asked the Secretary to the Treasury who was in charge of the Vote for an explanation of an item of £160 with reference to the editing of facsimile manuscripts? He had recently addressed a Question to the hon. Gentleman in regard to the recording and indexing of Irish papers; and he wished to know how long the Department would be engaged upon this work, and what results had been attained? There was also a charge for the Keeper of the State Papers of £500. He assumed that the Keeper of the State Papers performed useful functions and that he was not overpaid; but he observed that the same gentleman also received a sum of £750 for the Office of Ulster King-at-Arms. He appeared, therefore, to be a gentleman who received one salary for doing something, and another salary for doing nothing at all. He would like to know how long this pluralism of Office was to be allowed to continue; and whether, in the case of Ulster King-at-Arms, there was any possibility that this Office, in the fulness of time, would be abolished? He believed the time had come when those who wished to flourish before society with coats of arms, alleged to have belonged to their ancestors, should pay for the social honour which thereby accrued to them; and if this gentleman was to be retained for the purpose of providing a pseudo-aristocracy, those persons who wished to assume heraldic arms and mottoes should pay for the honour. He also thought there must now be crowds of officials so well acquainted with the State ceremonials at Dublin Castle, that there was no necessity for the guests to be led by the hand by the Ulster King-at-Arms as children were led by their nurses. If it was necessary to keep up this State official, he ought to be paid by those who derived pleasure or profit from his performances.

said, the case was not so bad as had been represented by the hon. Member. If the hon. Member would look at another Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant, he would see that the sum of £650 had been received in fees, so that, in point of fact, those who desired new coats of arms did pay for them. The Office of Keeper of the State Papers was, he assured the hon. Member, no sinecure. It had been an Office established in the year 1715.

asked if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to state the duties of the Keeper of the State Papers?

said, the duties were regulated by 31 Vict. c. 70. It was his duty to collect and classify the State Papers, and remove them to the Record Tower in Dublin Castle. After they had been examined, they were allowed to remain under the care of Sir Bernard Burke, or whoever might happen to be Keeper, for a period of 50 years, after which they were transferred to the Record Office, where they were under the care of the Master of the Rolls. The Keeper of the State Papers arranged the documents, and saw that they were were kept in safe custody, and that they were forthcoming whenever they might be required, or whenever it was necessary to examine them. When they were placed under the care of the Master of the Rolls they were catalogued.

From day to day?

said, they were catalogued as they were sent in. The facsimile work in connection with the Irish national manuscripts had now been in progress for 10 or 12 years, and certain volumes had been published. It would be completed by the publication of one additional volume, which was now passing through the Press, and was expected to be issued in the course of a few weeks. Mr. Gilbert, the Secretary of the Record Office, was the person who was paid for editing these manuscripts, and he had been engaged on the work since 1872.

asked whether they were to understand that the publication of these facsimiles, in regard to which the hon. Gentleman had given them such interesting information, was to be continued; and whether there were not other Irish ancient manuscripts which were worth being reproduced? There had been no complaint from that quarter of the House as to the manner in which the present volumes had been prepared; and he thought the feeling of the Irish people would be grossly misrepresented if a word was said to imply that they had not a right to the reproduction of these records in the best possible form. He should be glad to learn what manuscripts were represented by the volumes already published.

quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the sum required for editing these manuscripts was not exorbitant. On the contrary, he believed it to be very small. As the translation of these manuscripts was said to be approaching a conclusion, it would be of some interest to the Irish people to learn from the Secretary to the Treasury whether there was any intention of translating into English any of these Irish volumes, which were of great interest. In particular; he should be glad to learn whether it was intended to continue the translation of the Brehon Laws. The late Dr. O'Donovan had translated four volumes, and there still remained something like six volumes to be translated into English. He did not know whether there was any person in Ireland who was competent to continue the translation of the Brehon Laws and other old works; but it was quite possible that there might be. It was a matter of great interest. Very few people in Ireland had so complete a knowledge of the Celtic language as to be able to read these old MSS., even if they succeeded in deciphering them. The old manuscript form of the Brehon Laws was in the Royal Irish Academy; but the existence of these works was of no practical value, except to those competent to decipher them. He believed that it would be of the greatest possible interest for the people of Ireland to learn what were the laws of their country many centuries ago. He believed there was only one edition in existence, so that the study of them was clearly restricted. It would be a matter of general satisfaction if these volumes were translated into English, so as to afford a better insight into the ancient laws.

agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) that the sum for editing these manuscripts was a small and beggarly item. He saw by the English Estimates that £3,000 was spent in translating the records of foreign countries; and, therefore, he thought the sum of £160 very inadequate for this purpose in Ireland. If it was necessary to expend £3,000 for editing and translating the political remains of England in foreign countries, surely £160 for editing the Irish MSS. was a very inadequate sum. He hoped the work would not be brought to a conclusion until the Government had thoroughly ascertained and satisfied the Irish Members whether any further work of the kind remained to be done. He felt great satisfaction in knowing that this work was under the direction of so competent and enthusiastic an Irish scholar as Mr. Gilbert, who had written one or two of the ablest historical works of the time. Any work of this kind would be read with interest; and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Ennis that it would be desirable to have the Brehon Laws translated, in order to show that Irishmen many centuries ago were able to make very much better laws for themselves than Englishmen could now.

said, he did not understand that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) complained of the amount included in the Vote.

Certainly not.

said, that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had complained, not that the work had been undertaken of publishing these facsimiles of ancient Irish MSS., but of the expensive way in which they had been brought out, which rendered them inaccessible to the people generally. The item for editing and translating of the English records, to which reference had been made, related to chronicles and State Papers of a totally different kind from those now in question. The Vote related to certain MSS. written in Irish, the reproduction of which was now coming to an end. The cost of translating the Brehon Laws would be included in the Royal Irish Academy Vote. He believed that a gentleman named Mahoney, now dead, had been engaged in the translation of these Brehon Laws. Some four volumes had been completed.

said, that the work was not now in progress, but had been arrested.

Yes; by the death of Mr. Mahoney.

Are there not other people capable of continuing the work?

I will ascertain how the matter stands; and, if possible, the work will be continued.

said, he was glad that the Vote afforded an opportunity, in reference to this question of the translation and preservation of ancient Irish MSS., of calling the attention of the Government to a very lamentable case in connection with this matter in Dublin. The brother of the late Professor Eugene O'Curry, an eminent scholar who had spent his life in the practical work of translating these documents, died some time ago. Anthony O'Curry, whose knowledge of Irish was even more extensive than that of his great brother, assisted his brother Eugene O'Curry, and had been untiring in his labours during his lifetime. He died at an advanced age, and had left a widow, and a large family of daughters, almost entirely unprovided for, and they were frequently in circumstances of the direst poverty. He had himself, in Dublin, several times started a private subscription to help these poor people; but periodically they fell into the deepest poverty, and were continually waiting upon him and others to assist them with a few shillings towards the payment of their rent. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to consider the case of this poor old lady, the wife of a distinguished scholar, who really might have been better provided for but for her husband having given up the whole of his time for the benefit of the public. Mr. O'Curry, by his distinguished labours in the field of Irish literature, had left a name which would not soon be forgotten; and while he was living he had been of much assistance to his brother and other Irish scholars.

said, he was afraid that the hon. Member was in error in addressing him. He had no power whatever to interfere in any case of this kind. It would have to be done by communication directly with the Prime Minister, who had charge of the Royal Pension List.

said, he would take the course suggested. He was quite sure, from the well-known kindness of heart of the right hon. Gentleman, that an appeal would not be made to him in vain.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £11,126, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.

wished to ask the Chief Secretary how it was that the Secretary, or Chief Clerk of this Office, assumed the title of "Assistant Registrar General," for which he had not the slightest legal authority? He had heard as a fact that this official made use of this pompous title in order, in the most insolent and supercilious manner, to lord it over the other subordinate officials. When a Question was put to the right hon. Gentleman the other day, he said this gentleman was entitled to use the name by law, because the section of the Act of Parliament allowed the Registrar General to appoint an assistant during his absence or illness. That was part of the truth, but not the whole of it. The section of the Act no doubt permitted the Chief Clerk to use the title of Assistant Registrar when the Registrar General was ill or absent; but at no other period had he authority to assume the title and that insolence in office which was the predominating character of Government officials in Ireland. He did not know whether the Registrar General, who had £1,000 a-year, was supposed to be ill or absent for the entire year; but, as a matter of fact, the Chief Clerk used the title of "Assistant Registrar" regularly, and he had no right to it except in the absence of his Chief. He hoped that they would get an assurance that he would be obliged to discontinue a title to which he had no claim except in the illness or absence of the Registrar General. If he (Mr. Dawson) failed to get such an assurance, he would certainly move the reduction of the Vote.

said, there was another small matter connected with this Vote which he would call attention to. In this Office, in addition to a permanent staff, a number of gentlemen had for years been employed as task writers. They were only engaged in daily service; but from their long service they were as much identified with the Office as any of the permanent officials. Lately, however, a system had grown up of giving the task work to the permanent clerks; and so men who had been practically for periods of 20 or 30 years in the Public Service, and had given up every other pursuit, because they were not regularly on the staff, were by this course deprived of their means of livelihood. They found themselves at the end of their days, when they were unfit to seek for any other position of emolument, practically deprived of the means of livelihood which the Office had supplied them with for so many years. As a matter of fact, they were in reality dismissed from the Public Service. It was not that there was any want of work in the Department, for the work was as great as formerly, and, if anything, increasing; but whoever had the distribution of the task work now gave it to the permanent clerks employed in the Office. It was all very well to assist the permanent clerks of the establishment as much as they could, and to give them the opportunity of increasing their salaries by extra labour; but everybody knew that in an Office of this kind, where strict supervision did not exist, the clerks did this work in addition to their ordinary work, not at home, but in the Office during office hours. Of course, they received extra pay for it, although it could be easily done by the gentlemen whose case he was advocating. He desired to know what the arrangements of the Office were. If the task work was not paid for, he would not mind; but it was a great grievance that these men, who had spent their lives in the Public Service, but were not salaried officials, should see their work handed over to the permanent clerks, many of whom did the greater portion of their work during their official hours.

said, that he had as great a feeling of sympathy as anybody who had been connected with public work must have for the class of men called "writers," whose position had been brought before the Committee by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington). He should be very sorry, indeed, that anything should be done to injure their position, and, in some sense, they had a just claim for consideration. Of course, if the work were done by the clerks in the Office without payment the hon. Member would not wish to interfere.

Oh, no.

said, he wonld inquire into the matter, as he understood it was the impression of the hon. Member that the work was done by the clerks of the establishment for payment. Certainly, with reference to Mr. Matheson, the Deputy Registrar General, he found that he was entitled to have that title during the absence of the Registrar General. He was informed that it was a matter of convenience that he should be appointed once for all. He would, however, look into the matter. He was told that Mr. Matheson never signed himself Deputy or Assistant Registrar General, except in the absence of his Chief; and it would be necessary to appoint him every time the Chief was absent. That would be a greater concession than any Member of Parliament had a right to demand.

said, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman treated the matter in a playful spirit; but no one would think of putting the right hon. Gentleman to the trouble of appointing Mr. Matheson every time the Head of the Office was absent. That would be a reduplication of appoint- ments which none of them would desire; but he could not see the necessity for this official to assume a superior title in order to carry on the work of the Department. He was sure that when the Prime Minister was away his work was capably performed by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; but the hon. Gentleman did not find it necessary to assume the title of Prime Minister. Nor was it necessary, when the Chief Secretary was away from Dublin, for the second official to assume his title. He was thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had responded to the appeal which had been made to him in reference to the case of the task writers. He (Mr. Sexton) was closely acquainted with the grievances under which they laboured; and he would say that there never had come under his notice a meaner or shabbier instance of the conduct of officials in Ireland than the treatment of these poor and almost worn-out task writers. It ill became the permanent officials, who were in receipt of large and luxurious salaries themselves, to take out of the mouths of these poor task writers their small crust of bread. The Registrar General he saw had £1,000 a-year, the Secretary £600, the Superintendent £450, the first, second, and third clerks £400, £300, and £200, and yet he found that it was their policy to take from some two or three old public servants the miserable £1 or £2 a-week with which they endeavoured to maintain themselves. There could be no difficulty in finding employment for these men in the Office; and all his hon. Friend desired was that, in future, the work, if done for pay, should not be done by permanent members of the establishment. The functions of the Office were being daily augmented, and constant employment could be given to the three or four men who had been attached to the Office for so long a period, and it was the merest pretence to say that the functions and details of the work of the Office were now such as to prevent constant employment from being found. He knew one man who had been attached to this Office for 21 years, and now, at the end of his days, he found himself deprived of employment. He had known him to rise at 4 or 5 in the morning, and work till midnight on work farmed out to him by officials who only paid half the price to which he would be entitled himself. He would be ashamed to say what he believed to be the motive for this treatment; but he would, if the right hon. Gentleman desired, inform him privately what he believed to be the motive for the meanness and malignity of the conduct which this man had been exposed to by the officials. He was sure if the right hon. Gentleman knew it that he would not tolerate it for a moment. But unless some steps were taken to provide these men with suitable employment at the end of their days, as long as he remained in Parliament he would never cease from bringing the question forward when the Estimates came on for discussion. He had no desire to see the Estimates increased, or 1 d. spent which could be avoided; but he did say that when a man had served the public, in whatever humble capacity, for 20 or 30 years blamelessly and efficiently, it was cruelly unjust that in the end he should be deprived of his means of livelihood, even although some paltry question of economy might arise. He sincerely hoped that when they reached the Estimates next year this cause of complaint would have disappeared.

remarked that the question of the position of the class of persons known as writers had been raised some time ago, and a promise had been given that it should be inquired into.

wished to point out that in this matter of task work there was no possibility of the Head of the Department being able to deal with it as readily as if the men were engaged in the Office. The emoluments received for task work were in accordance with the amount of work done, and if the task writer were not able to do the work he received no payment at all.

said, he had no wish to find fault with the Head of the Office. He was inclined to think that if the Heads of Departments were aware of the position of many of their subordinates, that position would be very materially ameliorated. As the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that he would institute an inquiry into the condition of the men employed under the Registrar General, he would ask him to direct special attention to the position of the men described as tran- scribers. He found that they had been employed now for some 16 years. Ten years ago they were required to pass a qualifying examination; and in every respect they had discharged their duties faithfully and well. From that time to the present they had been employed in work for which they received very inadequate remuneration, although a similar class of public servants in this country received £210, £280, and £320 respectively. One of the transcribers was actually doing the work of one of the senior clerks who received £400 a-year. It would also be found that some of these men were employed as permanent officials at a time when many of the second, third, and fourth class clerks had not entered the service at all. In the year 1873–4 a Commission sat to inquire into their position, consisting of Earl Percy, Mr. Blackwood, and Mr. Hamilton. The Commission reported in favour of an amelioration of the condition of these men; but all that came of the matter was a miserable increase of £3 a-year for five years, raising the ultimate remuneration to £160 a-year as the maximum. Whereas it would appear from the present Vote that a man employed temporarily as a transcriber on the agricultural statistics rose as a fourth class clerk from £86 by annual increments to £200 a-year. The consequence was that transcribers who were employed on much more important work were in the position of seeing their juniors by many years promoted over their heads as officers of the permanent official staff, and paid much more liberally. He desired to submit the case of these men to the Secretary to the Treasury; and he was sure that, if it were found to be as he had stated, the hon. Gentleman would be glad to do something to improve their condition.

