1st of September, 1880, and the second in January of the present year. The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to obtain the information on the Order made in September last, and that another Order had to be made in January. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how that could be, seeing that both the Orders in question were in identical terms?

said, he, of course, coincided with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in saying that the Motion before the Committee was a technical mode of giving expression to his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion with regard to the political conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. He would, therefore, after the discussion which had taken place, ask leave to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote. He would, however, take the opportunity of reminding the Committee that, although he had made a series of criticisms upon the official conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, as far as he was aware, no hon. Member who had since spoken had in the slightest degree attempted to reply to any one of those strictures. Therefore, he concluded that no explanations could he offered with regard to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. He was perfectly well aware that the right hon. Gentleman had, in general terms, received a considerable amount of flattery from one or two hon. Members sitting on that side of the House, and more especially from the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper). But, for his own part, he did not think that much value ought to be attached to the favourable opinions which had been expressed by those hon. Gentlemen with regard to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, because it was well known that the right hon. Gentleman had always enjoyed a very extensive popularity with both the Whig and the Tory Party belonging to the town which he represented. That being the case, it was not at all extraordinary that the same principle should obtain in the House of Commons. He had been very much struck with a fact stated on the authority of The Newcastle Chronicle, that a small proportion only of hon. Members in that House knew what the real effect of the Coercion Act was. He was astonished to find that the impression which prevailed amongst them was that the persons who were arrested on suspicion and imprisoned under the Act were simply awaiting their trial for certain offences with which they were charged. He concluded, therefore, from the remarks of the hon. Member for Kendal, that he was one of those hon. Members who were ignorant of the real effect of the Act which had occupied the House for so long a time in discussing its provisions, and upon which they had voted so often in the earlier part of the Session.

noticed a charge of £50 under the head of Salary to Inspector under the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It was perfectly well known that the Societies engaged in enforcing the law with regard to the protection of animals from cruelty had, in some parts of Ireland, Inspectors of their own. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation of the meaning of this charge. Was this a matter that rested simply in the hands of the officials at the Castle in Dublin?

wished, also, to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to the fact that there was in Dublin no Veterinary Institution, nor, indeed, any sort of veterinary instruction whatever. In view of the great importance of that branch of science, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to establish a Veterinary College for the benefit of the people in Ireland?

said, the Inspector for whom the charge of £50 appeared in this Vote was appointed under the Act of 1876 for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which dealt with vivisection experiments.

pointed out that, owing to the absence of any Veterinary College in Dublin, a large number of Irishmen were at present obliged to go to Edinburgh in order to attend the Veterinary College there. He believed that this influx of students, according to calculation, was the cause of about £2,000 being left in that city every year; and this money he could not but think would be much better spent in Dublin. Now, with regard to the Inspector appointed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, he understood that this officer was appointed to carry out one particular Act; but was it a fact that there were no other Inspectors appointed for carrying out the provisions of the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a member of the Royal Humane Society; but there was one matter on which he should like to have some information Could the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion the numbers of offences under the head of cruelty to animals committed in England and Ireland respectively stood to each other? Was he not correct in saying that, proportionately to the populations of the two countries, there were nearly ten times as many acts of cruelty to animals committed in England as were committed in Ireland?

said, he begged to give the right hon. Gentleman Notice that he should again raise the question tomorrow with regard to the Return which had been ordered by the House in connection with the magistracy in the different counties of Ireland; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared with an answer giving the date of the Order issued from the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Local Government Board to furnish the Return in question, and also the date of the letter of the Local Government Board to the clerks of the Poor Law Unions in Ireland, enclosing forms for the purpose of making up the Returns. When that information was furnished, hon. Members would be able to see whether the great delay which had taken place originated in the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether it was caused by the omission of the Local Government Board, or by the clerks of the Poor Law Union.

said, he was glad his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had withdrawn his Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because he thought it would be very hard, at that period of the Session, to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of what he had earned. Fourteen days ago, he (Mr. Healy) had drawn attention to the conduct of a magistrate at a town in the county of Kerry, who used some very extraordinary language on the Bench with reference to a case in which the police were engaged in putting up a notice. This gentleman expressed a desire that the terrible and riotous mob that had regaled the police with new milk should be skivered, and have buckshot thrown amongst them. He had several times asked the Chief Secretary what notice had been taken of the conduct of this magistrate, and what would be done in the case; but he had not been able to get any satisfactory answer. He, therefore, asked this question again. There was also another circumstance that he would wish to call to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman; and, perhaps, it would not be without instruction to him to recall what he had said in that House with respect to the conduct of another magistrate.

pointed out that it was quite irregular for the hon. Member to refer in Committee to questions which were brought forward in the House.

said, he would make no further reference to that subject, the Chairman having ruled that it was irregular to go into the question. But there was another magistrate in County Cork, concerning whom he wished to make a few remarks. He found, from a Cork paper, that, on the 5th instant, a man was charged before the resident magistrate at petty sessions in Kerry with being drunk and disorderly. He was fined, and, on leaving the Court, thanked the magistrate, who called out—"Bring back that man," and said, "If you don't thank the police, too, I will change the ruling and send you to gaol." The man then thanked the police, and was discharged. This magistrate was one of the "village tyrants" who domineered over the unfortunate people in the locality in question. But it was almost impossible to get any answer upon these subjects from the right hon. Gentleman. Whenever he found it necessary to ask a question of the kind, the reply was either that the Government had no power to review the action of the magistrates, or that they did not think it necessary to take any notice of the matter. This was a very unsatisfactory state of things; and he believed on one occasion a resident magistrate had been fired at, and several people arrested, simply because the Chief Secretary had stated that a matter which had been brought to his notice was not worth attention. The question with regard to the magistrates in Ireland was one which excited a great deal of feeling amongst the people, and he should be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman what decision had been arrived at in the case of the gentleman who wished that the people should be skivered, and have buckshot fired at them?

said, if the hon. Member would give Notice, he would inquire further into the matter.

said, he had already given Notice three times.

said, he did not know how long ago it was that the hon. Member had called attention to the case of Mr. Herbert; but he had made a communication upon this subject. Mr. Herbert disputed the correctness of some of the particulars given in the report, but admitted the truth of a part of the report. The Lord Chancellor had written to him stating that he could not approve of the language he had used, and that he trusted he would not repeat it. The hon. Member read an extract in reference to the discharge of a prisoner; but really it was hardly fair to ask him (Mr. W. E. Forster) a question about that without Notice. He, of course, had had no opportunity of communicating upon this statement. If the hon. Gentleman thought it worth while to put a further question, perhaps he would give him (Mr. W. E. Forster) sufficient Notice.

observed, that nothing was said as to which part of the report Mr. Herbert admitted.

I must point out that this is not a question of a magistrate; it is a question as to the Lord Chancellor, and the other matter cannot be discussed under this Vote.

said, he was discussing the conduct of the Chief Secretary in this matter, because he had the same power of reviewing magistrates' decisions as the Home Secretary had in such cases in England; and he thought that was a proper subject to discuss.

The hon. Gentleman is discussing the action of a magistrate, and that cannot come under this Vote.

observed, that this was not a paid magistrate, and he thought he was entitled to discuss an ordinary unpaid magistrate.

The hon. Gentleman is discussing the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in application to the words used by a magistrate. The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in discussing that.

asked upon what he could discuss the conduct of the Chief Secretary with regard to unpaid magistrates?

I have already declared that it is irregular to discuss that question, now.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had given all the information in his power. He would like to know what was the result of the inquiries the right hon. Gentleman had made as to the state of health of Mr. James Higgins, who was said to be suffering from heart disease?

said, he could not be expected to give a correct answer to a question from memory; and he did not want to give an incorrect answer.

I must point out that this an irregular question before the Committee.

, remarking that the right hon. Gentleman had promised that persons imprisoned should be periodically examined, said he would mention a fact which had come to his knowledge, and which was of an almost shocking character. A friend of his lately visited one of the prisons in which the "suspects" were confined, and the doctor said to him—"Perhaps you had better look at So-and-so. I think he is malingering; but you had better examine him." The gentleman examined him, and found the man suffering from a severe attack of the lungs, and going about the corridors of the prison, leading the kind of life most calculated to develop the disease. He reported the case, and the man had since been released. He (Mr. O'Connor) would be far from thinking that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would keep in prison for an hour a man whose health was seriously endangered; but several of the men now in prison were in a far more dangerous and delicate state of health than the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to know of. One man, a Mr. Maddox, was 77 years of age, he was told, and he would earnestly impress on the right hon. Gentleman, for his own reputation, the desirability of considering the question of having periodical weekly visits to the prisoners by an independent doctor. He knew very well that each prisoner had the privilege of being visited by a doctor of his own; but in Ireland the custom of having what were called in England family or regular doctors was far less prevalent than in England, where nearly every well-paid mechanic had a doctor to whom he was in the habit of going. But in Ireland a doctor was very rarely called in until the last moment when he was required. He thought it would be a great advantage if two men of eminence—like Dr. Macdonald, or Dr. Kelly, or some other eminent doctor in Dublin.—were employed by the Government to visit the prisoners once a-week. The expense would not be great, and the security to the public would be cheaply purchased.

drew attention to a grievance as to the appointment as Veterinary Port Inspectors of men who possessed no qualification for the office. He was told that, there being no Veterinary College in Ireland, veterinary surgeons had to go to London or to Edinburgh to obtain their diplomas; and these men felt it as a great grievance that they were shut out from the only posts for which they were qualified, while men who had no qualification were pitch-forked into the appointments. One of these men, at Limerick, had ordered the slaughter of some cattle on the ground of their lungs being diseased; but after the animals had been slaughtered it was found by the Veterinary Department that their lungs were not affected at all. How could the duties be efficiently discharged if this practice went on? Seeing that the doctors had to go so far to get their diplomas, it was hard that men without qualification should be appointed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that in future the Government would see that properly qualified men were appointed.

said, he would inquire into this matter; but the instructions to the Poor Law Guardians as to Inspectors throughout the country were that properly qualified practitioners should be appointed wherever they could be obtained; and where such men were not appointed, that was because they were unobtainable. As to the Profession generally, he thought it was very undesirable that men should have to go to Scotland or England to obtain their degrees; and he hoped that some means might be taken to remedy that state of things, either by the affiliation of a College in Ireland to that in England, or some other way. If there were any case of importance, where a properly qualified man was not appointed, he should be glad to have notice of it.

said, he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He would have mentioned the matter two months ago, but he had no opportunity of doing so except by questions, and they all knew the result of questions—they would be denied. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would next year promote a small Bill to remedy the grievance com- plained of, for while the cattle trade in Ireland continued to grow, the demand for Inspectors would increase?

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman would see that because there was a complaint as to killing cattle, it did not follow that the system was bad, for, of course, nobody liked their cattle to be killed, and the very best Inspectors in England were those who had given the greatest dissatisfaction. As to the obtaining of degrees, he would think over the matter as far as he could get time for it.

, mentioning an item of £4,000 for Fishery Inspectors, and their travelling and incidental expenses, said, he thought that if these Inspectors were to be paid, their recommendations ought to be taken into consideration. The present Inspectors were remarkably well qualified men—especially Mr. Brady—and these gentlemen had made representations to the Government as to the presence of gunboats for the protection of the fisheries, and as to police regulations. Another point was as to the want of harbours all round the coast, especially at Arklow. And he also wished to ask a question as to the Reproductive Loan Fund. That fund did not come from the Imperial Exchequer; it was the balance of a Fund raised by subscription for the relief of the people in 1822. That fund was by Act of Parliament allocated to the assistance of the fisheries in eight or ten different counties on the coast of Ireland; and, as a matter of fact, the fund had done a great deal of good in six or seven counties, but in some other counties there had been little demand upon the fund, and the money for those counties was lying idle. The Inspectors of Fisheries had represented this to the Government more than once, and had proposed that certain schemes should be carried out, under the authority of Parliament, for the utilization of this money. That, however, could not be done except at the initiative of the Government, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether between now and next Session he would cause a Bill to be drafted for carrying out the recommendations of the Inspectors?

said, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had given a pledge to consider this question in the Recess. The fund belonged to only eight or ten counties, but it ought to be applied to all the counties.

said, he objected to this money being kept only for the coast counties. There were many purposes for which the people in his county would like to use some of this money, but the Treasury kept a firm grasp upon it, and they could not get a pound of it. He thought the fund should be at the disposal of the counties to which it belonged, for any purposes for which they required it. If the people of Roscommon applied for a grant they were told their application did not come under the conditions of the Act, and they had never been able to find out for what purpose they might use the money. That was a serious injustice, and he hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the matter he would make some reasonable provision by which the money could be used for public purposes in every county.

drew attention to the case of Mr. Murray, a postmaster in the county of Leitrim, who was in prison under the Coercion Act, without their being the slightest shadow of evidence against him. He wished to know whether the Chief Secretary would cause a special inquiry to be made into this case? The man had written to him (Mr. Biggar), saying that he had only left a sick-bed two days before his arrest, and referred him to the parish priest and the doctor, to show that there had been some miscarriage of justice.

said, the question as to whether the man Murray had been rightly arrested should be inquired into. The question of the fisheries was, no doubt, a very important one, and he had stated that he hoped to be able to thoroughly look into it. The Loan Fund was under the control of the Board of Trade. It would be very difficult to erect harbours out of this fund, but he must communicate with the Treasury upon that. It was not quite certain that the money was only to be applied to fishing, but the question would be looked into.

also wished to ask whether, when a man was arrested for a speech at the delivery of which a Government reporter was present, he was asked whether the report correctly stated what he had said? He had received a telegram from Mr. Boyton stating that a quotation given by the Chief Secre- tary, as from a speech of his, was entirely inaccurate, that no Government reporter was present, and that the sentence quoted was based on police hearsay, such as had been manufactured for the State trials. That, he thought, was an extraordinary state of things. Was it fair to arrest a man upon such evidence? In his own case, when he had described the Land Bill as ingenious, he was reported to have said it was injurious.

said, he would inquire into the particular case mentioned; but the Government always satisfied themselves that the reports were correct. Where no reporter specially employed by Government was present, they carefully guarded themselves against any malignant report; and, as regarded newspaper reports, he had taken care to be guided mainly by reports in newspapers which were not likely to have malignant reporters.

stated, that at the end of a meeting which he had attended some months ago, a newspaper reporter who had accompanied him told him that the Government reporter had approached him and said he was obliged to furnish a report to his superiors, but he had not been able to get a report because of the rain and wind, and he would be very much obliged to the newspaper reporter, who had been in a better position and had taken a verbatim report, if he would furnish him with something that would answer his purpose.

pointed out that the Charity Commissioners in England received—the Chief Commissioner, £2,000; the second, £1,500; and the third £1,200. But the Charitable Donations Commissioners in Ireland were unpaid. Similarly, the Commissioners of Endowed Schools in Ireland were unpaid; and it had been represented that it was impossible to get gentlemen who had other occupations to attend to this work, and consequently the endowed schools were in a very disreputable condition. He thought it only reasonable to ask the Government to see into this matter, which resulted in the grievous neglect of and injury to the different interests in Ireland. Another point was that there was an Exchequer extra receipt of £41, a dividend on a certain sum of money left some years ago to the Commissioners for enabling them to recover embezzled charges. There was also an item of £40 or £50 a-year for law costs; but it seemed to him that the Commissioners might be allowed to utilize this fund that was left to them for their law charges, and then the item for law expenses could be struck out.

explained that the last point was part of a larger question; and that part of the money was spent in law costs.

said, he wished to bring before the Committee some important differences which pressed hardly on the poorer classes in Ireland, when compared with those in England—differences for which he had never heard any valid reason. In Ireland, widows were not eligible for out-door relief unless they had two children; and wives deserted by their husbands were not eligible. The families of those in prison were not eligible; also, if any member of a family, except the head, was ill, no out-door relief could be given. In England, none of these disqualifications existed; and he hoped that during the Recess the Chief Secretary would have the whole of this matter inquired into. He also hoped the right lion. Gentleman would consider whether the Poor Law Guardians in Ireland should have the same dispensing power as the Guardians in England had as to out-door relief to the able-bodied, when circumstances required it. The Guardians in England were authorized, and almost compelled, to give out-door relief to the able-bodied under certain circumstances; but in Ireland that could not be done unless the workhouse was full. And as the condition of the labourers in Ireland was coming very much to the front, this was a practical question, for he had no doubt that a great deal of discontent arose from the fact that the labourers had only the workhouse to look to in distress.

mentioned that there was a charge for workhouse schoolmas- ters and mistresses, and that those persons had some time ago presented a Memorial to the Chief Secretary, pointing out the bad way in which the present Act worked in not allowing Guardians to give supplementary grants in aid of the national grant. In many cases the Guardians did not apply the Act at all, because they did not wish to increase the rates; and there was a considerable grievance because of the inability of the schoolmasters and mistresses to obtain result fees. No distinct reply to their Memorial had been received; but there was, perhaps, no class of people in Ireland who performed such laborious and unpleasant duties as these. They were immured for a great part of their lives in gloomy workhouse schools, and he thought they were a deserving class, and should not be deprived, as they had been, of advantages which outside masters and mistresses enjoyed. Other masters and mistresses had formed an association, and the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had worked for them in the House, and obtained them some redress. He (Mr. Healy) did not pretend to know all the details of the case as well as the hon. Member for Kildare, but the matter had been laid before the Chief Secretary, and several representations had been made to Irish Members with regard to the case of the workhouse masters and mistresses. A statement by the right hon. Gentleman would be a great relief to these people; and, although he did not know whether anything could be done without an additional grant from the public funds, he did not think they ought to come on the Public Exchequer for the cost of education. People ought to be made to pay for education themselves, and the Guardians should be compelled to pay the masters and mistresses proper salaries, and provide for them out of the taxes. The present charge was a small one, and double that amount would, he thought, give all that was required; but he did not ask for that, but that some scheme should be devised for utilizing the rates for this purpose, the Local Board being required to see that the workhouse masters and mistresses should have as good salaries as teachers outside. He understood that there was a probability of a Bill being introduced next year with, reference to the local government of Ireland. One of the things which was de- sired in Ireland, perhaps, more than anything else was a scheme of local government; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the system of ex officio Guardians—to consider whether he would strike out the absurdity of public rates and taxes being administered by irresponsible persons, who were not elected, but simply sat on the Boards because they were Justices of the Peace. It was the same in England, except that only a certain proportion of magistrates could sit in England. Every magistrate in Ireland could sit on the Boards. There was great feeling among the people upon this point, for they were so badly off for means of expressing their opinions in Ireland that these Boards of Guardians were turned into places for expressing opinions. Taxpayers should not be taxed by people who did not represent them. The same principle prevailed in Parliament; no public money could be voted in "another place," and a stop ought to be put to ex officio Guardians being allowed to rule over the people. A Committee sat three years ago, by which valuable evidence was taken, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter.

said, he wished to call attention to the subject. This question of ex officio Guardians was a standing grievance in Ireland. On the day of election of any official, ex officio Guardians attended in large force, and usually succeeded in carrying their candidate; and if a charge was made against any official, a special whip-up was made of ex officio Guardians, and the man was whitewashed. Another thing was, that in the appointment of collectors of rates the ex officio Guardians exercised an unfair influence. They not only elected creatures of their own, but they used their position to disfranchise electors who might be opposed to the political views of the ex officio Guardians and of the Guardians. Ninepence in the pound was now paid for collecting rates; but the work could be equally well done for 6d. in the pound. That was felt as a great grievance; but the people had no power to pull down the rates. The Local Government Board provided that the Guardians might raise the salaries of the officials, but not that they might lower them; and he would suggest that the Local Government Board should take into consideration the poundage received by the collectors, and, where it was too high, to give power to the Guardians to lower it.

With regard to what my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst) has stated, there is no doubt that there is a difference between England and Ireland, as to the discretion in regard to out-door relief. It is a very important question, but of too large a scope to be discussed in Committee. The hon. and gallant Member may, however, recollect that a long time after the Poor Law system was introduced into England, it was introduced into Ireland. There was great opposition to it, and Mr. O'Connell strongly opposed it. There are great restrictions as to out-door relief; but in the present condition of Ireland it is a serious matter to pull down barriers against out-door relief. We have the fact that, notwithstanding the poverty in Ireland, there is great thrift, and great complaint has been made against out-door relief in England, because it induces numbers of young men to neglect their parents, and men who go abroad to forget their relatives, relying upon their being supported by the Poor Law. This is not a simple matter, but one that requires great care; and we must not be led away, simply by a desire to relieve distress, into pulling down these barriers. I think the whole question should be entered into; and the special cases alluded to, such as widows and others, will require careful and narrow inquiry. With regard to workhouse schoolmasters and mistresses in Ireland, and their position as compared with those in the national schools, their position is very much the same as those in England. In the public elementary schools in England, the payments are chiefly in results. The workhouse masters and mistresses in England are paid by salaries, and the same system has been adopted in Ireland. It is not very easy to apply the result system to the workhouse administration, because it is found necessary there to have something like a fixed sum. On the other hand, I was struck with what would appear to be the advantage of giving the workhouse masters and mistresses the same stimulus to increased work in teaching by offering the inducement of results as we do to other teachers. That, however, would have to be done from the rates, and the hon. Member must be aware that it is not a very easy matter to force a new rate upon people. I only wish there was a little more feeling in favour of education. The other remarks are upon a very wide question—that of county government—and I do not suppose the hon. and gallant Member will expect me to follow him into that subject now. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), early on in the evening, made an allusion to the collectors, and has now done so again. The hon. Member asked me a question, and the answer I intended to make—I do not know whether I was rightly reported, or did not give a sufficiently full answer—was that 9d. in the pound was not allowed by the Local Government Board when they could get the work done for 4d. The collection of rates must be made, and we must pay what is necessary; but I think I must have misled the hon. Gentleman by giving him the idea that the Local Government Board were not taking any trouble in the matter.

said, he did not know what was the practice as to the dispensing of medicine in England; but in Ireland there was a strong feeling that the quality of the medicines was frequently very weak. It would, he thought, be very desirable that pure medicines and drugs, which were so difficult to obtain, should be supplied by local centres. He wished to know, as far as the Chief Secretary was concerned, whether any question had been raised as to the centralization of the Local Government Board, and whether it was not desirable to come to some arrangement for the distribution of pure drugs and medicines? He understood that in England such a practice had been introduced; the drugs were purchased in London, and distributed at prime cost, so that they were placed within the reach of the patients in the best manner, and at the least expense.

said, the plan the hon. Member suggested was very much followed in England. Of course, the contract was not made by the Local Government Board for the purchase of these articles; but the Local Government Board recommended the Guardians of different Unions, in making their contracts with the medical officers, to make them so that they would be able to ob- tain the very best drugs, such as cod liver oil and quinine, at the cheapest possible price. Those articles it was absolutely necessary that they should have of the very best character, and the Guardians were able to contract for them and distribute them to the medical officers. He believed that that was the way in which the system was worked in England. He did not know whether it would be possible for the Local Government Board to undertake the duty of supplying drugs. In point of fact, he thought the local authorities in the country would very much object to such a system of central interference; at the same time, he thought if the system of purchasing a better class of drugs were carried out, as he had stated, it would be found to work most satisfactorily in the interests of the poor.