said, he had a personal knowledge of the facts of the case to which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had referred, and he could confirm what his hon. Friend had said on the subject—that all the circumstances pointed to some motive which was not creditable on the part of certain individuals who had compelled him to occupy his present position. The poor man in whose behalf his hon. Friend had spoken could not be described as past his work, because, as a matter of fact, he was employed in doing the same kind of work farmed out to him by other officials. Therefore, it could not be from any dissatisfaction at the manner in which he did the work that he had been dismissed. With reference to the matter to which the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had called attention—namely, the assumption by the Chief Clerk in the Registrar General's Office of the title of Assistant Registrar General, he wished, in speaking of the temporary character of the appointment, to refer them to Thom's Almanack, which was a sort of Court Guide and general vade meeum to those interested in official matters in Dublin. In that volume Mr. Matheson was described as Assistant Registrar General. He believed that Thom's was supplied with its information in the same way as Dod's Parliamentary information was obtained—namely, directly from those whose names were inserted. An hon. Friend informed him that Thom's Almanack was a good deal more authoritative than Dod's Parliamentary Companion; and he certainly hoped its casual information was a little more accurate than that which sometimes appeared in Dod. Perhaps, however, the inaccuracies in the latter work arose from the fashion which Members of Parliament, as well as ladies, had of understating their ages.

believed that the last Government had inquired into the position of these men, and given promises that their position should be improved. Some years ago he had asked the Financial Secretary to see what could be done; but nothing satisfactory had yet resulted. The same complaints as those which were made in Ireland were made by the Scotch writers.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £16,593, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."

said, he observed, under this head, an item of £400 for the salary of the Solicitor to the Valuation and Boundary Survey in Ireland. He was bound to ask who this solicitor was? Was it Mr. George Bolton, a gentleman whose name had been frequently before the House? He also found by a foot note that the holder of this office in 1883–4 received an annual salary of £400 as Crown Solicitor for the County of Tipperary, paid out of the Vote for Law Charges in Ireland. They had, therefore, upon that record the fact that Mr. George Bolton received £800 in the course of last year from the public purse. He would like to know how, if Mr. George Bolton was Solicitor to this Department of the Valuation and Boundary Survey, and also Crown Solicitor for the County Tipperary, he found time to leave Tipperary and Dublin to go down to a gaol in the West of Ireland in company with a policeman in order to see a prisoner in his cell, who was said to have turned approver in a murder case? It was also remarkable that immediately after Mr. George Bolton's and the policeman's visit to that man he committed suicide, and was found hanging dead in his cell next day. He wished to know what connection this visit had with the functions of Mr. George Bolton as Solicitor to the Valuation and Boundary Survey Department, or as Crown Solicitor of the County of Tipperary? He would further ask for an explicit statement of the amount which this gentleman actually received per year from the public purse. It was said that his income amounted to some £2,000 or £3,000 a-year, besides which he received sums for law charges in criminal prosecutions. Probably his income was presented in such a shape that it was impossible to ascertain the actual amount of it. It was a matter of notoriety that he had contracted debts to the large amount of about £90,000, and that he was unable to offer his creditors a satisfactory composition. He had been fooling and deluding the Bankruptcy Court for a considerable time. He had repeatedly obtained leave to let some lands of his, and had pocketed the rents without giving the Court any security whatever. The Sheriff in Dublin had endeavoured without effect to levy a decree which had been obtained against this broken-down defaulter and evader of his duties and financial obligations, who was not only retained in the Public Service, but retained as a pluralist, and sent on a secret mission to an approver which resulted in suicide. This was the same gentleman who some years ago defrauded his own wife after he had deluded her into marrying him. He was reported and denounced by Mr. Justice Fry to the Lord Chancellor; but no notice was taken of it. It was sworn that he had drawn up a marriage settlement on his own behalf, the validity of which was impugned, and which was a gross attempt to defraud. This man, who had repeatedly deluded the Bankruptcy Court, conducted his domestic affairs in such a manner that the Sheriffs and Law Officers were utterly unable to seize even a chair or a table in order to execute one of the decrees obtained against him. He (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Friends near him would have to press for an answer to the question as to how much this man received from the public purse every year. He observed that the hon. and learned Solicitor General smiled.

I was not smiling at the observations of the hon. Member.

said, he thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman knew the full facts of the case all his influence—which undoubtedly was very great—would be brought to bear upon the case in order to free the Public Service from the stain of any connection with such a man. The reason he mentioned these facts was that he thought it would be desirable that the Government should take steps to allocate some of the money received from the public purse, in order to satisfy the creditors of a man who had perverted the administration of justice and made his own wife the victim of his frauds. It was, indeed, a remarkable thing that the chief engine for compelling other men to continue in the paths of legality and honesty should be himself the very embodiment of illegality and dishonesty. He had to ask how long would this system of dealing be allowed to last? Would the Government allow such a shameful parody upon public justice to continue, and allow such a man to pocket his salary as Crown Solicitor for Tipperary and all the special fees, and to evade payment of his debts by numerous discreditable ingenuities? Would no arrangement be made for the benefit of his creditors, for he maintained that the scandal had reached a height that could no longer be permitted. As a protest, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by£400, and, unless he received an assurance as to the arrangements which would be immediately made for the satisfaction of Bolton's creditors, it was the intention of the Irish Members to press the Motion with all the force they could. He believed when the action of the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin the other day was considered, it would be only reasonable that the Government should withdraw this portion of the Vote from the consideration of the Committee until the question of the character of Mr. George Bolton was decided in the same way that that of Gustavus Cornwall had been decided. Bolton had commenced an action against his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) in Belfast, and the trial was to come on in a day or two. The other day, when Bolton's case came before the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin, the Judge, after there had been numerous evasions of the orders of the Court, and after Bolton's ingenuity had been exerted to the utmost, instead of making him disgorge some of his ill-gotten gains for the benefit of his creditors, postponed the investigation of his affairs, because he thought that Mr. George Bolton would probably obtain damages in Belfast against his hon. Friend. The Solicitor General for England looked surprised; but his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) remarked that, however easy it might be to surprise the learned Solicitor General for England in regard to the administration of the Irish law, the Irish Members were too well acquainted with the matter to be surprised at anything. Suppose that a public official in England contracted debts to the extent of £90,000, that his action was impugned and stigmatized by questionable proceedings, that the time came when a public Court called upon him to make a disclosure of his debts and assets, and his capability of meeting his obligations, what would the learned Solicitor General think of that individual, having, at the dictation of his superiors, brought an action against a public journalist for an accusation well known to be true? Suppose that in such a case he had been allowed to delay the examination of his affairs, and to keep a veil closely drawn over his repulsive character, because the Judge said he had brought an action and might probably obtain damages. He thought the learned Solicitor General would say that the Judge had departed from that impartiality which was to have been expected from his office in order to prejudice the minds of the jury unfavourably, and to put a gloss upon the merits of the case which were not consistent with a fair trial. He thought that they had a strong claim to call for the postponement of the payment of such a person's salary until his character was decided, and until it could be shown that he was entitled to be retained as a public servant. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £400.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £16,193, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."—( Mr. Sexton. )

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo with regard to the postponement of this Vote until the trial. The trial would probably take place during the present week, and certainly before the Vote was likely to come up upon Report, even if it were passed now, and the House would then be in a position to judge what the nature of certain circumstances in connection with this official was. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bolton's character was about to be tried by a jury of his own selection. He had lodged an affidavit that there was only one county in Ireland in which he could hope to obtain a fair trial. This immaculate official, this manipulator of juries, this wire-puller in connection with all the trials by jury under the Prevention of Crime Act in Ireland, had himself deposited an affidavit, in which he declared upon oath that there was only one county in which he could obtain a fair trial of the action between himself and the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and that county happened to be the one in which it was well known the hon. Member had no influence whatever, and where the case would be tried by an Orange jury. He (Mr. Harrington) believed that upon that fact alone Bolton stood condemned. It showed that his character had fallen so low, that his depravity was so notorious, and his public life so well known and con- demned, that he himself declared that in 31 out of 32 counties of Ireland he could not hope to obtain a verdict; and that the only chance he had was to go to a place where the hon. Member for Mallow was personally disliked. Tomorrow they would be in a position to have Bolton's character decided by a jury of his own selection; and he submitted that, under the circumstances, they had an unanswerable claim to have the Vote postponed. Until they were in a position to know what the allegations made against Bolton were, and what the nature of his defence was, the House of Commons ought to withhold the payment of his salary. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo had stated the amount of this man's liabilities. As a public official he had been receiving some four or five different salaries, including £400 a-year as Solicitor to the Boundary and Valuation Survey, £400 a-year as Crown Solicitor for the County of Tipperary, with very large pickings through his friend Mr. Anderson, under the Prevention of Crime Act, which brought up his income to at least £1,500 or £2,000 a-year. He was the one man in whom the whole system of Crown prosecutions in Ireland was vested. His case was somewhat similar to that of James Ellis French, the late Head of the Criminal Detective Department of Ireland. That immaculate public servant was required to hunt out criminals, and, in order to do so, he reduced himself to the level of the lowest of them by the commission of the most horrible crimes. George Bolton was the man upon whom the Crown rested for the prosecution of criminals; and he (Mr. Harrington) would appeal to the fairness of English Members whether, seeing that, in the course of a few days, there would be a definite judgment as to this man's personal character from the one jury in Ireland with whom he dared to intrust his reputation—a jury selected and manipulated by himself—it was desirable to pass this Vote? How did it come to pass that the House were compelled from time to time to listen to the history of the private lives of Irish officials? No doubt, it was a most unpleasant thing, but it was a duty to be obliged to call attention to the private character of officials; but, unpleasant though it was, it was a duty which they owed to that House and to their constituents, for so long as men of Bolton's character were retained in the Public Service in Ireland so long would the people of that country have a hearty contempt for the character of the administration there by Her Majesty's Government. With salaries amounting to £1,500 or £2,000 a-year, this man, with no family, and without even a residence of his own, had become involved in debts to the extent of £90,000. And how did he propose to meet his engagements? For nearly 12 months past a suit had been pending against him in the Court of Bankruptcy, and day after day motions had been made to delay the proceedings. Bolton was simply dodging, just as James Ellis French attempted to dodge, the accusations made against him by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). The affidavit he had submitted to the Court of Bankruptcy was a most singular document. If such an affidavit had been presented in this country by a Government official, he did not think that such Government official would have been allowed to remain in the Public Service for 24 hours. His liabilities were £90,000, and on what did he ground his application for delay? He said, in his affidavit, that he had an action pending for libel against the hon. Member for Mallow, and that he hoped that action would bring him in such damages as would enable him to be in a better position to meet the claims of his creditors, and to make a better offer. Why, anything more monstrous, anything more ruffianly, he might almost say, than that affidavit had never been presented to a Court of Justice. In no country in the world would a Judge listen to, much less act upon, such an affidavit outside Ireland. It was really insulting the intelligence of hon. Members in that House to ask for a Vote for Mr. Bolton under the present circumstances, because he had brought his battered character into Court, and hoped, by a jury of his own selection, to get such a verdict as would enable him to make his creditors an offer of a few shillings more in the pound. To whom were they to vote this salary of £400? Was it to Mr. Bolton? In his (Mr. Harrington's) opinion, it ought to be voted to Mr. Bolton's creditors. Were they to vote money to a man who had hitherto failed to lead a decent or Christian life in order to enable him to de- fraud his creditors? This man did not deny that he had defrauded his wife; he did not deny the allegation that he had led an infamous life while married; but he said that, though he was guilty of every crime in the Decalogue, there was one crime of which he was not guilty, but it was a crime with which he was never charged; and yet upon that point he appealed to a jury of his own selection to give him damages, so that he might do something in order to satisfy his creditors. He was surprised that that Government had not long ago taken steps to expunge this man's name from the Votes. It was scandal enough that he should be connected with one Government Department; but there was scarcely a Vote in connection with the Irish Administration in which the name of George Bolton did not turn up. They knew very well that much they had to say against the Government of Ireland was due to the action of this man. They knew that he had been selected as the man to manipulate the juries whose panelling had given such great dissatisfaction—that he was a man who, standing up in a Court of Justice as Crown Solicitor, dared to insult men of the highest and best position in Dublin because he knew them to be possessed of religious feelings and a conscience. The very moment a Roman Catholic presented himself in the jury-box this was the moral man, this immaculate Government official, this man with a high sense of conscience, who insulted him and ordered him to withdraw, no matter how law-abiding a citizen he might be, no matter how high his social position, or even if he were in the Commission of the Peace. The reason was that he hesitated at nothing in order to secure his victim. But how could it be expected, when he displayed no conscientious scruples in his dealings with his own wife or his creditors, that he would manifest any in the discharge of his public duties? He did so because he wanted a verdict, he cared not how; because he wanted results, however obtained; and it was not surprising that he did so when his antecedents were borne in mind. No matter what complaints were made of the Government; no matter what charges they made against public officials in Ireland, and no matter how strong the evidence upon which they rested them, it would have no effect upon Members in that House, who by their votes practically said that the Irish Members were liars, until, after sacrificing time, energy, and money, like his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), they forced the truth of their statements upon reluctant English minds. They had a definite set of grievances to complain of. They were told of corruption under the American system of Government. No person could now be surprised at the statement of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), when he said that Ireland was the worst governed country in Europe. The hon. Gentleman might even have used stronger language to describe the state of things which prevailed; but he promised the hon. Member that as the Party to which he (Mr. Harrington) belonged grew in strength, and were able to grasp all that was occurring, they would drag into light a state of things that the hon. Member little dreamt of when he made that statement. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to reiterate the special charges against Mr. Bolton when he was called to Order by

, who said: The hon. Member is repeating the argument which he has already several times used in the course of his speech.

said, he was putting to the Secretary to the Treasury a question as to whether he would apply himself in this case to ascertaining whether the moral character of this man was such as reflected credit on the Department to which he belonged; whether the Department had taken any steps to mark the sense of their disapproval of his conduct; and whether they approved of the extraordinary affidavit which Bolton had made in the Bankruptcy Court? He asked the hon. Gentleman whether an official who was in debt to so large an extent, an official who had brought an action for libel against a Member of that House in order that, if he succeeded, he might be able to make a composition with his creditors, ought to remain in the Public Service? He asked if the hon. Gentleman had taken any steps to make known his sense of, or his disapproval of, the conduct of an individual who had presented such an affidavit as had been described? He hoped that a statement would be forth- coming from the Government Bench which would show to every official in the Public Service, whose character and whose conduct was as discreditable as that of Mr. Bolton's, that he would not be shielded by the Government.

said, he thought that, whatever else might be said with regard to this Vote, it was to be regretted that it afforded another opportunity of introducing the name of Mr. Bolton. It was unfortunate that the manner in which the Civil Service Estimates were made out caused his name to be so often referred to.