said, that last year about this time he drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the scale of dietary in certain workhouses in Ireland; and it was pointed out in. the papers at that time, which he had passed to the Chief Secretary, that, according to a very careful analysis by authoritative chemists, the amount of nourishment given to the people in the workhouses of Dingle and Belmullet, and especially to children, was not sufficient to keep an ordinary person in a normal condition of health, even in a state of idleness, much less when he was called upon to do any work. The right hon. Gentleman said at the time that during the Recess he would have the matter looked into; and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would make a special inquiry in regard to the dietary scale of these particular workhouses. He wished to know if the question had received the attention of the right hon. Gentleman? It was a very serious question indeed. In the West of Ireland it was asserted that a large number of persons, and especially children, had had their constitution undermined and their health permanently impaired by the insufficient food supplied to them in the workhouses. A child, three years of age, in a workhouse received half a pint of milk at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and no more food of any kind or description until breakfast the next morning, when they were allowed 4 oz. of bread and another half pint of milk. He thought that if these circumstances were true there were very good grounds for the complaints that were made. Then, as to the other question, the separation of the lunatics from the children in some of the workhouses, he himself had seen in one of the workhouses four lunatic women in one ward, unfloored except by the damp earth, and among them were five little children without any protection, and with nobody to take care of them, very insufficiently clad, and evidently suffering from want of food. That, however, was a suffering which everybody in that establishment endured. He wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman what was the condition of this question before the Local Government Board in Ireland, both with regard to the classification of the inmates of the workhouses and the dietary scale supplied in the Union workhouses of the West of Ireland?

said, that he had made inquiries, and he was told that care was taken that the inmates did not suffer in their health. He was obliged to the hon. Member for having mooted the matter; it was very important to have charges of this kind thoroughly investigated; and if the hon. Member would send him, confidentially, the particulars of any special cases which had been brought under his notice he would pledge himself to make inquiry, and, if the charges were true, to institute at once a large measure of reform. As regarded the separation of the lunatics from the children, he presumed the hon. Member referred more to idiots than lunatics?

said, they were generally spoken of as innocents.

said, they were most likely idiots. The case, however, had not been brought before him; he believed that in England it was a matter which they were not always able to check; but here, again, if the hon. Member would give him the particulars of the cases to which he referred, he (Mr. W. E. Forster)would be most happy to make inquiry into them.

believed that he had already placed in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the dietary scale of certain workhouses in the county of Kerry, showing the proportion of oxygen and nitrogen furnished to the women and children in those workhouses. The Paper to which he referred showed the amount of food supplied was altogether inadequate to sustain healthy life. He dared say that the right hon. Gentleman had mislaid the Paper; but he would invite the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the dietary scale of the Union workhouses of Belmullet and Dingle.

said, that he had only been prevented from making all the inquiry he should desire in consequence of the pressure of Business that had been placed upon him. It must not be supposed, however, that he had neglected it altogether. He had given the Paper containing the complaint to the Local Government Board. In regard to Belmullet, there were special difficulties. It was found that the Board of Guardians there were so impoverished that it was absolutely necessary to replace them by paid officials. He had great confidence in the Inspector who had charge of the district, and he would take care at once to ask that gentleman to inquire into the matter. The Inspector would have very good opportunities for doing so.

said, he was surprised to hear that in any workhouse the children got the wretched diet the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) spoke of. He believed that in many workhouses in the South of Ireland it was the practice to give adults only two meals a day—they received nothing after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The practice had been abandoned in most other parts of Ireland; but it was still very common in the South. He thought the Local Government Board should exercise its authority in requiring that three meals a day were given in the workhouses.

said, he should be glad to hear from the Chief Secretary in how many instances the paid Guardians were still continued, and in how many cases the elected Guardians had been retored? Of course, these changes were made under the pressure of the Famine, when it was found necessary that Guardians who were perfectly independent should be appointed to carry out the Act; and, further, that in order to insure the Act being carried out, the functions of the elected Guardians should be suspended. The right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in ascer- taining in how many workhouses these paid Guardians were still retained, and whether the payment of their services came out of the Imperial taxes or was a charge upon the local rates. He thought that applications had been made by the people of the locality, for the rehabilitation of the elective system until the proper inquiry should be made whether the exceptional circumstances under which paid Guardians were appointed had not passed away, and that there was really no necessity for retaining paid Guardians. He wished the Committee to understand that he was speaking now only as a newspaper reader—he had no personal knowledge of any of the Unions in the West. He thought, however, that the pressure had passed away, and that there was a desire on the part of the people that the elected Guardians should resume their functions, and that the paid Guardians should be got rid of. It was also important, he thought, to know whether the payment of these Guardians came upon the local taxes or out of the Imperial taxation. The right hon. Gentleman might not be able to answer the question at once, and he did not expect him to do so; but probably he would make inquiry.

said, he could not give any exact answer to the question put to him; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had an exaggerated notion in regard to the number of Unions in which paid Guardians had been appointed.

said, he believed there were four or five.

said, that might be so.

And all of them are in the counties of Mayo and Galway.

said, he rather thought in one or two cases the elected Guardians had been restored; but he would make inquiry and give exact information. He believed that the payment of the paid Guardians fell upon the local rates.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was consulting a printed document. Was it a Report that was available for Members?

said, the Paper he was referring to was the Report of the Local Government Board. He was only looking to see whether the infor- mation was contained in it; but he could not find it.

said, he should like to address the Committee upon the subject which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). There were at present three Unions in the county of Mayo, the elected Guardians of which had been superseded by Vice-Guardians; and in one of the most important of the districts in which that occurred there had been frequent complaints with regard to the expenditure authorized by those Vice-Guardians, simply in reference to questions of administration and the despatch of business. It might very often happen that gentlemen sent down under these circumstances to take charge of the affairs of a Union would administer them very successfully; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had certainly received very strong complaints against the excessive expenditure which these Vice-Guardians had incurred. They had borrowed large sums of money on the rateable property of the Union, and when their term of administration came to an end the re-elected Guardians would have to face the financial responsibility which had been incurred, and, he gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, without any direct system from the Local Government Board. He believed that in Belmullet, as well as in Newport and Swinford, the elected Guardians had been replaced by paid Guardians, not from any incapacity on their part, but owing to the exceptional distress which affected every part of the county he (Mr. O'Connor Power) represented. The question, no doubt, would come before the Chief Secretary by means of private correspondence; and he therefore wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there had been serious complaints with regard to the matter. There was another subject of still greater importance in regard to which he desired to put a direct question to the Chief Secretary. He did not think any reference had been made, during the discussion of the Vote, to the responsibility of the Local Government Board for the sanitary condition of the dwellings of the people of Ireland, especially in the mountainous country. Last year attention was drawn to this subject, and so forcibly that the right hon. Gentleman himself was bound to approve of a Resolution which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) moved, and which declared that the sanitary condition of the dwellings of the agricultural population of Mayo, Galway, and other parts of Ireland seriously demanded the consideration of the Government. His own experience of most Chief Secretaries who, like the right hon. Gentleman, had been Presidents of the Local Government Board, was of a depressing rather than an exhilarating character in reference to mere measures of improved sanitation. The Government appeared always to have been afraid of encountering this great difficulty, and they seemed to think that no effort on their part could compel the local public bodies to adopt means for improving the dwellings of the agricultural population. He wished to remind the Chief Secretary that that Resolution still stood on the Books of the House, as an instruction to him and the Irish Government, and the Local Government Board particularly, calling upon them to see that something was done to remedy the horrible state of things which was brought under the notice of the House last year. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been called to the matter; whether the attention of the Local Government Board and its officers had been directed to it; and, if not, whether steps would be taken to repair the omission as soon and as far as it could possibly be done?

remarked, that in reference to the question that had been raised as to the substitution of elected or ordinary Boards of Guardians in the counties of Mayo and Galway by paid Boards appointed by the Local Government Board, he thought it was very desirable, now that the extreme crisis of the distress and disease had passed, that the elected Boards should resume their functions as quickly as possible. With regard to the matter, which had also been raised, of the excessive expenditure incurred by the paid Boards appointed by the Local Government Board, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that under one of the provisions of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act of last Session, which was inserted on his (Mr. Parnell's) Motion, a grant of £50,000 was made out of the Irish Church Fund—he spoke from memory and without having looked at the Act—but a large grant was made on security of the Irish Church Fund, and that grant was to be placed at the disposal of the Local Government Board. The Board were authorized to make grants out of the fund so placed at their disposal to such Poor Law Guardians which they considered to have an exceptional burden thrown upon them for the relief of distress. He did not know what had been the history of that provision since then, or whether any Boards of Guardians in Ireland had made any application to the President of the Local Government Board to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act; but it appeared to him that to the Boards in the whole distressed districts, such as the Board of Guardians in the Swinford Union, which he thought had been replaced by paid officials appointed by the Local Government Board, some grant might, out of that sum of £50,000, fairly be made, so as to prevent an undue burden being thrown on the rates for the repayment of the loans that had been obtained by the Boards in consequence of the distress of 1879 and 1880. Otherwise, he thought an excessive tax might be thrown on the local resources which, in many localities, the people would be unable to bear. It was desirable to make the grant openly, especially in the cases of those Boards which had been superseded in their functions by the appointment of paid officials, and especially where complaint had arisen of extravagance on the part of such paid officials. It would be a good thing, where representative Guardians had beed superseded by nominated Guardians, to make a grant in order to relieve the locality from a heavy expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that the expenditure might have been incurred, properly and rightly. There could be no doubt that the Government had acted properly in relieving the elected Guardians of their functions in the cases in question, and in appointing paid Guardians who were men of trained experience, and who had studied the question of affording relief. As regarded the sanitary condition of the houses of the labouring class and others raised by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), that was really a very different question. In the present state of the dwellings of the poorer classes in Ire- land, it was a very difficult task for the sanitary authorities to bring about an efficient sanitary condition without being compelled to pull down the houses entirely. In his own limited experience of the matter he had himself known eases of considerable hardship inflicted on poor people living in these wretched houses in consequence of the necessary action of the sanitary authorities, who considered themselves compelled, under the Sanitary Acts in the exaction of their duty, to condemn a large number of houses and have them destroyed. In many cases the owners of the property were receiving a very small sum in the shape of rent, and they were altogether indifferent about the matter, and refused to place the dwellings in an efficient sanitary condition. In point of fact, in a majority of cases it was impossible to do so without pulling them down altogether and re-building them afresh. Consequently, if it were found necessary to put these Sanitary Acts in force, the result would be to inflict an enormous hardship on the poorer classes, who would be deprived of the dwellings they now occupied, and be compelled to crowd into lodgings in the moderate-sized towns. The whole question was involved in a great deal of difficulty. He hoped some good might result from the clause inserted in the Land Bill in regard to the building of labourers' cottages in Ireland. He hoped, also, that further good would be obtained from prospective legislation. In regard to the question of county government, might be found necessary hereafter to give powers to the County Boards to deal with the whole question of the dwellings of the humbler classes. But, in the present state of the matter, he did not see how any headway was to b made without the infliction of a considerable amount of hardship on the poor.

said, he would answer first the question put by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). The hon. Member seemed to think that money had been unnecessarily spent in some of the distressed parts of Mayo by the paid Guardians. Now, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not understand that any such charge had been made. No doubt, what had been spent, whether it was larger or smaller in amount, fell very heavily on three or four of the Unions; but the Government had not lost sight of their position. He could not say exactly what would be done, because it was a matter that required consideration; but the Lon. Member would recollect, in the Act of last year, power was given to make grants. The power was limited to such cases as the Local Board might deem necessary, having regard to the financial condition of the Union, the pressure of distress within its limits, and to the fact that out-door relief was also being given in such Unions. The Act, the second reading of which had just passed through the House, gave power to the Commissioner of Public Works, on the recommendation of the Local Government Board, to make grants, notwithstanding that the order authorizing the giving of out-door relief had ceased to be in force at the time of making such grant. He mentioned that as a proof that the Government were doing all they could in the matter, in order to put the powers conferred upon them in force.

asked if any of the money had been used, or whether any of it was available?

said, yes; the money had been advanced to a certain extent in order to relieve the liabilities which had been incurred in some of the districts. He was unable at present to give any details, and he was not in a position to state what had been given to any particular Union. The hon. Member for Mayo might be assured that the condition of these Unions was engaging the close attention of the Government, and care would be taken that the money borrowed from the Church Surplus would not be used to such an extent as to leave an insufficient sum to meet these requirements. With regard to the exceedingly difficult question of improving the sanitary condition of the labourers' dwellings, it was quite true that the Government were aware of the condition of many of these dwellings, and a Resolution had been passed by the House requiring the Local Government Board to take action in the matter, especially in those cases where there was fever. He believed the Local Government Board had done all they could to get the sanitary condition of the dwellings improved. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was quite right in saying that unless a good deal of money was spent they only increased the misery, because the houses were pulled down, and the owners did not care to put up better ones in their place. He believed that good had been done by the Local Government Board in England, and he was not prepared to say that much good might not be done in Ireland by the action of the Inspectors of the Board in carefully circulating and giving advice and directions, which would not involve much expenditure of money, but which would secure the removal of nuisances. Of course, in all that it was requisite that public opinion should be behind the authorities. It was not a matter to be done in a day. The hon. Member for Mayo was as aware of that as he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was; but, at the same time, he admitted that the case was none the less a proper one to bring before the House and the country, so that, from time to time, it might receive consideration.

said, he wished to raise a point which he thought had not been alluded to by any of his hon. Friends in connection with this question —namely,the necessity of making use of the ballot in the election of Poor Law Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the abuses that took place at present. If the right hon. Gentleman was sensible that such abuses existed, it would not be necessary that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should say anything more upon that subject. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER made a gesture of assent.] The right hon. Gentleman would also be aware that in Ireland a system prevailed by which the magistrates were enabled to act as ex officio members of Boards of Guardians. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, that was the case in England also.] It might be the case also in England, but it was, nevertheless, a system that worked unsatisfactorily. The present Vote gave the Local Government Board control over the election of medical officers for the Dublin Hospital. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had yet penetrated the mysteries connected with electing hospital surgeons in Dublin; if not, he was in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman a little information. He understood that when doctors were elected to responsible posts in connection with the Dublin Hospital, the election took place in either one of two ways. Either the doctor bought himself into office when it became vacant, or he was appointed by the adoption of what, he was sorry to say, was nothing more nor less than a system of religious bigotry. Whenever a vacancy took place in a hospital in Dublin, all the agencies of the different religious bodies, both Protestant and Catholic, were put forward, and the consequence was that the question who was to be the medical officer of the Union or the hospital was decided, not on the merits of the different candidates, but, in fact, upon the question that one man happened to be a Protestant and another a Catholic. That, it was felt, was a most anomalous and most prejudicial state of things. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to use pressure, by means of the Medical Commission, in order to effect a change. He saw the Solicitor General for Ireland in his place; the hon. and learned Gentleman was a citizen of Dublin, and would be able to confirm the representations he (Mr. O'Connor) had made— namely, that when a gentleman wished to become a medical officer to a public institution in Dublin, he had either to pay £600 or £800 for the office to the person going out of office, or else to make the question a religious one. He (Mr. O'Connor) had heard discussions upon the subject many years ago in Dublin. The late Dr. Corrigan, and many other eminent medical men, took part in it; and, he believed, most of them were in favour of maintaining the practice of purchase, just as veteran officers were in favour of retaining purchase in the Army. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he could exercise any influence in the matter, would endeavour to put down the system. With regard to the Local Government Board in Ireland, the position of that Board raised the whole question of local government. The right hon. Gentleman had very properly abstained from going into the general subject upon this Vote; and what he (Mr. O'Connor) would say upon the matter was that the system had not merely reference to the direct relations between landlord and tenant, but also relations in matters of life. The tenant had not only to meet his landlord as his landlord and as the taker of the rent, but also as a magistrate who had control over his liberty, and as the Poor Law Guardian who, to a large extent, controlled the expenditure of the money raised in the locality. He might tell the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the Solicitor General would confirm his words, that no Act, purely relating to the question of land would permanently regulate and restore the anomalous condition of the relations which now existed between landlord and tenant in Ireland, if it left untouched their relations outside. He would only say that if the right hon. Gentleman retained Office he would have an opportunity, within the next two or three years, of doing a great work in Ireland, and the extirpating any bitterness which might be attached to himself from the position he had occupied during the past year. That great work was the work of local government. If the right hon. Gentleman, on the earliest occasion, would introduce a measure placing the local government of the country in the hands of the people, instead of retaining it in the hands of a class, he would do enormous service to the country, and go a great way towards securing the future prosperity and welfare of the Irish people.

said, he hoped the Government might be able to undertake the work of providing local government for Ireland. With regard to the question of hospitals, he did not think he had any power in the matter, because, certainly, there had been vacancies since he had been in Office, and he had not been consulted with regard to filling them up. In regard to the hospitals, he thought they were appointed by the Directors, and those connected with the Unions were appointed by the Board of Guardians.

said, he had not meant to state that that was the practice pursued in connection with the Poor Law Unions; what he meant was that it was followed in the appointments to the Dublin hospitals. He believed in some of the Dublin hospitals even the Directors bought them selves in.

said, he was sorry to hear it, and if he had any opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it that would have any effect he certainly would do so; at the same time, he did not think he had any power in the matter, nor had he any control over the religious opinions or views of any denomination in Dublin.

said, that to the Public Works Office in Ireland would naturally fall the duty of completing certain useful works in the shape of piers and harbours. Last year a certain sum of money was advanced which, supplemented by a Government grant, enabled a number of pier and harbour works to be started in Ireland, and which were likely, when completed, to be of great use in the districts in which they were constructed. But the Public Works Office had been singularly remiss in pushing forward those works, and months and months had been wasted when a large number of poor persons might have been usefully employed, and the works had been delayed to the irreparable loss of the fishermen along the coast. In point of fact, the Local Government Board had neither completed the works which they themselves took in hand, nor had they caused the contractors, to whom they let the works, to proceed at the rate which, according to their contracts, they ought to have gone on with them. He believed that in many cases where works were decided upon months ago they had only very recently indeed been taken in hand, both under the contractor and under the Office of Works. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the present state of these works, with special reference to the cost shown on a Return which he (Mr. A. O'Connor) had moved for some months ago, and in regard to which the contractors even at that time had rendered themselves liable to considerable penalties.

said, that in the cases referred to by the hon. Member the delay was not exclusively confined to the Board of Works; but, in order to avoid delay as far as possible, a Joint Committee had been appointed to consider the matter. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was not the smallest difficulty whatever in at once completing these works; but if he would make inquiry he would find there were many preliminary steps to be taken, and which must necessarily take time. For instance, the owners of property had to be communicated with, and all questions as to the design of the works had to be considered. He might state that the Committee to which he referred were exerting themselves to the utmost, and he hoped that the works would all be taken in hand as soon as possible with a view to their early completion, and also to affording employment to persons who were now in receipt of relief.

said, he would remind the noble Lord that under a recent Act of Parliament special provision was made, for the sake of the immediate relief of the destitution that existed, that all preliminary steps that might occasion delay should be dispensed with, and the works taken in hand at once.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that the works would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

said, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the items contained in this Vote for the collection of agricultural statistics. He had a Motion on the Paper upon the subject, which he did not suppose he should have any opportunity of moving; but what he should like was this—that in the preparation of statistics in the future there should be something said upon the general question of rental of different classes of land. That was one of the questions upon which the future of the land system of Ireland would very much depend. In regard to the Census in Ireland, he did not know whether the Attorney General for Ireland could tell him whether a police constable who had used the Census paper for the purpose of procuring evidence of the hand-writing of a man charged with an offence under a criminal process had been dismissed. He thought the occurrence took place somewhere in the neighbourhood of Drogheda; and he wished to know if that enterprising young police officer, who had so misused his power, had been dismissed from the Force?

said, he could not say that the police officer had been dismissed; but his conduct was clearly irregular, and it had not escaped notice and reprimand.

said, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General for Ireland with regard to these law charges —namely, as to the State prosecutions in Dublin. He should like to know on what principle the accounts had been paid, and whether payments for criminal prosecutions were generally in proportion to the length of the cases?

said, that the counsel engaged in these cases in Ireland were paid for each case almost, he might say, a fixed charge.

said, that he found under the head "D," and also under the head "G," items for the expenses of witnesses for the prosecution. He wished to know what was the difference between the item of £27,000, and the modest sum of £600; and, further, he thought the Government ought to give the Irish Members generally details as to the nature of the prosecutions in respect of which such sums of money were paid—there should be a distinction drawn between ordinary criminal prosecutions and those which were of a political character. He would ask whether the expenses of the Crown prosecution in "The Queen v. Parnell and others" came under either of these heads, and to what amount the expenses in that case came? He failed to see the difference between Crown witnesses and ordinary witnesses; and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see the propriety of offering a full explanation.

said, that under the head "D" were put charges for prisoners, which formerly had been paid by the counties. Since, however, the change which had taken place in the arrangements the charge was paid under the Parliamentary Vote.

It seems to be a general estimate.