Unfortunate—unfortunate for the Government.

Strike his name out of the Estimates.

said, he would appeal to hon. Members, in view of the circumstance that the salary of this gentleman as Crown Solicitor for Tipperary was coming forward next week on the Vote for Law Charges, that this was a reason for deferring any observations they had to make with respect to Mr. Bolton until that Vote was reached. As the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) said that this official was bringing an action against the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) to vindicate his character—[Mr. KENNY: He has no character.]—and as that action was coming on that day or to-morrow, he would put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, in view of that fact, it would not be well to follow the course he had suggested? He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, seeing that this action was pending, it was making a judicious use of the time of the House to say, as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said, that every charge against Mr. Bolton was true; and again to say, as the hon. Member for Westmeath had said, that this official had broken every article of the Decalogue except in respect of some crime which he (Mr. Courtney) believed was not included in the Decalogue? He could not but think, in reference to some remarks that had been made, that the course then being pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite was highly inconvenient. There were two aspects of the case which were really pertinent to the discussion of the question; first of all, there was the question whether Mr. Bolton was or was not to be retained in the Public Service. And he thought that hon. Members ought to consider whether judgment on that question should not, at all events, await the decision of the action then pending, and whether the taking of any action in that House would not prejudice the decision of the jury, or prejudice any action which the Government might think fit to take after the conclusion of the trial. The second point was as to the relations existing between this official and his creditors. The hon. Member opposite said that Mr. Bolton had presented a Petition to the Court of Bankruptcy, and he asked him (Mr. Courtney) whether he had not received official notice of the affidavit filed by Mr. Bolton in the Court of Bankruptcy. He had not received any official notice on the subject, nor did he see how such notice could have been given to him. Had the matter come before him it might have been officially considered; but no such step, as far as he was aware, had been taken. But he must point out that this was a matter for the consideration of the Judge in Bankruptcy, who would in due course determine what Mr. Bolton must do in respect of his debts—what portion of his salary he must assign for his debts—but it was not the business of the Treasury to go into that question; they could not constitute themselves liquidators to Mr. Bolton's estate, or direct him in any way to make some arrangement with his creditors. The Treasury, it was true, might have to consider the question of retaining Mr. Bolton in office; they might have to consider the necessity of obeying an order of the Court of Bankruptcy with regard to his income if that order were made. But it was obviously a question for the Judge in Bankruptcy; and it was not for that House or for the Treasury to do anything that would prejudice the action-at-law which was then pending. Again, he would point out that this was a Vote of money for an Office, not necessarily for Mr. Bolton personally. It was a Vote of money for an Office, and it did not follow that it would be paid to Mr. Bolton. If he continued in the office the money might be paid to him; but he might have to resign his office, and the question might arise as to whether the money should be paid to his creditors. Further, the question as to retaining Mr. Bolton in the Public Service or dismissing him was one which might be raised, as he had before pointed out, on the Vote for Irish Law Charges, which would come on at the end of the week, or more probably at the beginning of next week, by which time the Government would be in possession of the view of Mr. Bolton's character taken by a Court of Law, which must necessarily command more respect than ex parte statements of hon. Members made in that House.

said, he thought there was no ground whatever for the postponement of this Vote, which might be interpreted and used at the trial as an ex parte expression of opinion by the Committee. He rose, however, for the purpose of putting a question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the Public Service, of which he had had at one time the honour of being a member. He (Mr. Arnold) held that the rule of the Public Service was that when a man presented a Petition in Bankruptcy he ceased to be a member of the Public Service, and he asked the hon. Gentleman whether that rule was still in force; because he was of opinion that if the rule did not now exist the sooner it was re-established the better it would be for the public interest. He did not hesitate to say that the character of the Public Service demanded that this should be the case. Further, he would take that opportunity of expressing his opinion that hon. Members on both sides of the House had abstained during that day's discussion very properly from any matters relating to the question at issue in the action now pending. He laid it down as a principle that if Mr. Bolton had presented a Petition in Bankruptcy, that fact ought to be sufficient to cause his suspension from the Public Service. The character of the Public Service demanded that the rule which existed in England should be carried out in Ireland; and if any hon. Member would move for the omission of Mr. Bolton's salary on that ground he should be happy to support him.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had pointed out that it would not be reasonable to ask for the postponement of this Vote, because it might be used at the trial as a partial expression of opinion by that Committee. But he (Mr. Gibson) thought that neither would it be reason- able to ask for a declaration of opinion on the part of the Committee on a Motion to reduce the Vote by the amount of Mr. Bolton's salary, which might with equal possibility be made use of in the course of the trial to-morrow. As far as he had read the papers, it appeared that no adjudication of bankruptcy had yet taken place.

I understand that he has himself presented the Petition.

asked the hon. Member for Salford to take his statement. He had read the report of the case in the public Press pretty closely, and from what had occurred he was not aware that Mr. Bolton's status before the law had been in the slightest degree altered in any respect whatever. Proceedings had been taken—no doubt those proceedings were pending; but no adjudication of bankruptcy had taken place.

Is there a Petition in Bankruptcy, or is there not?

said, he wished to record his own opinion of what had taken place, and, having said so much, he desired to make a few more remarks in support of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. It had been mentioned by those hon. Members who had spoken prominently in reference to this Vote that a trial of an important character would take place to-morrow in Belfast, in which trial Mr. Bolton was the plaintiff. Now, surely that was a circumstance which should make hon. Members in all parts of the House anxious to do nothing and to say nothing which might by a hair's-breadth affect the result of that trial. For his own part, he offered no opinion with reference to that trial one way or the other. It was an action for libel, in which Mr. Bolton claimed large damages for what was obviously, if it were well founded on fact, a grave and terrible charge. As to whether that charge was made he offered no opinion, and as to what should be the result of the trial he expressed no opinion whatever; it was obvious that all these questions should be left to the constituted tribunals. Much had been said in the course of the discussion which he thought might better have been left unsaid. With regard to the venue, which had been placed in Belfast, it was alleged that Mr. Bolton stated that in 32 counties in Ireland he could not get a fair trial. He (Mr. Gibson) was not aware that Mr. Bolton said anything of the kind. The question of venue was argued before the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland; and the Court, having heard the arguments, stated that the case of Mr. Bolton was that the defendant was editor of a newspaper which had a large circulation, and circulated much more in Dublin than in other parts of Ireland.

As I read the report, Lord Justice Barry said that Mr. Bolton stated he could not get a fair trial in 32 counties.

said, however that might be, it was not the point. He had read the reports of these legal proceedings in the Queen's Bench. When the Motion came on for hearing, the Judges decided that under the circumstances they were not at all at liberty to interfere with the plaintiff's selection of the venue in Belfast. The defendant was not satisfied, and he appealed to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, which consisted of so many able and eminent Judges, and the ruling of the Court was that they concurred in the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that they were not called upon in the interest of justice to interfere with the venue being changed from Belfast. It was said by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) that Lord Justice Barry made an observation in the course of the proceedings with reference to the number of counties in which it was alleged that Mr. Bolton could not obtain a fair trial. He was quite willing to accept any statement as to what occurred; but that eminent Judge did not in any way whatever dissent from the judgment of the Appeal Court, which, without question, sanctioned the exercise of the plaintiff's discretion in placing the venue in Belfast. Then it was alleged against Mr. Bolton that he had sworn a certain affidavit in the Bankruptcy Court, which affidavit had been described as infamous. He would not go into the question in detail; but he was bound to say in passing that it did not seem to him to be necessarily or in any respect infamous that a man should make a statement that a verdict was pending which might place him in possession of more funds than he had at present, and consequently enable him to make a better settlement with his creditors. But why was Mr. Bolton so obnoxious to attack on the part of Members below the Gangway? Was it because he was Crown Solicitor? Why, he had for years been a solicitor in Ireland; and he ventured to say that if he had been merely Crown Solicitor, getting not a large salary, or even Solicitor to another Department with a moderate salary for discharging the duties of his office, not one word would have been said against him in that House. He (Mr. Gibson) had had official relations with Mr. Bolton for many years; he had been directly connected with him as Crown Solicitor, and his experience was that Mr. Bolton was an able, energetic, and a judicious public servant, who endeavoured to perform his duty to the public without bringing any unfair pressure to bear against prisoners. That being so, he should be wrong if he withheld his testimony on the subject. Why was it, then, at that hour of the day, that this attack had been made on Mr. Bolton? Was it not largely because Mr. Bolton's services had been used by the present Government in the exercise of their official discretion to aid and assist them in most of the important prosecutions which had arrested public attention in Ireland during the last two or three years? He believed that was the case, and that Mr. Bolton's name as Crown Prosecutor had won for him an amount of unpopularity which but for that circumstance would not have attached to him. ["No, no!"] He believed that to be a fair observation, at the same time he should be very ready to accept any statement that proceeded from minds unprejudiced on the subject. He asked whether it was wise, reasonable, or just, having regard to the fact that a trial was about to take place in which Mr. Bolton was plaintiff, and in which the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was defendant, that anything should be done on either side of the House which would convey to the public the idea that there was a desire to prejudice the case in any way whatever. Mr. Bolton had not brought his action without advice and consideration. That must be clear to everyone. If it were a well-founded action, he was entitled to get a fair hearing; and if it were unfounded, and the jury were satisfied, the defendant was entitled to get his case heard with every impartiality. He did not discuss the merits of various observations made with reference to Mr. Bolton. He had alluded to them before, and it was not necessary to go into them again. But the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had pointed to one circumstance which was worthy of notice. It was said that this Vote should not be allowed to pass before the trial, because there might not be any other opportunity of discussing it after the trial, in the event of its being thought right, having regard to the result of the pending litigation, to take certain action. That point had, he thought, been met by the circumstance that there would be a Vote taken in the course of the next four or five days which included the salary of Mr. Bolton as Crown Solicitor, and which would afford ample opportunity of discussing the whole matter. He had, of course, no right to regulate the action of anyone in that House but himself, nor did he seek to do so; but he did not think it unreasonable, without expressing any feeling one way or the other, to say that it was not in consonance with the requirements of the position to have a discussion on the present Vote which might be calculated to lead to opinions being formed and expressed one way or the other on the very eve of the trial. The discussion then taking place would be reported in all the newspapers of to-morrow morning, amongst others the newspapers in Belfast, and for his own part he should be very sorry if anything should escape him to the prejudice either of the plaintiff or defendant, whose case would be decided very shortly upon the evidence given before a Judge and jury.

As I foresee another flood of easy declamation——

I must protest against this statement of the Secretary to the Treasury.

I certainly protest against it.

It is monstrous.

said, the question had been raised by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) as to the practice in the Civil Service under certain circumstances.

The question was raised as to whether Mr. Bolton had or had not presented the Petition in Bankruptcy?

said, he had understood the hon. Member for Salford to ask if it were not the rule in the Civil Service that a person who presented a Petition in Bankruptcy ceased ipso facto to be a member of the Civil Service? Further, he understood the hon. Gentleman to state that if that were not the rule at present, the sooner it was made so the better. He (Mr. Courtney) wished to state what was the practice in the Civil Service with respect to both England and Ireland. The rule was that if a person became bankrupt in England, Ireland, or Scotland, it did not matter which, he at once became liable to dismissal. But it was also the case that his dismissal depended entirely on the character of his bankruptcy. If the bankruptcy appeared to be the result of riotous living and extravagance, and if there was any suspicion of fraud, the man was, of course, dismissed. But the hon. Member would know that there were bankruptcies which involved no kind of moral guilt on the part of the individual. For instance, a person holding bank shares as a Trustee who became personally liable for a large amount of money through the failure of the bank might become bankrupt, and on the supposition that that gentleman was a member of the Civil Service, it would be monstrous to dismiss him under such circumstances. It remained to him to allude to an observation which had escaped him in jest, and for which he offered his apologies to his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)

said, he readily accepted the apology of his hon. Friend; but he was bound to say that he could not accept with satisfaction the statement with which he had met the complaints of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). He had a strong impression that the course taken by the Secretary to the Treasury had certainly led to a great waste of public time. They all knew that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland occupied a very different position in that House to that occupied by English Members. He regretted the necessity under which Irish Members lay of constantly calling attention in that House to grievances connected with Irish officials. They were in a peculiar position in that respect, for if any scandals such as hon. Members from Ireland had brought under the notice of the House were to occur amongst public officials in England, the Press of the country and the public opinion of the country would crush the offenders. In this case it was the voice of a few Irish Members who represented public opinion in Ireland that the Government had to listen to. He asked whether public opinion in Ireland affected Dublin Castle? Not at all. Was it not a fact that Irish Members had only that House in which to make their complaints, and was it not a fact that they came down night after night and brought to the knowledge of the House evidence that the whole of the Public Service in Ireland was honey combed with influences which were calculated to create a bad impression? They were told to wait the result of the trial pending. That, he supposed, was the action against the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien); but he would point out that, in all probability, there would be other actions brought against the hon. Member for Mallow by Government officials, and surely it could not be contended that hon. Members were to refrain from expressing their opinions upon the charges against Mr. Bolton until those actions had been decided. From their experience of what had already occurred, were they not to anticipate that the charges made by the hon. Member for Mallow had some foundation? He did not wish to prejudice the case in the slightest degree; he knew nothing about it; but he was bound to say that he had heard Questions put in that House over and over again with regard to Mr. Bolton's conduct, and that he had heard answers from the Treasury Bench which had impressed his mind with the belief that if any public official in England were made the subject of the imputations cast upon Mr. Bolton, the Government would have been bound to investigate those charges, and to have dismissed him in the event of their being found to be true. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said it was an unfortunate circumstance that this gentleman's salary appeared on the Votes in such a way as to afford an opportunity of frequently raising this question with regard to Mr. Bolton. Why, if it were not for that, there would be no opportunity of discussing Mr. Bolton's conduct as a public servant.