Yes; that is so.

would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question as to the amount of the charges in the case of "The Queen v. Parnell." Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell them the entire cost of these trials? Then, with regard to another point— namely, the expenses of the Crown witnesses, he was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not complain if he put a question with regard to the detention of those unfortunate girls in the case of the Boyd trial. The prisoners were in custody for 11 months, and yet the Government had not thought it proper to bring them to trial. So great was the uncertainty and the mental strain put upon these men that one of them was driven into a state of raving lunacy. Some of the Crown witnesses in this case were girls; and these unfortunate creatures were taken from their homes for the first time, and that without the consent of their father and mother, and locked up in Fairview, in Dublin, under the paternal protection of a sub-constable. All this was done to procure the conviction of the Whelans, who, as a matter of fact, were never brought to trial. This was a most extraordinary state of things. Then, again, in the case of the murder of a policeman at Loughrea—he had no sympathy with the murderer, and he hoped that he would be convicted, and hanged by the neck until he was dead. He had no sympathy whatever with crime of this kind. The murder was a foul and blackguard murder, which no respectable person—[Laughter.] Hon. Members seemed to laugh; but there were some murders with which even Englishmen sympathized—for instance, the murder of Charles II. [Mr. WARTON: Charles I.] Well, Charles I. It could not be expected that Irish Members should be up in English history. In the case of the murder of this Constable Linton, there were again spirited away two or three girls from their homes, and taken up to Dublin, where, no doubt, they were now being prepared to swear as Crown witnesses were always expected to do. How could hon. Members expect that when people, especially women, were placed under the care of Crown officials, and were taught to swear, as good Crown witnesses should swear, the juries before whom the case was tried would convict on such tainted evidence? What had happened in this case? Why, a local Petty Sessions Court was held, and the prisoners applied for copies of the information; but they were refused. Technically, the Crown was justified in refusing them, and he did not complain of that; but what he did complain of was that the witnesses gave their evidence before the local Court; but the prisoners had no means of comparing that evidence with the testimony which was subsequently given publicly after the witnesses had been under the care of Crown officials and tampered with. Such a system as this, where the witnesses were spirited away to Dublin, treated to the seductions of Dublin, and prepared for giving that evidence which the Crown required, he emphatically denounced. A considerable row was made about these disturbances in Ireland; but in England, where, as had happened only a night or two before, a man flung a woman over a bridge, the case was brought before the local Court at once, and the prisoner would have the advantage of being able to compare the statements made by the witnesses directly after the deed was committed with the evidence that would be given at the trial. In Ireland they had resident magistrates, paid £700 or £800 a-year, to carry out the law, and these men committed prisoners for trial, without appeal, and allowed the witnesses to be sent up to Dublin under the care of the Crown prosecution, not allowing them to be produced in the local Courts. As he had said, he had no sympathy with the murderer in this case; but he must say this— that when a jury came to be empanelled, much as he abhorred the deed, he should look with the greatest suspicion upon the evidence of witnesses who had been confined for months and months in some den in Dublin, and primed by the police. It was unfortunate that when the ordinary complaints were made in England against Irish juries, no one understood the real circumstances of the case. People were not told that the evidence given was tainted, and that the witnesses had been confined for months in Dublin under the care of the police. Nothing of that sort would be said; and people would be told that in that case there had been a miserable failure of justice—that an acquittal had taken place upon the plainest and clearest evidence—upon such evidence as any right thinking man would have felt himself bound to convict upon. They had seen the result of the state of things he was describing in the Boyd case. The Government expected to get convictions in Ireland; but he did not think they would succeed as long as they continued their present system. He did not support the abolition of capital punishment, and whenever he had to give an opinion upon the subject he went against it, because he thought that everyone who took away another man's life should lose his in return. He, therefore, sympathized with the endeavours of the Crown to bring to justice all murderers; but, at the same time, he sympathized with the juries who refused to convict when such cases as those of which he had spoken arose. In the Whelan case, the girls, who had been spirited away and primed to give evidence, were locked up, and kept away from their parents, and their father had to get a writ of habeas corpus in order to recover them. In the Loughrea case a most indecent remark had been made by the magistrate during the local inquiry. The prisoner was charged with being in possession of an old flint-lock pistol, which had apparently been manufactured in the reign of Queen Anne—a weapon that would be far more dangerous to the man who fired it than to the man who was fired at. An adjournment was asked for, and the magistrate, in reply, said—"We will give you the adjournment that Constable Linton got." He had also the record of a case heard in the county of Kerry, where an unfortunate drunken man was fined 2s. 6d. and costs for assaulting a policeman. He said—"Thank your worship, and thank God." Thereupon the magistrate said—"Bring back that man;" and then, to the prisoner—"If you do not thank the police too I shall change the ruling, and send you to prison for a month." Mr. Bland, another magistrate, said—"I do not think he knows what you mean, Mr. Monsell;" and the resident magistrate replied—"Oh, he knows very well what I mean, and he must return thanks to the police, or go to gaol." The defendant then thanked the police, and left the Court. These magistrates were the veritable "village tyrants" who made local life in Ireland a misery. These were the people who exercised the most cruel wrongs on the unfortunate peasantry, and the Government expected Members of Parliament to vote taxes to people of this kind. They had Mr. Blake, another magistrate—

Will the hon. Member point out to me what part of the Vote these magistrates come in?

If I am out of Order, I will not go on with these observations. I thought I was on the Vote for Crown prosecutions, and I was dealing with Crown prosecutions; but if I am out of Order, I will postpone my observations until another opportunity presents itself.

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Crown prosecutions, he is in Order; but I cannot see that the stipendiary magistrates have anything to do with Crown prosecutions.

said, the Chairman was quite right, and he (Mr. Healy) had been transgressing in the matter. What he wanted to ask was this—why the Government allowed these witnesses to be locked up without letting the evidence they had given before the local Courts be communicated to the prisoners? As a matter of fact, the witnesses were taken up to Dublin and there doctored. He should think that the law and practice in regard to evidence in Ireland should be assimilated with the law and the practice in England.

said, he also wished for information with regard to this item of £27,000. Did it include any of the expenses payable to the informer Clarke, who tried to swear away the life of Bernard M'Hugh? The circumstances of this case were of the most imfamous character. The police and the magis- trate tried to convict M'Hugh of a murder of which he was afterwards acquitted, and even after his acquittal they continued to persecute him. Well, there was a grave suspicion—in fact, more than a suspicion—in the county of Eos-common that the informer who was paid for prosecuting this unfortunate man was really the person who committed the murder. There was the strongest possible evidence in the county that this was so; and if the Government really wished to find out who was the murderer of Young they should arrest Clarke and put him on his trial. It was a matter of absolute notoriety that Clarke was the man who, in all probability, did the murder; but, notwithstanding this, the Government had been paying him money to swear away the life of another person. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether any money was included in this Vote as payment to this man? and, if so, he should feel it his duty to take the decision of the Committee upon the Vote.

said, that, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he had already given the only answer he could give. He could not tell the hon. Gentleman at the moment what the gross amount of the costs of the State prosecution had been. To the best of his belief, it was all paid and accounted for in the last Estimate; but, further than that, he was not in a position to say anything. As to the second matter, which was of a more serious character, the hon. Gentleman, he thought, scarcely did justice to the mode in which prosecutions were conducted in Ireland as compared with England. In Ireland, as in this country, depositions were taken in Courts of Petty Session, or before magistrates, and the depositions taken down in this way were available at the trial. [Mr. O'KELLY: They were refused in this case.] They ought not to have been refused. In certain cases, where the witnesses had not been before a local Court, and the evidence had not been taken by the magistrates, it was the invariable practice to hand to the defendant's solicitor an abstract of the evidence the witnesses were prepared to give. This was the ordinary practice in Ireland. Now, as to the witnesses being withdrawn, it was unfortunate that it should ever be necessary to place witnesses under the care of the Crown officials; but the hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Healy) would be one of the first to recognize that there were two sides to this question, and if the condition of society in a certain district was such that there was reason to believe that the murder had been committed by the concerted action of several people, that it was the result of combination, it was obvious that if they left the witnesses, especially women, who were more open to the influences of terrorism than men, to be worked upon by such a combination, they would be allowing justice to be defeated in a most absurd manner. It might be that witnesses were withdrawn, not for any improper purpose, not for the purpose of "doctoring" them, as the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) had said, but simply to protect them against outrage, on the one hand, and against being tampered with, on the other. This, he thought, the hon. Member would admit was justifiable, and it did not appear to him (the Attorney General for Ireland) just or reasonable to jump to the conclusion that the witnesses were removed for the improper purpose the hon. Member had suggested. As to the girls, to whom reference had been made, they had not been taken away against the will of their parents—

Yes, they were, and a writ of habeas corpus had to be obtained in order to secure their recovery.

said, the girls were withdrawn for their own protection, the family feeling that it would not be safe for them to remain in the locality where the murder was committed. They were young girls, and they were perfectly willing to go to Dublin, where they remained in the family of a married policeman. Well, the trouble that the girls might have been subjected to fell upon the parents, and at last these people gave their consent to the girls being brought back. The moment intelligence of this change of mind reached the authorities, and before the writ of habeas corpus was obtained, the girls were sent back.

Yes; even before the application for the writ was made.

said, that was so. The very moment the first intimation was received from the parents that they were not in the same frame of mind as they had been before, the girls were ordered to be sent back. As to the other case referred to, he could not assent to the statement that it was notorious in Roscommon that a particular man was the murderer. He could not imagine how, if everybody in Roscommon. knew who the murderer was, no one could be found to denounce him, especially when another man was being, as it was now said, falsely accused. It was said that it was perfectly notorious in the county that Clarke committed the murder—

No. What I said was that it was perfectly notorious he was suspected of having committed it.

Oh, it was notorious suspicion only. He had not so understood the hon. Member. He thought he had heard the hon. Member say there was evidence of the fact that the murder was committed by Clarke. If that was so, all he (the Attorney General for Ireland) could say was that such evidence had not been submitted to the authorities. It was very much to be regretted, if the hon. Member knew that such evidence did exist, that he had not taken steps to have it brought forward. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not know whether any of the money for the expenses in this case was included in the present Vote, and therefore he could not give the desired information. With regard to what was reported to have fallen from the stipendiary magistrate (Mr. Monsell), the hon. Member who had made the accusation must allow him to doubt that the words quoted were ever used at all.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not well informed with regard to the New Rosscase, for it was a fact that one of the girls was taken away without her parents knowledge. As to the order being given for the return of the girls before the writ of habeas corpus was issued, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong there also. The application for the writ was argued in Court, and the case was looked upon and watched in Dublin with the greatest interest. In New Ross, also, great interest was taken in the matter, and the result, when it was announced, was sent away by telegraph.

said, he happened to be in Dublin when the matter arose. He was acting at the time for his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who was absent from Dublin; and he was, therefore, in a position to say definitely that the girls were removed with the consent of their parents—his recollection was that their written consent was obtained. Subsequently, the father came to Dublin, and asked that they should be allowed to return. They were out walking with the constable's wife when the father came. Accordingly, they 3ould not be sent away at once; but directly they came in they were informed, and expressed a wish to go home. The matter was brought before him (the Solicitor General for Ireland), and he gave directions that the girls should be handed over to the father at once, if he called for them again; and that if he did not call for them they should be sent home. Instead of going back for the girls, the father went away to a solicitor, and instructed him to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. No order for the girls discharge was made by the Queen's Bench, because the statement was made in open Court on the part of the Crown of what had taken place, and that the girls accordingly would be sent home.

said, that the Attorney General for Ireland upon this matter had misrepresented, as he very often did, what hon. Members had said. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the evidence in the M'Hugh case, he would see that the man Clarke had himself sworn that he was a party to the conspiracy to murder Young. It was perfectly well known that Clarke entertained hostile feelings towards Young, and that he had a personal grudge against him of some years' standing, because, on an important occasion, the deceased had stood between him and the appointment to the stewardship of a certain estate. Mr. Clarke swore, in the information, that he was one of the men who planned the murder of Young; but, in order to cover himself, he charged the offence on M'Hugh, who, as was afterwards clearly shown, could have had nothing to do with it. From all the circumstances connected with these men, it was the general opinion, though there might be no precise and technical legal evidence, that Clarke was the murderer—there was a very strong opinion, strengthened by the man's own evidence, which identified him with the crime. It was considered in the county that there was enough evidence to have convicted Clarke if he had been put on his trial, and the Government had shown great laxity in their administration of justice in not having proceeded against him.

said, that no one was more ready than himself to acknowledge the urbanity and courtesy of the two Irish Law Officers of the Crown. They were the two most courteous Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench; but, at the same time, in matters of this kind, they were most skilful. For the Attorney General for Ireland he would say that he had managed, on this occasion, with his usual skill, to evade the point which had been put before him. His (Mr. Healy's) charge against the officials, as to the witnesses being spirited away, was this—that no opportunity was given in Ireland, like that afforded in England, in cases of murder, for the evidence taken at the local inquiry, before the witnesses had been doctored, to be taken down and submitted to the prisoner. How had the right hon. and learned Gentleman met this complaint? Why, he had not met it at all. All he had said was that, for the purpose of preventing witnesses being tampered with, it had been necessary to take them away. Well, he (Mr. Healy) had not gone into this matter at all. He had said that if they expected juries to convict in Ireland it was necessary that the Government should not bring before them tainted evidence.