I only said that in a humorous sense. I said it was unfortunate that the name should appear twice.

said, if his hon. Friend considered the expression "unfortunate circumstance" was humorous, it did not give him that impression. He said that hon. Members from Ireland had no other chance than that which was offered by the discussion of the Estimates of controlling these matters in Ireland. They had no Parliament of their own; and, therefore, they came to that House and had to take advantage of the Votes to raise questions which deeply interested them and their constituents. He had felt constantly that English Members of the Imperial Parliament laboured under a serious disadvantage, from the fact that there was ground—serious ground—for the endeavours of Irish Members to direct attention in England to the state of affairs existing in Ireland. Now, he regretted that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not present. He thought his right hon. Friend ought to have been in his place when this Vote was under discussion. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland also was absent, although he had been in his place a short time ago. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury could not be expected to answer the questions put to him with regard to Mr. Bolton's position; he could not answer the question of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) as to whether the Petition in Bankruptcy had been presented by Mr. Bolton himself or by others. Well, his hon. Friend said that that did not affect the question. If a man were simply dragged into the Bankruptcy Court by having a Petition filed against him, there were answers which could be made to such a Petition, and it might, perhaps, be that the Court would refuse the application; but this was a very different position from that occupied by a man who went to the Court and proclaimed his own bankruptcy, and petitioned as a bankrupt. It was a fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Salford asked for information with regard to the presentation of the Petition in Bankruptcy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman oppo- site the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) gave his own impression of what had taken place; but the Secretary to the Treasury could not say whether any Petition had been presented by Mr. Bolton or not. Well, he (Mr. Rylands) had the best reasons for knowing that a Petition was presented by Mr. Bolton himself. But, whether that was so or not, what struck him was that from time to time a great deal had been brought before the House touching the conduct of this public official; and although he knew nothing personally about the matter, the impression he derived from the answers given to the Questions of Irish Members from the Treasury Bench was that it was the duty of the Executive to consider whether Mr. Bolton should be retained in office or not. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury told the Committee that there would be another opportunity after the trial had taken place of raising and discussing this question. So far, he was willing that the matter should remain over until the Vote for Irish Law Charges was reached. But although he did not dispute the argument of the hon. Gentleman that this £400 was required for the purposes of the Office, and that it would not necessarily be paid to Mr. Bolton, yet he could not agree that the Vote should be taken on that ground without discussion, because hon. Gentlemen who protested against the conduct of an employé would have no opportunity of making their voice heard unless they took advantage of the Votes as they came forward, for that was the only means of making known their grievances. He repeated that he should be willing to allow the matter to remain until the other Vote referred to had been reached, which, he believed, would afford an opportunity of deciding the question; and then, if the charges against Mr. Bolton were made good, he believed it would be quite possible to get the Committee to strike out the Vote for his salary. In conclusion, he deeply regretted that there should be a necessity for these constant representations on the part of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, which they were perfectly justified in bringing under the notice of the House, with regard to officials in Ireland who appeared to conduct themselves in a manner that was neither creditable to them- selves nor for the advantage of the people of Ireland.

said, he thought it was unfortunate that they should be obliged to carry on a discussion involving the conduct and character of an important Irish official in the absence of the Minister who was chiefly acquainted with and responsible for affairs in Ireland—that was to say, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He thought the absence of the right hon. Gentleman was all the more regretable because the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had pleaded, in the course of the discussion, that he had not been officially informed as to the position of Mr. George Bolton before the Court of Bankruptcy. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, as the Parliamentary Head of the Department, officially informed of Mr. Bolton's affairs, and there could be no doubt that had he been in his place on that occasion he would have been able to enlighten the Committee with regard to them; but, as he was not present, he thought there was an additional reason for the postponement of the Vote. Notwithstanding that he knew the right hon. Gentleman was very much overworked by his labour in that House, he was bound to say that he considered his absence greatly to be regretted. Although he had a serious objection to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), he took the liberty to point out that it would be well if the Secretary to the Treasury would induce himself to imitate the Parliamentary method of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, whenever he had anything to say, made his argument needlessly offensive. There were circumstances, of course, in which the phrase "easy declamation" might be used; but it should be remembered that the retention of Mr. Bolton in his official position was well calculated to excite in the minds of Irish Members indignation; and before the hon. Gentleman accused them of indulging in "easy declamation" on that subject, he thought he should consider the propriety of retracting his ill-considered phrase about "unfortunate conscientiousness" with which the Estimates were drawn up. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have preferred a system under which Mr. Bolton's salary could be buried out of sight, and not appear on the Estimates at all. He thought the phrase unfornate, and one which could not be explained away by any reference to humour. It was a very unfortunate humour, which misled the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had accused them of want of impartiality and want of due regard for the raising of the character of debate in that House, by their attacking the character of a man who was a party to the action to be tried to-morrow. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a skilful debater, and was accustomed with great force to urge his advice upon that House; but his (Mr. Sexton's) complaint was that his whole speech was saturated with the effort to defend the character of Mr. Bolton. He had accused hon. Members on those Benches because they brought forward what they claimed to be facts, while he spoke of the industry, zeal, and energy of Mr. Bolton in such a manner as by oblique means to convey to the jury that a verdict should be found in his favour. Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why Mr. Bolton had been singled out for attack, and he said it was on account of the manner in which he had conducted certain prosecutions. He (Mr. Sexton) repelled with all his force the accusation that any man on those Benches had attacked Mr. Bolton because of any special energy or vigour that he had displayed in the discharge of his duties. There were plenty of other men in Ireland who displayed energy and ability. Was Mr. Cornwall singled out, because he had energy and ability, which he displayed in the interest of the State? No. Mr. Bolton had been singled out, as Mr. Cornwall had been singled out because he had committed offences which rendered his retention in a Public Office a scandal; and he (Mr. Sexton) asserted for himself and his hon. Friends that so long as any official in Ireland conducted himself properly he would never be attacked from those Benches, but that when such official misconducted himself he would be made the object of attack in the manner which he deserved, and in that manner only. The fact was left out of view that for many years the main features of Mr. Bolton's life had been matter of notoriety. It mattered little whether a Petition to the Bankruptcy Court had been presented by him or against him, the fact being notorious that he owed £90,000, that he would not or could not pay 1 d. of that money, that the Sheriff of Dublin could not execute a decree of 6 d. against him, and that he had repeatedly evaded the order of the Court with respect to the land which he possessed. Hon. Members on those Benches were blamed for anticipating the merits of the trial which would take place to-morrow. Upon that he desired to make two observations. First, they were there as the Representatives of the people, and they said that the public interest concerned in the retention of a man of this character in an important office in the Public Service was infinitely greater than the interests either of the plaintiff or defendant in the case to be tried to-morrow. If there were any obligation upon them to be discreet and reserved in their language, how much greater was that obligation upon the Judges on the Irish Bench? But had they set an example of discretion and reserve? Why, on the very motion for changing the venue in the action against his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), when his hon. Friend pleaded that his life would not be safe in Belfast, one of the Judges observed that he would be as safe in Belfast as at church—that was to say, if he ever went to church. That was the impartiality, that was the reserve of the Judicial Bench in Ireland, exhibited by a Judge when he was sending his hon. Friend, a Catholic in creed, to be tried by a Protestant jury in a Protestant Court at Belfast; when it was known that there was no man who stood higher in social character and with regard to the observances of his creed than the hon. Member for Mallow. So much for one of the Judges. Again, when this Petition came before Judge Walsh, the other day, although in the ordinary course of law the affairs of Mr. Bolton should have been laid before the public at that moment, the Judge granted him delay and gave him immunity until the trial was over, because, as he said, Mr. Bolton had brought an action against Mr. O'Brien, and there was a probability that he might obtain a ver- dict. That was another example of judicial impartiality and reserve on the part of the Irish Bench. When Judges behaved in that manner, were they, the Irish Members, to be accused for taking advantage of an occasion when it arose for denouncing an individual in the interests of the public? It appeared to him extraordinary on the part of the Government that they should expect Irish Members to forego discussion on Mr. Bolton's salary in this Vote on the ground that a trial was to take place. It was no fault of theirs that the trial had been fixed for to-morrow; the succession of time and events was not the work of Irish Members, and if the Government did not want the discussion with regard to Mr. Bolton to come on they could very easily have avoided it. Nothing more was necessary than to withdraw the Vote. But they had not done that, and therefore he said that if the interests of justice were involved in what had occurred or would occur in the course of the discussion, upon the Government, and not upon hon. Members on those Benches, rested the blame. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said he was not officially informed on the subject of Mr. Bolton's affairs. He thought the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of such an admission.

said, his statement was that the Treasury had no official information with regard to the affidavit of Mr. Bolton in the Court of Bankruptcy.

contended that, when the salary of an official in Ireland was brought before the House, it was not creditable that an official charged with defending the Vote should be unable to inform hon. Members with respect to a transaction intimately connected with the character of the individual for whom the money was asked, and consequently intimately connected with the question as to whether that individual should be retained in the Public Service. He asked upon what principle of justice, when hon. Gentlemen on those Benches requested to be informed whether or not George Bolton had petitioned to be made a bankrupt, and whether or not his creditors had petitioned the Court against him, they were to be told that his salary was to be passed in that Committee without their questions being replied to, and without any answer to the question of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) and the remarks of other hon. Members as to whether a man would any longer be retained in the Civil Service who had presented a Petition, or against whom a Petition in Bankruptcy had been presented? He said they were entitled to receive from Her Majesty's Government the fullest information as to the state of Mr. Bolton's affairs. He could assure the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that no sarcasm of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), no specious pleas delivered in sympathetic language, would prevent him or his hon. Friends taking advantage of every Constitutional opportunity that presented itself for criticizing the conduct of officials in Ireland. There might be another Vote to come forward next week, on which this question of Mr. Bolton could be raised; but Irish Members were so used to the manipulation of these matters by the Government, and to the devious course which they were in the habit of pursuing, when the conduct of their officials was called in question, that he would not be surprised, when the Vote for the Crown Solicitors came on next week, if they were told that Mr. George Bolton had been promoted for distinguished services; that he was no longer a Crown Solicitor, and that his conduct must not be discussed on the Vote at all. They were, he repeated, so accustomed to the procedure of the Government in cases of this kind, that, no matter how they were accused, they should do their duty, as Representatives of the people, and ask for no excuse for their mode of criticizing the personal conduct of officials in Ireland.

said, he could not congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury on the method of his replies. He had himself put a simple question to the hon. Gentleman as to whether Mr. George Bolton had or had not presented a Petition to the Court of Bankruptcy? He had asked the hon. Gentleman, also, whether he had any authority for believing that he had done so, and had added that if Mr. George Bolton had presented a Petition to the Court of Bankruptcy, he ought, like any other public servant, to be immediately suspended, and probably dismissed. But the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had presumed to meet that statement by a reference to "easy declamation," and by what he ventured to call humour. Now, he (Mr. A. Arnold) had a very strong opinion that the present was not an occasion for humour; and, moreover, although he had the highest respect for the character of his hon. Friend, he should have thought he would have been the last man in that House, when the conduct of a public servant was called in question, to attempt a rôle for which he was singularly unfited—namely, that of humourist. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman could not give him an answer to the simple question as to whether this official, Mr. Bolton, had petitioned the Court of Bankruptcy? From information he (Mr. A. Arnold) possessed, he believed that was the case; and feeling, as he did, that in this matter Her Majesty's Government had acted with neglect in not immediately suspending Mr. Bolton from the Public Service, he should vote on the Division with hon. Gentlemen opposite.

said, he did not very much like the manner of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold) in wishing to go to a Division immediately after his attack on the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He (Mr. Warton) was no friend of the Government, or of the Secretary to the Treasury; but he was bound to say that the hon. Gentleman had on that occasion been unfairly attacked by the hon. Member for Salford and others in the course of the debate. He (Mr. Warton) felt, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's allusion to humour, that it was a harmless and pleasant joke. He was surprised that Irishmen should have failed to perceive the harmless little jest of the Secretary to the Treasury—their minds, it would seem, having for the occasion sunk to a Scotch level. There were, of course, exceptions to the rule, and the perception of a joke was not given to all; but there was no excuse for Irishmen in a matter of this kind, and he thought it was wrong for them to take hold of an innocent observation which must have been so understood by almost everyone who heard it. With regard to the attitude assumed towards this question by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he must say that he had never listened to a more unblushing Electioneering speech made by anyone in the prospect of a Dissolution. He thought there must be a great number of Irish voters in Burnley, or the hon. Member would not have said he regretted that Ireland had not a Parliament of her own. He believed that all English Members were in favour of the Union.

said, he had expressed no regret that Ireland had not a Parliament of her own.

said, it was true that the hon. Member for Burnley had not used the word regret; but he had asked what the Irish people could do, and said that Ireland had no Parliament of her own. That certainly was as much as to say that he regretted the fact that Ireland had no Parliament of her own; and he supposed the hon. Member's remark was intended for the Irish electors of Burnley. It was the first time during the present Session that they had heard the hon. Member announce his intention of voting against the Government in view of the approaching Election. With regard to Mr. Bolton's case, he was strongly of opinion that he ought to be retained as Public Prosecutor, because he held the threads of so many conspiracies in his hands. And he thought Her Majesty's Government would be justified in retaining him even if he had presented a Petition to the Court of Bankruptcy, which men often did with a view to arranging their affairs, after they had time to look around them, and especially on the ground that against Mr. Bolton, as Public Prosecutor, no charge had been or, he was convinced, could be made.

said, he wished, on behalf of himself and other hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, to protest against the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down that Mr. Bolton should be retained in the office under discussion, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had alleged, there was no charge against him as Crown Prosecutor. They were not discussing in Committee that day Mr. Bolton's conduct as Crown Prosecutor. If that question were to be raised, it would be raised at the proper time. Their whole case at that moment was whether Mr. Bolton's personal character was such that he could no longer be continued with decency as a servant and official of Her Majesty's Government. That was the whole point under discussion. He did not deem it necessary to go into the rather unworthy suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport with regard to the attitude taken up on this question by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold). He would simply express his conviction that it was no small personal matter, such as the hope of securing a few votes, that made those hon. Gentlemen speak as they had done that day on the Vote before the Committee. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that they had witnessed that afternoon an opposition of a serious kind, indeed, to the attitude of the Government towards their subordinates, started by hon. Members opposite, and not by hon. Members on those Benches. That, he said, was a most significant fact. He knew it was a circumstance which would be marked with considerable satisfaction in Ireland, and he thought it was one which ought to act as a warning to the Head of Her Majesty's Government, who happened to be present on that occasion. Whenever a Napoleonic demonstration took place in Paris, the Republican journals took care to point to the fact that there were certain absentees from the demonstration, the reason being that most of those gentlemen had found their way inside the walls of gaols for conduct which, at other times, would perhaps have secured them reward. If any similar demonstration were hereafter to take place in Ireland, it might be that a large number of highly-rewarded officials in power there would find themselves in gaol for misconduct which had been allowed to pass unchecked. Apart from their strong political differences, Irish Members had a strong personal regard for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. For his own part, he considered him an official who acted indiscriminately, and often unwisely; but with regard to the right hon. Gentleman himself, most persons would agree with him when he said that they had for him the greatest respect as an honourable and high-minded gentlemen. What was the position in which the right hon. Gentleman was placed? When he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) saw the right hon. Gentleman in that House haggard, and weary, and distressed every day of his life, because of the association he was brought into with loathsome criminals, he maintained it was a position in which a gentleman like himself ought never to be allowed to be dragged into; but the uprising of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Irish) side of the House against the right hon. Gentleman as to his contact with officials in Ireland, was to save him, and other Englishmen in Ireland, from the stain and stigma of associating with these evil criminals in Ireland. The Vote was £400 for George Bolton, and the statement of Irish Members was this—that George Bolton ought not, and could not, be retained as an official of any Government who had a respect for itself, or a respect for the decencies of life. That was their whole case. What were their proofs in favour of that position? The Secretary to the Treasury must think that the House had been asleep for the past four years. The hon. Gentleman rose up and raised a question as to facts which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought had passed altogether into the domain of historical and undisputed facts. The charges the Irish Members brought against George Bolton were supposed by the hon. Gentleman to be supported merely by their ipse dixit. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), supposed that the attacks of the Irish Members on Mr. Bolton were because of his efficiency as a Crown Solicitor. Why, the main charge on which they relied was with regard to what had happened in 1876, before the present Irish Party in the House was thought of. The charge brought against Mr. Bolton was not made by a politician or an Irishman, but made by the deliberate judgment of an Englishman in an English Court of Law—in a judgment by Mr. Justice Fry, who charged Mr. Bolton in two characters—namely, as a solicitor and as a husband. These charges had not been, and could not be, denied by Mr. Bolton, either in one character or the other; and they should at once have disqualified him from any further employment under a decent and self-respecting Administration. What were the charges? Why, George Bolton married a lady of considerable fortune; she asked him to draw up a deed that would give her control of her property; but betraying his trust as a solicitor, and also the more sacred duty of a husband, this man drew up a deed giving himself the disposal of her property, denuding her, in fact, of all she possessed. He drew up a deed giving himself the right of disposing of her property, and the right he so obtained he had carried to the extent of dissipating a very considerable amount of that unfortunate lady's wealth. There were several other charges against Mr. Bolton's moral character, but into these matters he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not wish to go—charges affecting the character of the man which his official superiors were now considering, and which, in the case of an English official, they always did consider on the earliest possible occasion. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) contended that no Government, however much stronger than the one which at present controlled the destinies of this country, would dare to keep in office, for one week in England, an official against whom a Judge of the land had pronounced such a damning opinion as that pronounced by Mr. Justice Fry, in 1876, against Mr. Bolton. Take the second point. The Irish Members said that a man who had presented a Petition in Bankruptcy had no right to remain in the service of the Government. On the other side, it was declared that a Petition had not been presented by Mr. Bolton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had, he thought, made a strong point of that—that the Petition was not presented by himself, but by some of his creditors. But, as a matter of fact, the Petition was presented by Mr. Bolton himself, and at that moment that man was in the position of being liable for £90,000, the debts for which he was unable to make anything like a decent provision. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had got up and asked this very simple question, to which aye or no could have been easily given—namely, whether in this country an official who presented a Petiton in Bankruptcy would not have been at once suspended until the case was decided? The Secretary to the Treasury could not deny that that was the rule.