said, this same evidence wa8 given at New Ross.

said, he was referring to the Loughrea case; but, of course, he had no means of knowing what had taken place except through the medium of the newspapers. Only that week he had read that two servant girls had been brought away from the town of Loughrea, after a private and secret magisterial investigation had been held. It was his desire, as he had said, that the real murderer or murderers should be brought to justice, and ultimately hanged; but if he were one of the jury having brought before them these servant girls, whose evidence was heard for the first time after they had been in the arms of the police constables of Dublin for three months, he should hesitate very much to convict. It did not do for the Attorney General for Ireland to say he knew nothing at all about this matter. How were hon. Members to learn anything about it if not through the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The only channel of information open to him (Mr. Healy) was the newspapers, which channel was equally open to the Government; but, in addition to that, they had their secret channels of information. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and say he did not know anything about the matter was a thing he (Mr. Healy) entirely failed to understand. The police dared not bring forward the evidence of these persons in the local Courts—they dared not bring forward the plain, unvarnished tale of these people before they had been tampered with by the police—they dared not admit the public to their investigations. The first time they heard of the evidence of these people was after they had enjoyed the society of the Dublin constables, and had consorted with them in the Phoenix Park for two or three months. The Government had not the confidence of the Irish juries, and they did not deserve it. They all recognized the courtesy with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland invariably entered into these discussions. In fact, he disarmed them with his courtesy. No one could quarrel with him; but he was invariably so courteous that it almost seemed a pity to reply to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, did not give them any information. He turned the Cape—winding round the matter, and leaving it exactly where it was. He (Mr. Healy) should watch with great anxiety the result of the trial of which he had spoken, and should examine with great care the evidence of these two women, after they had been locked up and kept under the Protection of Person and Property Act, as amended by the Loughrea Justices. He should note if the jury refused to convict on the evidence of these two witnesses. As to the case of "The Queen v. Parnell," the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was unable to give the Committee a definite statement as to the amount expended on the trial. A question had been asked on the matter on the Supplementary Vote some months ago.

The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss that matter, as it does not come under this Vote at all.

I understood that questions affecting the law charges and the fees of the Attorney General for Ireland came under this Vote.

But the hon. Member has been already informed that the expenses of this particular prosecution are not included under this Vote.

said, he had received information to that effect from the Attorney General for Ireland; but he had not received such information from the Chairman. He was not aware that the Chairman, in his position as Chairman of Committees, could possess the information. He would ask the responsible officials whether that particular charge came under this Vote or not? He would not pursue the subject for one moment if the Attorney General would tell him under what head the expenses in "The Queen v. Parnell" were charged.

I believe all the costs are already paid, and were accounted for in the last Estimate. That is the case, as far as I know.

Under what Vote do the charges appear?

Under the Supplementary Vote dealt with some months ago, and fully discussed.

said, that when this question was raised on the Supplementary Estimates he had put the question, and received exactly the same answer as was now given—namely, that the Government were unable to make any statement upon the matter. If the Government informed him that they could not tell him what were the total expenses in the case, he would not pursue the matter further. He protested, however, against the manner in which the Irish Members were treated on these subjects. He should like to see a State prosecution in England, to see the Radical Members get up and hear what they said, and the kind of answers the Government would be compelled to give. He should like to see the alacrity with which the Government would reply, if asked by the English Radicals how much was spent upon the conviction of Herr Most. But, in this Irish matter, the question only was how much it had cost to prosecute Parnell, and, therefore, it was an entirely different thing.

said, the only way they could have attacked this Vote would have been by moving to reduce the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he had not conducted the prosecution with sufficient skill; but if nobody else had come well out of the prosecution.—if the Government had not come well out of it—certainly the Attorney General himself had. He had left behind him a memorial of forensic skill and legal ability in the statement he had made to the jury which would always be remembered when his name was spoken of. Therefore, he was afraid they could not move to reduce the right hon. and learned Gentleman's salary, on the ground that he had not conducted a sufficiently skilful prosecution. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to ask under what subhead would they find the cost of prosecutions at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, and Petty Sessions respectively? He was anxious to have information on these points, because he had some observations to make and some reductions to move. Perhaps, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) was looking up the information he was asking for, he might ask the Chairman, on a point of Order, in what way he should move the reduction of the Vote. The Vote was divided into a number of sub-heads respectively from A to I; and, as a point of Order, he wished to know whether the reduction should be moved on the whole amount to be voted, or whether each individual item or each sub-head should be attacked? If a reduction under subhead D were moved specifically, could a similar Motion be afterwards moved with respect to sub-head A?

The hon. Member has two courses open to him—either to propose the omission of certain items of the Vote, or to propose the reduction of the whole sum by a lump sum.

Then I understand that the omission of the items would have to be moved in the order which, they are put down?

Yes.

said, that the hon. Member was desirous of establishing this—who was responsible for the two classes of transactions at Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessions?

said, he would direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) to sub-heads B and C, charges for two classes of solicitors. It appeared to him that the Petty Sessional Crown solicitors were very badly paid compared with the Crown solicitors at Assizes, who were very liberally remunerated indeed; and, as far as his knowledge went, in the county of Antrim the time of the Petty Sessional solicitor was a great deal more occupied than that of the Crown solicitor at Assizes. He should like to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of the difference in the scales of fees, and should like to be informed whether the Government considered that the compensation was fairly apportioned. He would, also, direct the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to subhead G, to the sum of £250 advanced to prisoners in cases of murder. He wished to know whether this sum did not represent a small amount of crime, seeing how much stress was laid on the number of murders committed in Ireland?

said, that the scale of fees was regulated by the kind of work the prosecutors had to do. At the Assizes, in criminal cases, the work was more serious than at Quarter Sessions. No doubt, there were a great many prisoners tried at Quarter Sessions; but the cases were generally of much less importance than those tried at the Assizes. The heavier and more difficult cases were, in fact, generally sent forward from the Quarter Sessions to the Assizes, and it was always recognized that the cases which the Courts of Assize were called on to dispose of required a large amount of skill compared with Quarter Sessions cases. That accounted for the difference in the remuneration. The gentlemen to whom those fees were paid were very willing to take charge of the Petty Sessional business on these very reasonable terms. It gave them a certain position, and did not involve any substantial interference with their private practice. This matter had lately been put on a much more reasonable footing than it used to be; and he did not think they could obtain gentlemen of skill and knowledge to conduct cases at the Assizes for anything less than the sums which the Treasury had, with its usual care, fixed on as their salaries. With regard to advances to prisoners in cases of murder, where the prisoners were unable to provide for their own defence, the amount in the Estimate was very small. After all that had been said and done, the number of murders in Ireland was not very considerable, and they must all be glad to find that was the case. He himself recognized the fact with great satisfaction.

said, he could almost fancy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just given such gratifying testimony to the absence of serious crime in Ireland, had quite satisfied himself, before he made those observations, that his right hon. Colleague the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had left the House. He trusted, however, that the Press would notice the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, and the contrast between so re-assuring a declaration and the raw-head and bloody-bone story of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had given the Committee several explanations, which, with regard to those that related to points connected with Departmental arrangements, he would say were of a satisfactory character. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was evidently thoroughly well acquainted with all the arrangements of a Departmental kind; but, when the information asked of him went beyond that technical part of his functions, when hon. Members made inquiries about matters of policy and so forth, as they had been doing that evening when they brought forward numbers of special cases, and supported them with proofs, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was so thoroughly well acquainted with all the distinctions which divided one office from another was only able to furnish the Committee in reply with generalities and "ifs." He would give the Committee an instance of the way in which the Committee had been treated that evening. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had, amongst other things, been asked by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House questions about the spiriting away of witnesses for the Crown, and had also been pressed with inquiries as to the circumstances under which this self-accused murderer Clarke had entered into relations with the Crown. Now, he had observed that just at the time when Irish Members were pressing the Attorney General for Ireland for information on these points—that was the very moment when the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant appeared to consider it advisable to leave the House, exciting thereby, as he (Mr. O'Donnell) thought, "reasonable suspicion" of his proceedings. The Committee had listened to a most extraordinary story, which had only been told in part by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), and which he hoped would be completed, with regard to the character of one of the Crown witnesses who gave evidence on the trial for the murder of Mr. Young in Roscommon. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was true that this man Clarke was self-accused of conspiracy to murder? Was it true that having been made use of as a witness for the Crown on the occasion in question he had failed to bring conviction on the man who had been singled out for denunciation on the ground of his having been an accomplice in the murder? If that was true, he asked the Attorney General for Ireland what had the Government done with this scoundrel who had utterly failed to prove his story, and who was, upon his own showing, a murderer? Was it true that the Government did not mean to do anything more in this matter; that they intended to let this scoundrel go free, without bringing him into Court for trial or punishment? This was a case which afforded a most extraordinary illustration of the way in which charges were made and money spent in criminal prosecutions. But suppose it had taken place in England instead of Ireland; the Government would have adopted a very different course in that case. Suppose that Clarke had been called as a witness on the trial in England; that he declared himself to be an accomplice in the murder; that he brought a charge against men who, as he pretended, were his confederates, and that he utterly failed to bring those charges home. Could anyone imagine that the Government in Eng- land would take no further steps against a self-accused scoundrel of that description? This man Clarke was evidently on the staff of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland, and he must be concealed somewhere. The Government could not afford to lose so precious an instrument, and he was probably not allowed to go at large for fear that public indignation might lay hold of him. The whereabouts of Clarke was a matter of considerable interest. Where was he kept? Was he supported by the State out of the money asked for under the general head of charge for witnesses? Something must have been done with this man. He had not been tried and convicted. What had the Government done with their own pet murderer? There was a point where the sublime became the ridiculous; but they had reached one at which the atrocious became amusing. He was sure the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had no connection with the system of government in Ireland, and that he was not responsible personally for what had been done in this matter. There must be some secret Attorney General who managed transactions of this kind on behalf of the Government. He was perfectly satisfied the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew nothing about it; but here was this fellow Clarke, who entered like a burglar on the Votes of the country, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) wanted to know what had become of him. He was a self-accused murderer; he had failed in his endeavour to hang one man, and to tie the rope on the necks of two others, and yet he was borne on the public ledger for so much per week, or per day, and was probably eating mutton chops for breakfast at the taxpayers' expense. Again, he asked for information as to this man Clarke, whose horrible story had partially leaked out on this Vote. Where was the Chief Secretary for Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had left his seat on the Treasury Bench the moment this subject was approached, and had not returned; and, under these circumstances, seeing that the case came within the Department of the Chief Secretary, rather than within that of the Attorney General for Ireland, he was in some doubt as to whether they ought not to move to report Progress, to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of stating what had become of Clarke. What about the Chief Secretary's Roscommon informer? Did Mr. Clarke continue to supply the Government with information in other eases, and was he, in short, general constructor of murderous plots for the county of Roscommon?

I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Dungarvan is, to some extent, trifling with the Committee.

said, he was surprised that the Chairman should address such a remark to him. He said the Government were trifling with the Committee in keeping back information with regard to this self-accused murderer.

said, he would remind the hon. Member for Dungarvan that trials in which evidence was given by approvers had occurred in England as well as in Ireland. What had happened with regard to Mr. Young's murder was this. About three years ago this man Clarke came forward as approver, and upon his evidence certain persons were accused of having committed the murder. Informations were sworn against them, and they were awaiting their trial when the present Government came into Office. He thought the hon. Member must know that an approver, when he failed to bring home the guilt of murder to those against whom he gave evidence, was never, in this or any other civilized country, prosecuted for the offence which he himself had confessed to. The present Government knew nothing more of the case of the man Clarke than that his evidence had been given at the trial as approver, and that he was a tainted witness whose evidence was not believed.

said, he had listened with interest to the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was scarcely correct in saying that such a thing was not known in England as the prosecution of approvers for offences to which they confessed. There was a time when they were not only prosecuted, but hanged.

said, he thought the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland was quite inconsistent with that which he had made a few minutes earlier on this particular subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made the reproach that there was no one in the county who had attempted to bring this man Clarke to justice, and he had thereby endeavoured to throw doubt upon the accuracy of the statement which he (Mr. O'Kelly) had made, that it was a matter of notoriety that Clarke had been connected with the murder. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not, perhaps, aware that this man had sworn that he was one of the men who planned the murder of Mr. Young, and that, therefore, he was one of the murderers in the eye of the law. Having failed, however, to convict the persons whom he accused, the public in Ireland naturally wondered where Clarke had been taken to, and why he should have been taken under the Government wing. Further, they wanted to know why nothing had been done by the Government in order to bring him to justice? But the inconsistency of the statements of the Attorney General for Ireland appeared in this. He had said that it was not according to law that approvers should be prosecuted for the offences they confessed to. Now, if that were true, if the man Clarke was really protected by the law of the land, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly not right in reproaching him with the fact that no one in the county of Roscommon had attempted to bring him to justice, when he knew it was beyond the power of any man to do so.

said, he was sorry to be obliged to say that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had not, in his recent remarks upon the case of the man Clarke, shown, as he usually did, his acquaintance with the law of the land as relating to approvers. But he would probably remember that Blackstone had told them, with regard to these persons, that under the Common Law of England, if a person came forward as approver, and did not make good his charge, he was hanged upon his own confession. That wholesome practice might have gone out of use; but he could not help thinking that if it were still acted upon there would be fewer murders committed. But there was no reason whatever why Clarke should entirely escape punishment even if the Government did not think proper to go to the full length of the law which Blackstone said was so just. Clarke was either guilty of being an accomplice in a conspiracy to murder, or he was guilty of foul perjury in accusing persons of having committed that crime. He had read the account of the trial, and he knew only too well how inaccurate the reports of public law proceedings generally were; but he saw by the report of the case that not only was Clarke uncorroborated in the statements he made, but that there was some evidence to show that he was speaking falsely. Under all the circumstances he wished to know why Clarke was not prosecuted under the provisions of the old Common Law as an approver who had not made good his charge, or why he had not been prosecuted for perjury. This case had excited very great interest among the people of Ireland, and he thought the Committee were entitled to full information upon the subject. Moreover, they were left in ignorance as to the amount of money which Clarke had received during the two years that he was in the hands of the police waiting to give the foul evidence which he did give. On the whole, he expressed his regret that the Attorney General for Ireland, who was generally so well informed, could not, on the present occasion, furnish the Committee with better information.

said, he was about to move the omission from this Vote of item B, for cost of prosecutions at Assizes amounting to £16,350. He should do so upon three grounds. First of all, on the ground of the policy which had dictated such prosecutions in Ireland at the Assizes during the last six months. Secondly, on the ground of the repeated postponements upon the application of the Crown by which the trials of men who were lying in gaol were put off and the men thereby subjected to unnecessary imprisonment. Thirdly, on the ground of the gross jury-packing which was characteristic of the prosecutions for agrarian offences that had taken place during recent years in Ireland. As regarded the first ground, he was in a position to state that the Crown had deliberately brought men to trial at the Assizes in Ireland for offences of such a flimsy character, that it was idle to expect that juries would convict them. The fact was notorious. He knew of many instances which had occurred in his part of Ireland, although he should not weary the Committee by giving any lengthy account of them. The newspapers, also, had given many instances of cases which had been got up against respectable persons in that part of the country. But there was one case that had occurred in his native county, which had been remarkable for its peaceful character for many years, and where the business at Assizes, and so forth, had always been exceedingly light, to which he asked the attention of the Committee. He referred to the prosecution of an hotel-keeper of Baltinglass on a charge of refusing to entertain the sub-sheriff of the county. It appeared that the sub-sheriff of the county came into Baltinglass to this man's hotel for a night's lodging, and that the hotel-keeper represented to him that if he gave him the lodging, inasmuch as the sub-sheriff was engaged on a case of eviction in the neighbourhood, the consequence would be that he, the hotel-keeper, would render himself exceedingly unpopular in the district, and that, in all probability, his windows would be broken, and other damages committed. The hotel-keeper, under the circumstances, asked the sub-sheriff not to insist upon remaining in his house. The sub-sheriff replied that he was entitled to remain; but it was subsequently arranged that he should leave the house and get another lodging. This hotel-keeper was prosecuted. He was brought to trial, not under the Statute Law, but under the Common Law of the country, and he was acquitted. He would now pass to the second point of postponement of trials. He had mentioned the extraordinary action of the Crown officials at the Assizes in pressing their applications on the Judges for these postponements in the case of prisoners charged with serious offences; and he would now refer to the case of the men charged in connection with the case of Mr. Boyd at New Ross. The persons accused in this case, the Whelans, had been brought into Waterford for trial at the last Winter Assizes. They had been in custody for some time, and after they had endured a considerable term of imprisonment waiting for their trial, it was naturally expected on all hands that their trial would take place at once, and that the Crown would proceed on the ordinary course of law. But that expectation was not realized. Sworn affidavits were put in just as the case was being called on, and it was pleaded on behalf of the Crown that they could not have a fair trial because nearly everyone in the locality was prejudiced; that a large number of the jurors were intimidated, and that a considerable number, about one-third or two-fifths, of the persons summoned upon the jury had not attended. With regard to the latter, the counsel for the Crown tried to make out that they had been intimidated. They also stated that a collection had been made in the neighbourhood for the purpose of the defence of the accused, just as if it was a sin to collect money in order to secure a fair trial for men standing in danger of their lives on a charge of murder. Well, the Judges agreed to the postponement of the trial, and upon this ground, that no answering affidavits had been put in on the other side. He said, with regard to those affidavits of the Crown lawyers, that there was nothing to answer. The grounds were grounds for the consideration of the judges and for the consideration of the Crown prosecutors, as to whether they were sufficient to make a case out for the postponement of the trial. It was not competent to him to go into the question of how the Judges had performed their duty in this matter; but it was quite open to him to go into and to complain of the action of the Crown officers in applying for a postponement of the trial on the statements contained in the affidavits. Now, the first charge against the jury was that they were members of the Land League, or that a great many of them were. That was, no doubt, true in fact; but it was not a fact of sufficient weight to entitle the Crown to postpone the trial, although the Judges granted a postponement. The next argument set forth in the affidavit was that a certain proportion of the jurors had failed to attend, and that the failure of their attendance was due to the alleged fact that intimidation had been brought to bear upon them. It was perfectly true that certain jurors did not attend; but it was not true that their non-attendance was the result of their having been intimidated. All that was necessary to get at the truth of that matter was that the persons summoned to attend as jurors should have been personally visited, and it would then have been found that there was no foundation for the statement that intimidation had been exercised upon them. But nothing of the kind was done. No personal inquiry was made, and yet the Crown prosecutors assumed that the jurors did not attend because of intimidation, and the fact was sworn to in the affidavit. The third argument was that a defence fund had been got up in the neighbourhood, and that many of the jurors had subscribed to it. That was true; but, as in the other charges, it was not a valid ground for making an application to the Judges for a postponement of the trial. Nevertheless, the trial was postponed, and removed to Dublin, and the Crown then made application that the case should be tried before a special jury in the City of Dublin. The special jury was empanelled, and the Crown exercised its right of rejecting some of the jurors, the prisoners doing the same. And what was the result? Before a most partial jury, in the sense that it was far more favourable to the Crown than the jury which had tried himself and some of his Colleagues at the last Assizes, the one prisoner who was brought to trial— for he believed the other was not tried after having been kept in prison on the charge of murder for eight months—was unanimously acquitted by a special jury of the City of Dublin. Moreover, he would say that this acquittal carried with it the approval of the whole of the public opinion in Ireland, and, as he believed, the approval of the Law Officers of the Crown also. There was another circumstance to which he desired to refer in connection with the postponements at the Waterford Winter Assizes. The Committee would be aware that on many occasions in that House it was alleged—and a great deal had been made of the contention—that juries in Ireland had refused to convict persons who were brought before them charged with agrarian offences. In the spring of the present year he had moved for a Return upon this subject, setting forth the number of persons charged before juries and the number of convictions obtained, and the Return was now in his possession. The information which it contained was of a very satisfactory character; and although, no doubt, the Irish Law Officers of the Crown might attempt to make something of the alleged refusal of Irish juries to convict, in defence of their action in the case to which he had drawn the attention of the Committee, he could assure them that the Return in question prevented them seeking refuge in that defence. The Return gave the number of cases tried at the last Winter Assizes in Waterford, the very town in which the Crown stated it was impossible to have a fair trial. The number of cases tried at the last Waterford Winter Assizes was 39; the number of convictions being 30; the number of acquittals eight, with one case only of disagreement amongst the jury. And these were the Assizes which the Crown had selected for the purpose of branding the jurors with partiality and refusal to do their duty. Besides the fact that there had been 30 convictions out of 39 cases tried, it must be borne in mind that an acquittal was almost as good from a legal point of view—from the point of view at which the impartiality of jurors ought to be examined, as a conviction, because everyone who knew the condition of the jury panels in Ireland, and particularly with reference to Waterford, would understand that it was manifestly impossible for the Crown to get such a jury as would not have, at least, one man upon it who would be very anxious to convict a person accused by the Crown, no matter in what direction the weight of evidence went. He contended that in the Return which he held in his hand the Committee had the most ample and explicit testimony to the impartiality of the Waterford jurors, in regard, at all events, to 38 of the cases brought before them. But, notwithstanding their proved impartiality, the Government had condemned the unfortunate men, whose case he had referred to, to a further term of imprisonment than they had already endured before they were brought to trial at Waterford, with all the expenses and uncertainty connected with the charge of murder which was hanging over them—that was to say, the uncertainty as to what would happen when they were brought to trial in Dublin. His hon. Friend near him said that in the case of one of these men the suspense was too much, and that his imprisonment was followed by the loss of his reason. That was the case on which he founded his charge against the Crown officials at the Waterford Assizes in regard to postponement of trials. The third point was that of packing juries. If a common jury was packed in Ireland to-day it must be packed in an unblushing fashion. Before Lord O'Hagan's Act was passed by the late Government, the sheriff of the county could do pretty much as he liked as to the manipulation of the jury panel. He could, practically, put what individuals he pleased on the jury; and this unblushing packing had been resorted to by the present Government under the present Jury Laws. Before that Act, when the panel was produced in Court, the Crown prosecutors had a power to order any person to stand aside, and so they were able to get a clear jury which would give the Crown the benefit of any doubt there might be in the case. Panels were now arranged in a different way. Everybody rated to a certain amount was entitled to come on the panel, and the people were summoned by an alphabetical system, so that there could not possibly be any underhand work; but, unfortunately, the old practice of the Crown directing jurors to stand aside had been resorted to by the Crown, and they had done this to any extent, as had been seen in recent cases in several parts of Ireland. He knew of a case in Leitrim where 60 jurors had been ordered to stand aside simply because they were Catholics. It was often said that the disinclination of juries to convict for agrarian offences was due to sympathy with the offenders. He did not deny that that was so to a great extent; but he believed that a considerable element in this unwillingness was the arbitrary and high-handed proceedings of the Crown. If he were on one of those juries and was a Catholic, and the other 11 jurors were Protestants, and he saw trial by jury made such a farce of as it had recently been, he should hold out and refuse to convict under such circumstances. It might be said, and reasonably, that there were ordinary trials in Ireland not connected with agrarian matters in which the Crown had acted fairly, and that, therefore, this Vote ought not to be objected to. He admitted that; and he did not object to the whole of the Vote, but practically to little more than half, which would be about the proportion due to the Crown prosecutors. He should propose to reduce the remaining amount under sub-head B.