I beg pardon; I stated exactly what the situation was. Whether Mr. Bolton presented the Peti- tion himself, or whether the Petition was presented by others, I stated that the fact of a declaration of bankruptcy rendered a person liable to instant dismissal.

Why do not you dismiss him then?

Allow me to finish my sentence. I say, whoever presents the Petition, the fact of a declaration of bankruptcy against a public official renders him liable to instant dismissal. That applies to England and Ireland. There is an official examination into the affairs of such a public servant to determine the character of the bankruptcy. If it appears that the bankruptcy results from riotous living and improvidence, or, still more, if there is anything of fraud in the case, dismissal is absolute; but if, as may happen, a man became bankrupt through no fault of his own, but who, for instance, is in the unfortunate position of holding shares in an unlimited bank which has failed, and become liable to the extent of all he possesses for the debts of the bank, it would be a cruel and unjust thing to dismiss him. In the present case, we are waiting for the decision as to the character of the bankruptcy before we decide upon what course to follow.

said, he had a clear recollection of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and he now merely repeated what he had said before. No doubt, the rule laid down by the hon. Gentleman as to the dismissal of public servants, and their retention in office in cases of bankruptcy, was a thoroughly just and equitable rule for the conduct of the Heads of Departments in dealing with their subordinates. Lest he should misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, he wished to ask him whether it was not the fact that, pending the decision of Bankruptcy Petitions, officials were not subject to suspension from the performance of their duties?

Not necessarily.

But as a rule?

I do not think any rule could be laid down upon this subject; it is a matter for the discretion of the Heads of Departments.

said, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), who had a larger experience of the Civil Service even than the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, informed him that the rule and practice was that when an official had presented a Petition in Bankruptcy, he was suspended until the character of the Petition was decided. Well, had George Bolton been suspended?

No.

said, that that being so, he accepted the very just and honourable distinction the hon. Gentleman had drawn of different forms of bankruptcy. A man might be innocent, and a man might be guilty; everyone knew that. He would take the definition of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had said that a bankruptcy which arose from riotous living would be a kind of bankruptcy which would compel the Head of a Department to get rid of his subordinate. Riotous living! That was exactly the charge which had been established up to the hilt against George Bolton; a charge which had been established over and over again—which had been established judicially by the Judgment of Mr. Justice Fry as far back as 1876. Mr. Justice Fry delivered such a philippic against the character of Mr. Bolton, which, if any Irish Member had uttered in that House, would have caused the Chairman to call him to Order. Riotous living was the real cause of the bankruptcy of George Bolton; and yet this man, with all these charges on his head, was defended by an English Gentleman like the Secretary to the Treasury in that House, because it was supposed to be a canon in Ireland that every English official, however dirty he might be, was a tool clean enough to perform the function of administering in Ireland. That appeared to him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to be a discreditable and disgraceful state of things. The Irish Members were quite willing to discuss the present relations between England and Ireland in their purely political aspect; but he declared this, that if they were as strong friends of the existing relations between England and Ireland as the bitterest Tory in this country, nothing could be produced more calculated to engender amongst them disgust of the Administration than the unfortunate attitude taken by the Government with regard to the action of officials in Ireland. He would go back to the illustration with which he commenced. If there were an overflow of the existing political relations between England and Ireland similar to the overflow which occurred in France some 14 years ago, where would be the troop of officials who were now screened, defended, and protected by English Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench? From Cornwall to French, down to Bolton and one or two others he could name, they could produce in Ireland a gallery of celebrities in infamy who would form a most worthy addition to Madame Tussaud's "Chamber of Horrors."

said, that considering the strong feeling that existed in Ireland on this subject, it seemed to him most desirable that all officials in this country should be entirely above suspicion. Now, what was the case with respect to Mr. Bolton? In 1876 or 1877 a Judge had himself reported, in respect to a trial to which Mr. Bolton was a party, that that gentleman had thoroughly misconducted himself. That report was made to the Lord Chancellor; and, that being so, one would suppose that Mr. Bolton would have been at once dismissed from the Public Service. He was not dismissed, however; he was retained; and what was the consequence? Why, the consequence was that Mr. Bolton, who at that time was stated by the Judge to have got into difficulties, and very serious difficulties, owing to riotous living, had now presumably spent more than he possessed, and had presented a Petition in Bankruptcy. It was said on the one side that he had presented it himself, and on the other that it had been presented by his creditors; but that was not the question. The question was, whether he was in a state of bankruptcy or not? Mr. Bolton had to admit himself that he was. If, therefore, the Committee were to vote this salary, they would be presenting a Bill of Indemnity to Mr. Bolton. Looking at the fact that he was Crown Solicitor, he ought, at least, to be suspended from his important duties until the question of bankruptcy was decided in a Court of Law. The Secretary to the Treasury told them that Mr. Bolton could not be suspended until a decision was come to, and the man was declared a bankrupt in the Court. But they all knew how proceedings were delayed in the Bankruptcy Court. The proceedings in this case might be delayed for five years.

No, no.

They may be delayed two years.

The estate may be in course of winding up for many years; the settlement of the assets may occupy a considerable period; but the question of bankruptcy may be tried in a few weeks and settled in a few months.

Then, are we to understand that during these few weeks this gentleman, who occupies the position of Crown Solicitor in Ireland, and who, by his own admission, is a bankrupt, will not be superseded? I believe he ought to be.

said, that hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were put in a considerable amount of difficulty at that moment. If these charges were true—they had no means of judging as to whether they were or not; but they were so notorious, that surely the Government should know whether they were true or not—and if they were true, what were they asked to do? They were asked to vote £400 to this gentleman; and if, as he said, the charges were true and the Vote were passed, it would be one of a most immoral character; and certainly Radical Members, friends of the Government though they were, ought not to permit themselves to be dragged through the mire as to vote a sum of money to a man who had been guilty of such conduct. A man who had been guilty to only half the extent described by hon. Members taking part in that debate ought not only to be superseded now, but he ought to have been superseded long ago. He ought to have been superseded in 1876. He did hope that the Government would take them into their confidence. The only way out of the difficulty was for the Government to promise now that Mr. Bolton should be suspended—he did not think, on grounds of common morality, any other course was open to them. Suppose a report of such a transaction as that came from America or some other country, they would take it as an example of the character of the Government of such country; and he, therefore, as a matter of common respectability, as a question of vindicating the purity of the administration of the Government, asked that someone in a responsible position should now give a promise that this gentleman should be susperseded until the result of the bankruptcy proceedings was known. He trusted that the Government, for the sake of their supporters on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, to say nothing of the Irish Members, would agree to that course. If they did not, they who were in the habit of bearing these charges brought against officials by Irish Members, and were in the habit of hearing them denied by the Treasury Bench, and who had no means, speaking generally, of knowing which side was right, would have to give credence to the case submitted by the Irish Representatives. As a rule, when cases of this kind came up, there was a difficulty of judging which side was right, and English Members were apt to believe in the Government case; but unless the Government acted in the interests of decency and morality in this case, for the future English Members would be apt to believe there was an equal amount of truth in all the charges brought against Irish officials. He earnestly hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would treat this as a serious matter, and would give the desired pledge.

said, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) was not in the House when he (Mr. Courtney) had made his statement a short time ago. He must apologize to hon. Members who were present at the time for any repetition he might make; but he would very succinctly state what his view of the matter was. The Vote was for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, and included an item for the Solicitor to this Department. It did not at all follow, by sanctioning this Vote, that this money, or any part of it, would go to Mr. Bolton. The question to the Government really was the payment of the salary to the Office, and the money might go to Mr. Bolton's successor. He admitted that that in itself would not be a sufficient plea for asking for a suspension of action on this Vote; but he had put two other circumstances before the Committee. The affairs of Mr. Bolton were now really before two Courts of Law£one the Bankruptcy Court, and the other the Court of Nisi Prius, before which an action would be tried tomorrow. Moreover, Mr. Bolton's name would come before the Committee again in relation to the Vote for Law Charges. It would come before the Committee either at the end of this week or the beginning of next; and what he put to hon. Members opposite, and what he put, with great confidence, to the Committee now, was that they should let this Vote pass, as it did not imply any payment to Mr. Bolton, but merely a payment to the office-holder, whoever he might be. The holder of the office, to whom the money would have to be paid, might not necessarily be Mr. Bolton. Mr. Bolton might be superseded or dismissed, and, in that case, the money would be paid to his successor. The mere voting of this money was no sanction on the part of the Committee of the retention of Mr. Bolton in the Public Service. They would have an opportunity of considering this question, as he pointed out, at the end of this week or the beginning of next, when the Vote for Law Charges was brought forward, and when Mr. Bolton's salary as Crown Solicitor of Tipperary was proposed. By the time that Vote was reached there would, at least, have been a decision given in the case now pending in the Nisi Prius Court.

said, he must point out to the Committee that the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was altogether beside the question. What would be tried in the Nisi Prius Court tomorrow? Why, the issue was this—William O'Brien had made a series of charges against George Bolton. He had said to him—"You are a thief; you are a forger; you are a swindler; you are an adulterer." Mr. Bolton says—"You have coupled me with the name of French and Cornwall, and that is tantamount to an accusation of being guilty of unnatural offences;" therefore, the question to be tried tomorrow was not whether Mr. Bolton was a thief, a swindler, and so on, but whether his name being coupled with those of French and Cornwall meant, in addition to his other crimes, that he was guilty of unnatural offences. That was the only issue that would be submitted to a jury tomorrow. He (Mr. Healy) was surprised to see the Secretary to the Treasury attempting to prejudice the minds of English Gentlemen, who could not be so well acquainted with the matter as were the Irish Members, by a miserable shift of this kind. They were told it was not certain that Mr. Bolton's Petition had been presented by him.

The question does not turn on that.