said, that as he was well aware of the circumstances of the trial for the murder of Mr. Boyd, he could corroborate what his hon. Friend had said as to the action of the Crown. The murder in that case was committed in August last year, but the trial only took place a few weeks ago. For almost a year the accused was detained in gaol, and when the case came up for trial, the evidence against him was found to be so vague that there was no doubt as to what the verdict would be. The jury did not hesitate for a moment, and the Judge put the case to them in such a manner that it was impossible for them to find any verdict but acquittal in one case, and the other was not proceeded with. The whole conduct of the Crown was most reprehensible. Allusion had been made as to the conduct of the Crown in reference to certain witnesses. Early in the Session he had asked the Chief Secretary to state the facts as to six girls who were alleged to have been taken away by the Government, and lodged in a constable's house in Dublin for six weeks. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was misleading, and he understood that these girls were not released until a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus had been served on the constable. If that was so, it seemed to him very extraordinary for any Representative of the Government—

I think the hon. Member could not have been present when that subject was discussed.

replied, that he would say no more upon that matter; but he agreed with his hon. Friend that the conduct of the Crown with regard to the trial referred to was most reprehensible.

said, the first charge made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork was that in Ireland persons had been arraigned on what he termed flimsy charges. It was difficult to meet general allegations such as that, except by instances, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork had given one instance. It appeared that there had been a prosecution of a man named Lever for refusing to receive, or, rather, for putting out of his house—for he had received him—a guest whom he had received in the ordinary course of his duty. It was true that that was not an offence which was very often a subject of indictment, because an innkeeper was generally very glad to receive guests; and until the last year or so in Ireland he had never heard of an innkeeper, after receiving a guest, turning him out of his house. Under what circumstances was this guest put out? The hon. Member for the City of Cork said it was an absurd prosecution; but the sub-sheriff, who had gone to this inn for shelter and refreshment, whilst engaged in the execution of his duty of serving legal processes, was asked by the innkeeper if he could go somewhere else, saying that the condition of the neighbourhood was such that if he did not go out the windows of the house would be broken. The idea, therefore, was that, in this state of things, the sub-sheriff was to be exposed to a furious mob in order to save the windows of the house. That indicated a condition of society which, as it seemed to him (the Attorney General for Ireland), imperatively required this prosecution for a breach of duty, for an innkeeper kept a house for the reception of all comers, and was bound by law to receive all comers in consideration of his privileges. It was an instance of "Boycotting" in order to frustrate the law; and he did not think that was such a flimsy matter. Again, with regard to the case of Mr. Boyd's murder, when the trial came on at the Winter Assizes at Waterford the Crown applied for a postponement, on the ground, first, that the jury panel was too small. It was stated on oath, and not contradicted, that people had refused to come forward as jurors, owing to intimidation; and another reason for the application was that the jurors were found to be subscribers to the Defence Fund. It was, therefore, impossible to proceed with the case then; and when it came up again for trial at Kilkenny, the excitement was so great, and the jury panel in such a state, that the trial could not proceed. The evidence, no doubt, required most careful examination; but the Crown could not disregard the fact that there was positive identification of the prisoner as the murderer. The man put upon his trial was sworn to as the man who fired the shot. It might be said that everything was fair in war; but the hon. Member was not justified in charging the Crown with acting unfairly in twice putting off the trial when the jurors were subscribers to the Defence Fund. He would not like to be tried by such a jury. How would hon. Gentlemen opposite like to be tried by a jury composed of Emergency men? The Crown wished simply to have a fair trial, and the fact that the evidence went to establish the identification of a disguised man required more careful examination than was needed in ordinary cases. Then, as to the packing of juries, he was not aware that there was any such "packing" as alleged by the hon. Member. It was the duty of the Crown to set aside persons who were known to hold the same views as the accused, and to be prejudiced in his favour. It was not the desire of the Government or their officials to set aside jurors rashly, or for the purpose of insuring a conviction; but if there were a number of persons on the panel notoriously known to be engaged in the same course of action as the accused, the hon. Member would see that it would be absurd to try a man by such a jury. He thought the hon. Gentleman, whatever he complained of, would not do the Government the injustice of alleging that they were actuated by a mere desire to obtain convictions. He did not think the Government were open to the three charges made against them. They might fail—but they would endeavour not to fail—to carry out the law fairly and impartially; and if that could not be done by juries as now constituted some other means must be thought of. The jury system in Ireland was at present very difficult to work; and though hon. Members might fairly criticize, they should, at least, give the Government credit for some honesty of purpose.

said, he was sure the Irish Party must recognize that, as far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was concerned, he wished to do justice to everybody. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not be everyone in Ireland, and he was bound to do his duty to the Government; therefore, it must have been plain to his own acumen that he necessarily left open a great many gaps in his defence of his administration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced a rather strange theory. He had advanced the theory that they ought not to try a prisoner by a jury, a num- ber of the members of which might share the same opinions as that prisoner—that was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, stripped of the elaborate and flowery language in which he had stated his case. There had been no necessity at Waterford to try prisoners by a jury containing a number of persons who had subscribed towards the expenses of the defence, although he did not see that there was any harm in a fair trial fund of the character in question. The subscription was only like that on the part of the Government—was only like the £250 advanced by the Government for the defence of prisoners in cases of murder. The prisoners were poor, and there was a very serious charge against them, and all the greatest talent at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government was arrayed against them. The most honest men, even Emergency men, would have been justified in subscribing to such a fund in order to see justice done—nay, even the conductors of the prosecution themselves would have been justified in subscribing. Why did not the Government say that they would not go on with the case before a jury, some of the members of which had subscribed to the Defence Fund? He (Mr. O'Donnell) was informed that there were 150 jurors ready to be sworn. Then, as to jurors abstaining from putting in an appearance, it did not follow that abstentions were due to intimidation. He remembered in Galway, during the Ballot case, which excited a great deal of interest, the intimidation of jurors was spoken of, and it was said that it was necessary to take the case to another district. It came to his knowledge, at that time, that a large number of jurors abstained from attending the Court House, in order to give additional plausibility to the plea of the Crown that there could not be a fair trial in Galway. That was the kind of intimidation operating on the minds of the jurors in Ireland at this moment. A juror who, in the honest and conscientious discharge of his duty, acquitted a prisoner, was sneered at by the Government organs. When, as was the case at the Waterford Assizes, there were 30 convictions out of 39 cases, the Government thought it was quite right; but when there were a large number of acquittals, the jurors, who had conscientiously discharged their duty, were denounced, and the Dublin Correspondent of The Times spoke of the jurors as a lot of blackguard Land Leaguers. In reply to the complaint which had been made that the Government dragged up a large number of unfortunate innocent people in order to obtain convictions, the right hon. and learned Member said they had not given many cases. Well, but was it not the fact that the Government, having failed in the process of packing juries, had fallen back on the powers of the Coercion Act, and that the Executive, not being able to obtain convictions by bringing cases from Kilkenny to Waterford, and from Water-ford to Dublin, simply declined to go through the form of jury trial, and sent round a warrant to enable the police to put a man in gaol without trial? Undoubtedly, if it were not for the Coercion Act, they would have a great many more cases of jury packing than they had. He hoped the Government would take notice that one of the results of unduly prolonging the time of suspense —unduly keeping a man awaiting his trial, had, in the Whelans' case—led to one of the prisoners becoming insane. Was not that a fearful commentary upon the administration of the law in Ireland? How would such a thing as that look in a Blue Book relating to Turkish affairs —a prisoner being removed from vilayet to vilayet on the chance of the Government prosecution being more successful in one place than in another, and, in the end, the man's very reason giving way in consequence of the mental strain of suspense? There was another reason why jurors in Ireland discharged their duties under very serious difficulties, and that was the exceedingly vindictive character of the sentences the Judges passed on prisoners. The Judges in Ireland seemed to think that at certain times, in certain states of feeling, they were more bound to make examples than at other times. Men who were found guilty of crimes at a certain period were punished live times more severely than they would have been if they had been found guilty at another period. That was not the proper way to administer justice, and when it was known that vindictive sentences were passed it went a great way towards preventing men from coming forward to perform their duties as jurors. Men did not only refuse to come forward to act on juries in Ireland. The same thing was done where the law was in manifest contradiction with human feelings and human sensibility. Jurors sometimes were just as reluctant to convict in England as in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had done his best in a graceful and kindly way to place the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government in a good light, but the facts were too strong for him, and it was only too clear that the most ridiculous pretexts were seized on by the prosecution to bring about adjournments of proceedings in the hope of getting a jury somewhere to find an unfortunate man guilty, even at the risk of the postponements resulting in driving him out of his senses.

said, that while he was quite ready to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman credit for personal courtesy and kindliness of character, he could not acquit him of making himself, or being by his circumstances made, the instrument of a system of government in Ireland, which he really thought—comparing it with that of England—was hardly civilized in the present day. Take first the case of the hotel-keeper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that hotel-keepers had been prosecuted in England for a similar offence; but he should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman when and where? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman give him a number of cases within the last half century where an hotel-keeper had been criminally prosecuted for refusing to admit a certain person into his hotel. There had been one case in Kent within the past 20 years he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was informed; but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell him that the powerful men who sat near him on the Ministerial Bench would dare to prosecute the poorest innkeeper in England for refusing to admit a person within the walls of his house? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the Irish case he had described, had drawn—from his imagination—a picture of a howling mob waiting outside the hotel for the person the landlord refused to admit. The picture, however, was wholly imaginary. There was no mob outside the hotel—howling or otherwise. The authorities sent a detachment of police with the person who sought the hotel. Altogether, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, finding his case unsupported, had invented some facts to support it.

The people were, it appears, going to break the windows of the hotel.

said, the hotel-keeper had not made any such statement. It was a very different thing to say that the mob were about to do a certain thing than that next week, or on some future occasion, they would do a certain thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was a howling mob outside the hotel to receive the sub-sheriff in case he was refused admission. But what was the case of the hotel-keeper? It was that he refused to receive the agent of an unjust and wicked law. It was nothing against an innkeeper of Ireland that his moral sense revolted in any way against the exercise of an unjust law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the main lines of the charge brought by his (Mr. O'Connor's) hon. Friend against the proceedings of the Government in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had asked that hon. Members should give the Government as much credit for good intentions as they demanded themselves. Well, he gave the right hon. and learned Gentleman every credit for good intentions; but the system of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was part and parcel was too strong for his good intentions. Take the statement about the Waterford Assizes for instance—against which statement he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had ventured any argument. What were the facts? Amongst the persons who had been tried were some charged with offences against the Whiteboy Acts, for appearing in arms at night, and for firing into habitations. The Whiteboy Acts said—

"If any persons to the number of 12 or more being unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled for the disturbance of the public peace at any time—"