said, what did the Chief Secretary answer when he had put the matter to him? Why, that the Government had driven Bolton into bankruptcy. So that it was the Government who had compelled him to arrange a settlement with his creditors; and there being no other way of arrangement, he had taken refuge in bankruptcy. He (Mr. Healy) would warn the Government of this. The Chief Secretary had brought upon himself grave censure for the manner in which he had winked at the delay in bringing the case of French to an issue; the evidence had turned out to be of a terrible character; if the right hon. Gentleman had known what that evidence was, he would not have made the bold statement he did in reply to the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). What was the case of the Secretary to the Treasury now? Why, his position was this—that George Bolton might succeed, before a jury of Orangemen, in securing a verdict for £30,000 against William O'Brien. That would be accepted by his creditors, and then there would be no bankruptcy at all. They had had the experience of the Cornwall and French case. The Government would not suspend or dismiss these officials, and they would not allow a discussion, because there was a libel action pending, and because they said it would prejudice the case; but, in spite of that, a jury of Dublin, on which there were five Orangemen, had found it impossible to go beyond the facts, and had been obliged to give a verdict for his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). The Secretary to the Treasury now placed himself in exactly the same position as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with regard to Cornwall and French. He said—"I have the assurance of Judge Walsh that the defendant has a good case—wait till he has had his 'pound of flesh'—wait until the Orange jury has given him £30,000, and there will then be no necessity for Bolton to go into the Bankruptcy Court." The hon. Gentleman was making himself to that extent an accomplice of George Bolton, because, by insisting upon this Vote in the House of Commons, in the face of a Belfast jury, who would be only too willing to take a wink from hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, he would be practically giving a vote of whitewash to George Bolton. They were supposed in that House of Commons to be all honourable men. Some people said they were not—he was not referring to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was said that hon. Members on those (the Irish) Benches were not honourable men. But the Belfast jury would say—"Are we to suppose that the House of Commons, composed of the first Gentlemen in England, knowing the character of Mr. Bolton—are we to suppose that, though it is said this man is stamped with the brand of infamy, the House of Commons, having able debaters amongst them, and having discussed this question, would have passed this Vote unless they knew this man was maligned by these Nationalists?" What stand had the Government to take? The Prime Minister had rebuked him (Mr. Healy) last year for what he had said on a Vote somewhat similar to this. He had said, with regard to Crown prosecutions in Ireland, that it was a great misfortune that the Government could get no one to give evidence for them, except persons of a discreditable character. The Prime Minister had declared that he was very wrong in pointing that out, as he ought to have known that no one would think of deciding cases on the evidence of people of disreputable character. But what were they to think when the very founts of justice were poisoned by such scoundrels as Bolton? The Government wanted Irish Members to admire their administration, and to proclaim themselves at one with them, and yet, from their Detective Director and Post Office Secretary, down to George Bolton the Crown Solicitor, they chose the most infamous scoundrels and rascals they could lay their hands on for the transaction of official business in Ireland. They had divided on this Vote last year. The Irish Members had got no satisfaction from hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he was glad to think that, after all, the words of the Irish Members had not been wasted. It was consoling to them to know that even now, at the eleventh hour, the consciences of hon. Gentlemen opposite were stricken. The Irish Members had spent many an hour in vain in urging these cases on the attention of the House. They had not, in the past, obtained a single vote in support of their proposals; but even water wore away stones, and at last the Irish Members had succeeded in making some impression on the hearts and consciences of hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the Government's own followers began to repudiate and become ashamed of the officials of the Government, it was time for the Administration to take warning. The Secretary to the Treasury told them that the name of this man Bolton would come up again. Yes, it would come up again and again, because there was scarcely a penny of money voted in the Irish Departments but George Bolton had a finger in the pie; he was a pluralist of the most alarming description. There was an item for him in the Vote under discussion; he was Crown Prosecutor for the county of Tipperary; he was Under Crown Prosecutor for the county of Dublin—wherever there was a dirty job to be done in Ireland, George Bolton was there to do it. Probably, that was on the principle that, wherever dirty work was to be done they should have a dirty man to do it. But, however that was, such was the fact. Was it possible that the Government of Ireland, the British Government, the Government of the Queen had sunk so low that they could not get a decent man connected with any other Irish Department? Was that their position? Was Irish official nature absolutely fallen so low that out of the multitude of West Britons in the country they could not get one single man with a decent, honest, and sweet reputation? Was that the position of the Government, and, if it were, why were hon. Members obliged to make these references? Ought they not rather to be delighted to have the opportunity of clearing out their nest of vipers which was looked upon with the deepest hatred in the country—that nest of vipers which had stung the people to madness, and who, to a large extent, were responsible for the way in which the Government was regarded in Ireland? What was the last act they had heard of in connection with these men? Why, an unfortunate creature who had been driven to accept the position of informer had absolutely hanged himself, through remorse, in his cell. That unhappy occurrence had taken place immediately after Bolton's visit to him; like Judas, immediately the man had betrayed his friend, he hanged himself. This man Bolton went round prosecuting his dark designs, setting father against son, and husband against wife; arresting whole families, playing upon the remorse of human nature and the ties of family affection. He went like a serpent from one person to another, getting up cases, caring nothing so long as he pocketed the blood-money. By retaining such a man in the Service, they were putting a premium on crime, they were rewarding the man whose interest it was to keep up the harvest of crime in Ireland. So long as it was profitable to a man like Bolton to have criminal trials so long would these criminal trials continue. George Bolton made money out of them. It was as much a portion of his trade to obtain this blood-money as it was of any honest handycraftsman to obtain a day's work. Crime! Bolton gloated over it, delighted in it. When the country was happy, George Bolton was miserable; when the country was criminal, George Bolton was delighted. That was the man the Government employed; that was the person who swindled his creditors out of £90,000, who was condemned by an English Judge as a ruffian and as a person who ought not to be continued in any Public Department—that was the man whom an English Judge had recommended to be struck off the rolls. And yet for that man the Government asked them not only to vote this £400, but to come down some days later and vote him some further hundreds. He was not surprised that the Chief Secretary had fled from the Treasury Bench; it was convenient for him to leave this case to Gentlemen who knew less about George Bolton than he did. The right hon. Gentleman had already burned his fingers in defending Cornwall and French. He (Mr. Healy) ventured to say that the next time an Irish official was attacked in that House the right hon. Gentleman would not be so keen to come forward in his defence. Not a single representation that the Irish Members had made had ever received the slightest attention from the Government. They had pointed out again and again the state of corruption in which Dublin Castle was steeped; but it was some satisfaction to them to know that English Radicals at last had had their consciences touched, and whatever the Government thought about it, they and their constituencies would support the Irish Members in this matter.

said, no man in that House disliked despotic government more inveterately than the humble Member who now addressed them, yet the hon. Members from Ireland who sat near him must forgive him if he asked them for a moment to consider whether they had not contributed to the state of things in Ireland which had compelled Parliament to supersede the operation of the Common Law by investing the authorities in Ireland with despotic power, one instrument of which was this Mr. Bolton, the Public Prosecutor, whose character and conduct those hon. Members had vied with each other in painting in the blackest colours? It was, indeed, a pretty pass, according to their version, to which they had brought matters in Ireland. Bad as the state of things might have been and might be, he (Mr. Newdegate), who had often been accused of supporting too severe laws for Ireland, preferred the government by law to the abuses of despotic power, which he, in common with the hon. Members near him, deprecated. The case of Mr. Bolton, however, involving matters touching his character, was before two Courts of Law. Both cases were now pending; and if there was one thing more than another, in defence of government by law, that he (Mr. Newdegate) held to be essential, it was abstinence from interference or interception on the part of that House in cases pending before the Courts of Law. It was upon that broad principle that he (Mr. Newdegate), without expressing any opinion upon the character or the conduct of Mr. Bolton, would vote against the Amendment before the Committee.

said, he did not expect that any discussion on this matter would have come before the Committee on the particular Vote before them. The Committee had been informed, and was thoroughly well aware, that this £400 which appeared now in the Estimates was in no way connected with Mr. Bolton's position as Crown Solicitor, but was merely the salary of the Solicitor to the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland. Hon Members must not take him as complaining of this discussion, but merely as pointing out that if the discussion had taken place at all, it would be much more convenient that it should occur on a Vote which was to be proposed—namely, the Irish Law Charges. In this matter they were dealing with a public servant who had been 33 years in the Public Service. Mr. Bolton had entered the Public Service in 1852, and since that time he had discharged his duties satisfactorily; and he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was not aware that there was anything against him in his capacity as public servant.

Is there nothing against him as a solicitor?

said, he only wanted to say a few words on the two subjects referred to. They had two matters to consider—one was the Vote which was asked for, and the other was what was the effect of that Vote. The passing of this Vote did not put £400 into the pocket of Mr. Bolton; but the refusal of it would do this—it would condemn him before an opportunity had been given for the case now pending before the Court at Belfast to be tried. If the Vote were refused by that House, it would amount to——

Why do not you postpone it?

said, the refusal of the Vote would amount to a condemnation by the House of Commons of the conduct of Mr. Bolton before two actions now pending before legal tribunals relating to that conduct were tried. What were the charges made against Mr. Bolton? Why, one of them, as had been stated by an hon. Member opposite, was so old that it dated back to 1876. Its nature, which had been glanced at by some hon. Members, was this. It was alleged that Mr. Bolton, being a solicitor, had prepared his wife's marriage settlement, which was a thing no solicitor should do. If Mr. Bolton did that, and if the settlement so prepared departed from the rules which ought to have characterized it, it would follow that the settlement would be altered and placed in the proper form. That question had come before an English Court; and the English Court, as it was bound to do, had, he should say, set aside that settlement. Well, what followed? The charge brought against Mr. Bolton was investigated by the late Government in a most careful and anxious manner, and the opinion of the then Lord Chancellor, and the Law Officers of the Crown, was that, as Mr. Bolton's case had not been heard, and as it involved equitable considerations, they could not come to the conclusion that there were grounds on which they could dismiss him, and year after year since that period his salary had been put in the Estimates, and the Vote had been passed. Was it reasonable, or was it fair, now to ask the Committee, in regard to a transaction which had taken place so many years ago, that a Government succeeding the Government which had inquired into the subject should reverse the decision of its Predecessor? That would be an altogether unprecedented act, and an act of great unfairness. Further, what position were they now in with regard to Mr. Bolton's alleged Bankruptcy Petition? Let him remind the Committee of the position that Petition was in. This was not a bankruptcy in the ordinary sense of the term. It was a Petition—whether by himself or not he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not care.

As a matter of fact, was the Petition presented by himself?

said, that if he could answer that question he would; but, as a matter of fact, he did not know. Assuming, however, that he did present it himself, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not think it would make much difference. The case stood in this way. Mr. Bolton, at a period when he, like other men, did not anticipate a fall in the price of land in Ireland, made large purchases of land, and gave a mortgage on the property which he had so bought. These mortgages amounted to £50,000, or thereabouts. They were debts, no doubt, in the legal sense of the term—every mortgage was a debt; but if it were argued that they were debts in the moral sense of the term—namely, debts which ought to be held as justifying the Court in condemning him for being a bankrupt—that would raise a very large question. Mr. Bolton was in debt to the extent of £80,000 or £90,000, as he himself estimated, of which some £50,000 were secured. Under these circumstances, he brought a Petition for arrangement, stated the debts, and showed the condition of his property. No doubt, there were unsecured debts.

What are they?

said, he had the surplus of his landed property, and also his salary, every farthing of which could be taken, and not 1 d. paid to himself; and it was said that, under these circumstances, when the matter stood in that way that he was guilty of such gross misconduct in making that arrangement that the House ought to condemn him before his Petition was heard. He was speaking in the hearing of many Members who knew what bankruptcy proceedings were. If it should turn out in the course of the proceedings that Mr. Bolton had been guilty of fraud or misconduct, the Petition might be at once turned into a bankruptcy. The fullest power was vested in the Court, and the bankruptcy could be declared in the course of a week—there was no reason why there should be a moment's delay. Well, the Bankruptcy Court, having cognizance of the whole facts, would decide the question of the bankruptcy, and say whether or not Mr. Bolton had been guilty of fraud; but if the House passed a vote refusing Mr. Bolton's salary, would not that be virtually telling the Judge that he was bound by the declaration of the House of Commons to say that Mr. Bolton was a bankrupt? ["No, no!"] Yes; he maintained that it would. The mere suspension of this Vote would go a great way towards prejudicing the mind of a Judge against the Petitioner. This Vote did not give any money to Mr. Bolton; but the effect of refusing it would be to pass on Mr. Bolton a condemnation before the proper period had arrived. They were told, and they believed it was the fact, that tomorrow an investigation was to take place before another Legal Court as to Mr. Bolton's conduct.

On another issue altogether.

said, that charges had been made against Mr. Bolton, not only of complicity in terrible offences, but also coupled with that—or, as Mr. Bolton's accuser put it—"We do not charge him with that, we charge him with being a forger, a swindler, a defrauder of his own flesh and blood."

He did not deny that.

asked whether anyone would tell him that, if this case were investigated before a jury, this very charge against Mr. Bolton would not be gone into? The man's whole life and his whole character, every act of his career since he entered the Public Service, would become public property, and would be for a jury to decide upon. If the Committee took the action proposed by hon. Members opposite, it would prejudice the action of a Court of Law—it would have taken over a function that only a jury should exercise. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not desire now—he thought it would be unreasonable—that they should go into these matters while a trial was pending affecting a man's most solemn interests; that was to say, affecting a man's life and character. What he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) asked the Committee to do was to pass this Vote without expressing any opinion as to Mr. Bolton's conduct.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down that it would be most unfair and most unjust for the Committee to condemn Mr. Bolton on either one or the other of the issues; but what he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) objected to was that they should acquit him on either of the issues. There were two questions sub judice —first, whether Mr. Bolton's bankruptcy, or his financial embarrassments, were such as to disentitle him to remain in the Service of the Government; and, secondly, the more serious question as to his moral character, which was coming on for trial tomorrow. Now, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) objected to be called upon to say whether Mr. Bolton was guilty or innocent. They had no facts before them. He did not know whether the man was a saint or a sinner; but what he did say was, that if the House of Commons, after this discussion, voted £400 towards Mr. Bolton's salary, the House would be expressing an opinion that Mr. Bolton was innocent of these charges, and that he ought to be retained in the Public Service. If they did such a thing as that they would be putting themselves in an entirely false position. He certainly regretted the attitude the Secretary to the Treasury had taken up, both last night and tonight, on these two unfortunate Votes, with a view of compelling them to come to a decision while these matters were pending. The course adopted by the Secretary to the Treasury had not facilitated the despatch of Public Business. The Vote which they had discussed last night was again to be discussed on Report, and today they had spent four hours in the discussion without having made any progress. He objected very strongly to the Constitutional theory which the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury had laid down—namely, that the House of Commons must not object to vote the salary of an official because it was possible that the Executive Government of the day might dismiss him after his salary had been voted. That would simply mean ousting the jurisdiction of the House of Commons altogether. The House of Commons had a right to declare itself a Court of Appeal, and they had a perfect right to say—"This is not a man who should belong to the Public Service." It was simply hair-splitting to say that the money voted was not for the man actually in office at the time. He now repeated, in presence of the Prime Minister, what he had already stated as to the growing distrust of the administration of affairs in Dublin Castle. He was satisfied that complaints so constantly made must ere long form the subject of a most searching and vigorous inquiry. In conclusion, he wished merely to say that he expressed no opinion as to this man's acts, but he would not vote that he was innocent.

said, he appealed to the Government, as one who had had voted steadily with them throughout on Irish affairs, to make some satisfactory statement to the Committee that would enable that (the Radical) portion of the House at least to give a vote in their support, if possible. He had heard the statements on the opposite side, and had heard the speeches from the Treasury Bench—both the speeches of the Secretary to the Treasury and of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland—and he was prepared to say that, in his mind, there was not one sentence in either of those statements that at all relieved them from the very grave responsibility in voting any money for the salary of a person about whom it was possible for such statements to be made, when he was holding such an important position as that of Crown Prosecutor in Ireland. Surely a legal officer, occupying such an important post as that occupied by Mr. Bolton in Ireland, should be altogether above suspicion; and he (Mr. Broadhurst), for one, should certainly vote with the Irish Members on that occasion if they went to a Division, unless some promise were made by the Government to suspend the Vote until inquiries could be made.

said, the speeches he had heard from the Treasury Bench had now convinced him that he ought not to vote for the proposed reduction. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in thinking that if he did vote for the salary of Mr. Bolton, it would be tantamount to voting a sentence of acquittal; but, at the same time, in view of what had been said, and in view of all that was notorious in this case, though he certainly could not vote for the payment of the money, he did not see why the Vote should not be postponed. No good argument, or reason, or statement had been advanced to show why the Vote should not be postponed. He urged that course as the reasonable solution of the present difficulty; but, for one, if compelled to vote, he should be obliged to vote against the payment of this salary.

desired to state why he should support the reduction of the Vote. He should do so as a protest against the refusal of the Government to postpone the Vote as requested, and he thought on good grounds, by the Irish Members below the Gangway. He did not offer any opinion as to the character or proceedings of Mr. Bolton. He considered that it would be most improper to do so while these questions were before the Courts of Law. But he did not consider that the proposed postponement of this Vote could be taken in any way to prejudice Mr. Bolton in those proceedings. The Committee had been informed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland that these cases would be heard in a few days; indeed, he gathered that one case might possibly be heard tomorrow, and he could not understand why the Government in these circumstances should not postpone this Vote for a short time.

It is with great reluctance that I approach a question of this kind, in which I do not feel myself well qualified to give a judgment, and in regard to which I have some difficulty in ascertaining, from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, what is the precise ground on which they desire this Vote to be refused or to be postponed—I am not quite sure what their desire is.

That it should be postponed.

Technically, they desire to postpone it. I have heard the speeches, which undoubtedly partook, as it appeared to me, of a warmth that ought not to be imported into a matter of this kind, which is most strictly judicial in its character. I assure Gentlemen on that side of the House that, however I may differ from them on many important matters, any allegation of fact made by them is entitled at my hands, and at the hands of the Government, to precisely the same attention as if it proceeded from persons in entire accord with us; but in this case I have much difficulty in determining what is the exact ground on which hon. Gentlemen opposite demand the postponement of this Vote. For example, there was great excitement in that part of the House when the Solicitor General for Ireland referred to the transactions which occurred in 1876, and when presumptions were raised of a character most adverse to Mr. Bolton; and, undoubtedly, the plain meaning of the various manifestations from that quarter of the House is that those transactions of the year 1876 of themselves constituted a reason why this Vote should be withheld.

There was another Judgment in 1882 to which the Solicitor General for Ireland did not allude at all.

I am dealing with the Judgment of 1876. My knowledge of this case is confined to what I have heard on the present occasion; I am dealing with the indications of opinion from many Gentlemen in that portion of the House. I say it is quite impossible for this House, consistently with its own character, to go against Mr. Bolton in respect of the transactions of 1876. It is not merely because those transactions were examined by the Executive Government—whether the late Government or this Government, makes no matter—I pay the same respect to their examinations as to our own. The House, I admit, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), I think, very justly said, is not in the slightest degree bound to respect the acquittal which this Government or that Government may have pronounced; but in this instance the time for considering that question has passed by. It is plain that if the House had chosen, after the investigation by the late Government, to withhold the salary of Mr. Bolton, it was entitled to do so. It did not do so, therefore that matter cannot he stirred. The House has committed itself on that subject by repeated acts of voting this salary; and even allowing, though I am not qualified to give an opinion, that it might have been a righteous thing to reverse the decision of the late Government, yet it would be most unrighteous to stir any question on that matter now. Therefore, I must say to hon. Gentlemen that I would give greater weight to what they say on this case, if it did not appear to me they were carried away by a kind of feeling with which most Members must have some sympathy, so that the balance of the judicial faculty was in their minds considerably disturbed. Well, now, Sir, I have heard, I am bound to say, three speeches with regard to which those observations of mine could have no application whatever—the speeches of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst), and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland).

And the hon. Member behind the Treasury Bench (Mr. Williamson).

Quite so. But he did not adduce any arguments upon the subject. He stated an opinion, as he was qualified to do, and I meant no reproach by not mentioning him. I take the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland). I am quite satisfied he approaches this question in a perfectly judicial spirit, so that his judgment carries weight. I wish to test it, however, and ascertain whether he is right. What he says is, if I understand him, that there is a possibility that the result of the legal proceedings now pending in Ireland may be unfavourable to Mr. Bolton.

Not quite so. I expressed no such opinion. I understood the hon. and learned Solicitor General to say that those proceedings might be taking place now, and I stated that I would say nothing favourable or unfavourable to Mr. Bolton, but would postpone the Vote, as those proceedings were now about to take place.

I am glad to receive the explanation, because I must vary what I was going to say. There are two questions before us, and I presume this discussion has reference principally to the action which is to come on to-morrow. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) is aware that there are two cases before us, one of them the case in which Mr. Bolton has brought an action in vindication of his own character, the other the case in which a Petition has been presented to the Court of Bankruptcy, and apparently, for the sake of argument, the Petition is stated to be Mr. Bolton's own. I must consider the two cases apart, and I must first take the case of the charge which is to be tried to-morrow; and I think the hon. Baronet had that case principally in his mind. Now, I want to know whether the hon. Baronet is correct—that he is just in his intentions I have no doubt—but is he right, going strictly according to justice, in contending that, because an action is coming on to-day or to-morrow, in which a public servant is prosecuting another individual who has made awful charges against him, that, therefore, the salary of that official should be withheld? I do not mean withheld finally, but for one day. I am disposed to admit that if there were proceedings by the Government against Mr. Bolton—if there were a primâ facie case depending upon the credit of some public authority, and that was the matter that was going to issue—I could then well understand the contention in this House that it was right to suspend any act whatever bearing upon that individual person. But, Sir, that is not so. Upon the facts of this case I have no right to listen to the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). Every word he speaks may be true, or every word may be untrue; but I have no right to take it into view. So far as I know, this gentleman is protecting his own character. If he is protecting his own character——

On only one point.

I am quite aware of that. I am now addressing myself very much to the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland), and what was evidently weighing on his mind. If Mr. Bolton is protecting his own character by an action at law, is the general proposition to be adopted that public servants, whose salaries have to be voted in the regular course of business, and who are so endeavouring to protect themselves by an action at law in which they themselves are the movers—not in which they are to be charged by some responsible authority, but in which they are the movers—will the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) say deliberately and advisedly that the fact of their so moving to protect themselves is a reason why the voting of their salary should be postponed? I can only say I cannot adopt that view; I think it is quite necessary that the Committee should consider this bearing of the case for that reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) took occasion to repeat what he stated last night with respect to what he believed to be the tainted character and general unsatisfactory condition of the Irish Civil Service. [ Cries of "Dublin Castle!"] Dublin Castle I am always accustomed to hear cited as the synonym for the centre of the Irish Civil Service. That is a most important subject, and one which ought to be probed to the bottom. I put it to the candour of my hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to say when a case, difficult and delicate, and requiring the utmost accuracy of view on our part is raised, whether it is wise or altogether just to associate that case with charges against the Irish Civil Service in general? It is our duty to put that matter entirely aside. Let the Irish Service be the best in the world, or let it be the worst, we would be guilty of injustice, and would be incurring just discredit and disparagement, if we allowed ourselves to be biassed one hair's breadth in the course we take in this matter by any consideration of the general character of that Irish Service. I have endeavoured distinctly to lay down in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland), differing from him with great respect, the ground on which I proceed. My contention is this—that if a Civil servant is bringing an action in protection of his own character, and if that action is going to be tried on the day or on the morrow of the day when the House is asked to vote the salary of that Civil servant, that is no reason why the Vote should be postponed, because the postponement of the Vote involves this—that the House believes there is some presumption against the Civil servant. Is it a sin in a man to protect his own character by an action at law? Is it a thing for which he should be made the subject of foul and loathsome reproach, and is a man to be put under the slightest prejudice or suspicion because he so defends himself? If upon that ground you put aside the Vote, you imply a certain amount of presumption against that individual. Then comes the other question—that of bankruptcy. I did not understand that to weigh so much upon the mind of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland). It is not a matter, I think, upon which anyone who is a civilian or layman can speak with great confidence. These transactions in bankruptcy are transactions with which I have no personal acquaintance; but my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General is acquainted with these matters, and upon his professional character and reputation I understand him to say distinctly, and as a responsible Officer of the Crown to assure the House, that there is nothing in the facts as they are before us which warrant a presumption adverse to Mr. Bolton of such a character as, if proved, would require or justify his dismissal from office. If that be so, then, again, I submit that although this may not be a very agreeable duty to perform, and although I know I am compelled to go against gentlemen in whose sense of justice and integrity I have confidence, yet, if that be the fact, it is our duty, through good report and through evil report, to stick to the strict lines of justice. The time will soon come when this matter can be discussed. I am sure I will never be the man to find fault with hon. Members who call upon the Government to execute strict justice upon delinquent Civil servants. But it is our duty to avoid the passing of any opinion whatever with regard to the existence of adverse presumption, unless the facts warrant adverse presumption. As I understand they do not in this case warrant such a presumption, I am exceedingly sorry this debate has taken place, because it is hardly possible to expect that the issue of the debate will not bear, in some way or other, upon the minds of some of the jury in the trial that is about to take place. I hope it will not. I trust it will not. But our duty in the matter is absolutely simple—to look to the demands of justice to a particular individual. And as I believe the Committee can only in that way avoid expressing an opinion on the subject, I hope they will support the Vote.

acknowledged with gratitude the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the closing passages of his speech, that he would not blame or consider questionable the conduct of any Member on the Irish Benches who endeavoured to do justice in respect of delinquent officials in Ireland. The various signs of growing keenness and awakening consciousness upon the subject of the Public Service in Ireland, which had been shown by hon. Gentlemen above and below the Gangway, on the Ministerial side of the House, and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), who possessed a knowledge of the obligations of public life inferior to none, entitled him (Mr. Sexton) to attach more importance to the constructive pledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that justice would be done, than he would have been entitled to attach to similar pledges given in former days. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the heat of some of the speeches which had been made on this subject; but he, in the same breath, admitted he was unacquainted with the facts of the case of Mr. Bolton. The Irish Members were acquainted with those facts. The facts of Mr. Bolton's official career were burnt into their minds, and if they had displayed some heat, it was not because their judicial faculties had been warped, but because their feelings had been excited by the long delay of the Government. There was an action to be tried to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the character of Mr. Bolton was at stake. The question involved in the action to-morrow was whether Mr. Bolton had committed unnatural offences, and, whatever the result might be, the question whether Mr. Bolton should remain in the Public Service would still be in suspense. So long as United Ireland called him a forger, adulterer, swindler, Mr. Bolton made no reply. For weeks and months these accusations were showered upon him; but he maintained the silence of the coward, whose conscience was stricken by the truth. It was only when unnatural offences were attributed to him that he went into a Court of Law. The character of Mr. Bolton was not to be judged by the issue of the trial to-morrow, but by the issue of the two proceedings—the one in Belfast, and the other before the Bankruptcy Judge. What did the Committee do if they agreed to vote Mr. Bolton's salary? Why, every man who was a party to that agreement would declare his belief that there was no evidence or presumption that George Bolton was a person unfit to be in the Public Service. Because he felt that presumption was inevitable, and because he felt a supreme obligation of conscience in the matter, and because he felt every man who voted a single 1 d. to this disgraceful swindler would be guilty of a moral offence, he should put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.

desired to offer a few observations to the Committee before this Vote was taken. It was very necessary indeed that the Committee should appreciate and understand exactly what the Vote was on which they were asked to arrive at a decision. When he reached the House, he was under the impression that the question before the Committee was whether the Vote should be postponed or decided now; but he had since learned that that was not the issue; neither was the question that pointed out by his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Holland), whose opinion he so highly valued. It was not a question whether the Vote should be kept over until later, and discussed with fuller knowledge and with greater appreciation—with the knowledge of what took place during the Belfast trial; but whether in advance, after a discussion which few anticipated would take place that day, and on the eve of the trial, a Vote should be taken which would unquestionably prejudice the trial. He put it to every fair-minded man in the House—was it reasonable, was it in accordance with the most elementary principles of justice, on the eve of a trial, that the Committee should be asked to arrive at a vote which, if it should be against Mr. Bolton's salary, would be an argument that must be used with considerable power in the trial to-morrow for the benefit of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and against Mr. Bolton? That was a circumstance which he ventured to think the hon. Member for Mallow, if he were present, would not press upon the attention of the Committee. ["Withdraw the Vote!"] That was not the question before the Committee. If he understood the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) aright, the question before the Committee was that the salary of Mr. Bolton should be disallowed.

said, he had desired to move the postponement of the Vote; but the Rules of the House would not permit him to do so. He, therefore, moved to reduce the Vote; but, subsequently, he appealed to the Government to withdraw the Motion.

said, he would not pursue his observations with reference to that point. He intended to say only one or two short sentences more—as he had spoken earlier in the debate, he was not going to abuse his privilege. As the decision of the late Government had been referred to, he would make one observation upon that point. Some of the matters which had been referred to came under the attention of the Lord Chancellor of the Conservative Government. Dr. Ball was a man of the highest personal character and of the highest legal attainments, and he investigated the matter fully in 1879, and arrived at the conclusion, with the concurrence of the then Law Officers of the Crown, that there was nothing to call for the interference of the Executive. That was now five or six years ago, and the matter had been continuously before the public ever since. Parliamentary and Executive sanction had been given to Mr. Bolton's continuance in the Public Service from that time to the present. The late Lord Chancellor, Mr. Law, had the matter before him; he went into it fully, and saw no reason to dissent from the opinion of his Predecessor. He (Mr. Gibson) need not give Mr. Law any character in the House of Commons. If ever there was a man worthy of being spoken of with the highest respect, it was Mr. Law; everyone knew that he approached his Judicial as well as Executive duties with an earnest and anxious desire to do what was just in the interest of the Public Service. The matter came before others, and the opinion of all the Executive in Ireland was that the decision arrived at in 1879 ought not to be disturbed. That was a circumstance which was entitled to very substantial weight. Surely, the decision ought not to be disturbed on the eve of the trial of the action which Mr. Bolton had brought in vindication of his own character. He (Mr. Gibson) had said all he desired to say with reference to the action for libel which it was understood would come on for hearing in Belfast to-morrow. He offered no opinion one way or the other upon that action; the trial of the action was a matter for the Judge and jury before whom it came; but, in the name of common justice, he asked that the Judge and jury be given an opportunity of deciding the case upon its merits, and not have their minds warped by a vote of the House of Commons.

pointed out that Mr. George Bolton had been appointed to the office he now held since he was attacked in 1876 by Mr. Justice Fry, an English Judge. ["No!"] Two years ago, Bolton attempted to upset his wife's will, and a second English Judge attacked him, and showed that he had acted in a most audacious manner. If his impression was wrong as to his first assertion, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) totally failed to deal with the second case in which Bolton was attacked by an English Judge.

said, that, as a matter of fact, Mr. Bolton held his present office for a considerable time before 1876.

(Mr. WALKER) thought it was necessary to explain the legal proceedings to which the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had just referred. Mr. Bolton's dispute of his wife's will came before the Court of Probate, and the learned Judge who tried the case came to the conclusion that, under all the circumstances, it was not unnatural Mrs. Bolton should make a will unfavourable to her husband.

Question put.

The Committee divided :—Ayes 58; Noes 116: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 178.)

Original Question again proposed.

said, that from time to time Questions had been put to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) with regard to the action of the valuators, and one case of injustice had just been brought under his (Mr. Harrington's) notice. The hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet), by a Question he asked in the House about 12 months ago, pointed out that the system of bracketing two farms together in the rate book had existed in the county he represented for some time past with the object of depriving the tenants of their votes. One man in Wicklow farmed 51 acres, 2 roods, and 18 perches, and his valuation was £31 10 s. , and another farmed 30 acres, 3 roods, and 13 perches, and his valuation was £16 10 s. , Because the official valuator chose to bracket the farms together in his book, the men were disqualified from voting. A Question was asked about the cases of these men, and the Secretary to the Treasury assured the House that he would attend to the matter. Twelve months had now elapsed, but nothing had been done. The season was approaching, but the men were in precisely the same position they were in a year ago. A constituent of the hon. Member for Wicklow wrote to him (Mr. Harrington) as follows:—

"There are two men in this district who have been deprived of their votes for years on account of their valuations being bracketed in the rate book. Last year Mr. Corbet was present in the Rathdrum Revision Court when they were struck off the Register, and I believe he brought the case before the House of Commons. The result of Mr. Corbet's action was that the Revising Valuer was instructed to survey these and other cases of a similar nature. He has reported to the Rathdrum Board of Guardians that he cannot survey all in time this year, although he had over six months to do so, and, strange to say, the very two about whom the question was asked are among the number not dealt with yet. Please let me know as early as possible what steps should be taken to secure these two votes."

Why men holding independent farms, and being valued at a high figure, should be bracketed together in the rate book, and thus deprived of the franchise, he could not understand. He was persuaded the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury must acknowledge the gravity of the matter. There was an impression in Ireland that such men as the two to whom he referred had, for purely political purposes, been illegally and unconstitutionally deprived of the franchise. In order to show the importance of the subject, he would read a resolution which was passed at a recent meeting of the Rathdrum Board of Guardians. It was proposed by Mr. J. Byrne, seconded by Mr. M. Byrne, and carried unanimously—

"That this Board desire to bring to the notice of the Revising Officer that, owing to the lumping of areas held separately by and rated separately on the occupiers, it appears that the Revising Barrister has held that these occupiers cannot claim their vote, because they appear jointly on the books as to area although separately as to their rating. Under these circumstances, the Board of Guardians consider the areas should now be entered separately, and beg that the matter receive the consideration of the Revising Officer at the next revision."

It was with the official valuator that the onus of separating the two names in the rate book rested. The Clerk of the Union had refused to separate the names, and could refuse to separate them. It was not his duty, and he would refuse to do it until the official valuator recommended that that course should be adopted. He (Mr. Harrington) trusted that an effort would immediately be made to do justice to the two men, at least, whose case had now for the second time been brought before the House.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Harrington) had reasonable ground of complaint, because there seemed to be a system of "jerrymandering" in force to deprive men of their votes. That was a very deplorable state of facts, and it was very desirable there should be some explanation from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney). There were a number of items in the Vote which, although they appeared trivial, required explanation. He saw that the minimum salary of the Commissioner of the Valuation and General Boundary Survey was £1,000, and the maximum salary £1,200. The present Commissioner received £1,300, including a personal allowance of £100. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) would explain why it was necessary to make this allowance. He (Mr. Kenny) noticed also that there was a personal allowance to nearly all the officials, no matter how small their office might be. There were 13 first class valuers and surveyors getting a personal allowance of £50 a-year each; one valuer received in addition to his salary a temporary allowance of £200 a-year, paid from the Vote for the Irish Land Commission, to which his services had been transferred temporarily; an allowance of £10 a-year was paid to one of the second class valuers during the absence of the abovementioned valuer. There was an allowance of £50 each to the chief clerk and one of the first class valuers, and an allowance of £25 to one of the first class clerical. It appeared to him that all these additional allowances were given for no reason whatever. There was another point on which he should like to obtain some information from the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, what steps had been taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the Boundary Commission? The Commissioners furnished a Report in 1882; but nothing had been done to carry out their recommendations. The tendency of the recommendations was to increase the area of the boroughs in Ireland. It was very desirable that the area of the small boroughs in Ireland should be increased. At the present time the geographical formation of the Irish boroughs was most peculiar, and it was plain to anyone that the boundaries had been circumscribed for certain purposes. It would be very interesting to the people of the different boroughs to know what steps the Government intended to take to give effect to the wishes of the Commission.

said, the Irish Representatives had never been satisfied with the condition of the Valuation Department in Ireland, and a Return had been presented to the House which threw a flood of light upon the subject. There was a £12 franchise in the Irish counties, and he found that there were in Ulster 3,448 valuations between £11 10 s. and £12, in Munster 1,616, in Leinster 1,507, and in Connaught 987. In point of fact, out of the 4,110 persons who were valued between the disqualifying and the qualifying figure, 3,448 were in Ulster. Above £12 it was needless to go. The Return showed very clearly how the people were cheated out of their votes. If a farm was valued at £11 17 s. or £11 18 s., the custom in all the Provinces except Ulster was to make it even money—say £11 15 s. or £12. But in Ulster what did they find? Why, that whereas in Munster there were only 640 farms valued at £11 11 s. , in Leinster 582, in Connaught 363, in Ulster there were 1,354. Therefore, for the sake of 5 s. in the valuation, which would probably not make a 1 d. difference in the rating 1,354 persons in Ulster, no inconsiderable number under the present franchise, were cheated out of their votes. Valued at £11 18 s. , there were 12 in Ulster, 7 in Munster, 1 in Leinster, and 10 in Connaught. He wanted to know how this state of things arose? Could they find anything administratively clean in the whole country? His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had shown that there was a system of lumping two men together, and thus depriving them of a vote, and in the Province of Ulster, where the Nationalists and Whigs ran neck and neck, the monstrous system he (Mr. Healy) had pointed out existed. This system of chicanery was proved by the Government's own Return, and in order to mark his sense of the way the Department had acted he moved to reduce the Vote by £3,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £16,293, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."—( Mr. Healy. )

said, that the hon. Gentleman, in order to prove his charge, would have to show that the unusual proportion of valuations between £11 10 s. and £12 in the Province of Ulster, as compared with other Provinces, was not parallel with the valuation between £12 and £12 10 s. With respect to the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) some time ago, and which was revived this afternoon by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), he was at a loss to understand how the Revising Barrister struck these persons off the list; but, as had been revealed by the hon. Member to-day, these had been valued jointly for many years.

said, the valuations were separate, but the acreage had been jointly entered by the clerk.

said, he believed that, as a matter of fact, these people had not been struck off the Register.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman did not understand the manner in which the lists were presented to the Revising Barrister. There was a supplemental list presented every year——

said, the point he was making was that the valuation system had not been changed for years. He would make inquiries about the matter; and as to the other matter with respect to the proportions, he found that the graduation of the valuation was fairly distributed from top to bottom, and there was no one unduly punished. If the hon. Member for Westmeath would write him a letter and explain the matter he would look into it.

said, he did not wish to detain the Committee long upon this matter; but he thought it was only just that he should read the letter from which he had quoted an extract. The letter was written to one of his constituents, and put the case strongly—

"Cloneen, Feb. 19th, 1884.

"Dear Sir,—I received yours of the 16th on last night.

The above T. Neill sold one of two farms he held in Ballard to Mr. Butler in 1882. At the revision in said year Dr. Darley refused him, Neill, his vote, on the ground that he was not one year without the second farm, though the two farms was ( sic ) a quarter of a mile asunder ( sic ). In the spring of 1883, when the revising valuator came to Rathdrum, they went to him to have themselves separately ( sic ) rated, the valuer to all appearance regulated their acres and valuation, and Neill's vote was registered at last revision. However, on examining the books this season, I discovered the bracket to their names as you see on the other side. This season, when the revisory valuer came to Rathdrum, I brought them to him and pointed out their case. He said it was all right. I asked him what brought the bracket there (pointing to it). He said it was done in the office in Dublin, and that it should not be there, at the same time bloting ( sic ) it with his pen. The town of Ballard is in the electoral division of Ballinaclash, and polling district of Rathdrum. The second case is that of James Clancy, Sheanamore, in the Ballinacor electoral division, and polling district of Aughrim.

The two James Clancys ( sic ) above is ( sic ) the same man; but by lumping a portion of his land with the other two to the value of £5 10 s. , it brought his upper value down to £10 10 s. ; there ( sic ) by braking ( sic ) his vote according to Dr. Darley's plan at last revision, he was not objected to last revision and escaped. In 1883, said Jas. Clancy, being sick, sent his son and a young man named Brien to the revising valuator at Rathdrum to have his land and valuation put together (as in reality it was). When the boys told their story to the valuator, he said he supposed that was all right—the clerk (Mr. B. Manning) interfered, and said there was a political motive in that. They ( sic ), boys, denied there was, and pointed to Mr. Manning a mistake the collector of the poor rates made with him some time before, and stated he, Mr. Manning, had to write to the collector to refund the money. Mr. Manning then said to the officer he should go to see the ground, which he did not. Clancy thought his case was all right till I discovered it this year. The above Jas. Clancy was objected to in 1881, on the ground of the bracket and lumping as above, and when be swore that he never was in partnership with the other two, Dr. Darley registered his vote. Had he been objected to last revision, his vote would surely be broken. You can see Dr. Darley's ruling in 1881 in the above case, and compare it with his ruling in 1883 in the case of Michael Lambert, junr., Cappagh, in the electoral division of Ballinacoa, and polling district of Aughrim. Lambert was not objected to; but Mr. B. Manning read him out as bracketed with two others, and Dr. Darley, without a moment's hesitation, struck his name off the register, though I am told he is not in partnership with them. I have several other cases of bracketing, as you know; but we cannot tell now long they are so. I understand some of them was ( sie ) bracketed in the time of Griffith going round valuing. However, I see by advertisement in The People that Mr. Manning ( sic ) has got back the revised valuation, and we will soon ( sic ) see how the bracketing and lumping is disposed of.

"I remain, dear Sir,

"Faithfully yours,

"JOHN BYRNE."

said, he thought it would be a very bad case upon which the hon. Gentleman would not be able to say something for himself; but it was only with the greatest difficulty that he had been able to get this Return from the hon. Gentleman, and he was sure that if he had asked for fuller particulars, they would have been refused him. Indeed, it was refused in the form in which he originally asked for it, and it was only after some correspondence that the Lord Lieutenant, who was extremely ready to give information whenever he could, that the Return was granted. The position he took was this—that between £11 10 s. and £12 there ought not to be 8,000 people disfranchised in a small country like Ireland. This would not happen in England, because in England there was not the same valuation. Of these 8,000 people more than half were in Ulster. This was a remarkable state of things, and one which required to be investigated. He did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and if the hon. Gentleman could give some assurance that steps should be taken to prevent this injustice he would not persist in his Motion.

said, that the complaints made by hon. Members opposite in connection with the valuation of tenements in counties would be no longer possible when the Representation of the People Bill should have passed. He would, however, inquire whether there was any real reason for suspecting a misuse of the present powers of valuators.

said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman could have the least doubt as to the way in which these valuations ought to be made. The present improper policy had been carried out for a very long time. In the town of Bandon, the representation of which was for many years in the hands of the family of the Earl of Bandon, there were 300 or 400 voters; but it had been found a few years ago that there were 50 houses valued at between £3 15 s. and £4. Now, that number of votes would turn the scales at an election in favour of the Nationalists, and he had no doubt that if an impartial valuer inspected those houses, he would raise the valuation of each to over £4. The result of the present system was that a small minority returned Members of their own political leaning. Representations were made to the valuation officer, in Dublin, last year, to the effect that improvements were made in a large number of houses, and that, therefore, the valuations of those houses should be increased, and the result was that 25 or 30 new voters were put on the list, which proved that this was a matter that ought to be dealt with. Another important question had been touched upon, but no satisfactory answer had been given by the Secretary to the Treasury. It was asked when the Boundary Commissioners would present their Report, and when the Government intended to carry out its recommendations? A few weeks ago it was proposed that the city of Cork should be re-valued; but, on consideration, it was found advisable that that should not he done until the Boundary Commission, who were to inquire into the matter, had presented their Report. The effect of this delay on the part of the Commissioners was the suspension of improvement works, because it was found, in the City of Cork, that large and wealthy districts lying outside the border of the borough boundary, which should bear a large proportion of the taxation of the city, could not be taxed under the present arrangement. An unfair proportion of the cost of such work would, therefore, fall on the occupiers within the present area of taxation, and press heavily on the poor people who would derive least benefit from such expenditure. He hoped the Government would lose no time in carrying out the recommendations of that Commission when they were presented. With regard to the manner in which Clerks to Unions discharged their duties in putting electors on the valuation lists, he knew that in consequence of their action a great number of people who were clearly entitled to the franchise in the county of Cork were prevented from having it. The same thing prevailed in other counties, he believed, to a great extent. He did not say that this was intentional on the part of the Clerks; but it certainly happened, and it was important that the Government should take some steps to remedy it.

said, it was very invidious to divide against the salary of a person like Mr. Green, and, after the promise of the hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion. Mr. Green, by a stroke of the pen, had struck off nearly 20,000 persons, and he did not think it would do any harm to give Mr. Green a good warming up.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

called attention to the inadequacy of the annual Index to the Statutes, and to the fact that there was no Index to the Scotch Statutes.

said, that there was a considerable amount of work going on from time to time in the revision of the Statutes. For instance, a Bill before the House with respect to Summary Jurisdiction involved the repeal, either in part or altogether, of no less than 153 Statutes. Different persons were employed on the revision, and each editor prepared his own headings, which might lead to some amount of difficulty. He would inquire whether any alteration could be made so as to make the Index to the Statutes more simple for those who were not lawyers.

remarked, that he had experienced the same difficulties as the hon. and gallant Member with regard to this Index. One improvement, of which he would urge the adoption, was that the Statutes should be numbered not only by the years of the Reign, but also by the year in which they had been passed. If that could not be managed, the Index at least might be so arranged. He believed that the Commissioners were doing their work very well, and that the public was very much indebted to them.

said, that, as far as he could make out, there had been no great advance in the work recently.

asked whether it was not the case that the Ushers in the Courts were in the habit of levying fees which they had no right to demand; and also of paying special jurors only a sovereign instead of a guinea, thus gaining 12 s. on each trial, unless the jurors insisted on being paid a guinea?

said, that he would inquire into the matter.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £2,707, to complete the sum for the Public Prosecutor's Office.

asked whether it was to be understood that there was to be an entire change in the system adopted with regard to public prosecutions? He was of opinion that there should be no charge upon public funds arising out of these charges. It seemed to him that, as this system of public prosecutions had not turned out at all as satisfactory as had been expected, the Government would have to find the Public Prosecutor other employment; but if they could not do that, they were not entitled to come to Parliament so early for power to compensate Sir John Maule, the Public Prosecutor. He hoped to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury that there would be no compensation given; but if that assurance could not be given, the only course would be to oppose the arrangements proposed by the Government.

pointed out that the question raised by the hon. Member for Burnley did not arise upon that Vote. There was a Bill before the House for the purpose of carrying out what had been suggested by the Committee in regard to the Public Prosecutor. There was a clause in that Bill relating to compensation, and that clause would afford an opportunity of discussing the point mentioned by the hon. Member.

observed, that his hon. Friend had raised the point simply with a view to obtaining an explanation; and unless some satisfactory explanation was given as to this gentleman, who received £2,000 a year for doing very little, the Bill would probably not pass this Session.

begged the Committee to observe that the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had really little or no bearing upon the question before the Committee. That hon. Member argued against giving any compensation to the present Public Prosecutor, in case the office was abolished; and that argument would be very properly urged when the Bill before the House for altering the office of Public Prosecutor had obtained a second reading, and when the clause providing for compensation came before the Committee on the Bill. But at the present time they did not know that that Bill would become law; and they could not assume that it would do so, as much opposition was threatened to it, and as it was blocked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). They must, therefore, provide for the continuance and working of the office during the present financial year; and to do so, they must vote the proposed Estimate, and whether they should do so was the question before the Committee, and not the question whether, if the office was abolished, Sir John B. Maule should receive any or what compensation. He (Sir Henry Holland) had more than once strongly advocated a change in the existing office of the Public Prosecutor, and the amalgamation of that office with the Solicitor of the Treasury's office. The Committee, of which he was a Member, had recommended that change, and the Bill was introduced to give effect to their recommendations. He had always understood that the hon. Member for Burnley advocated the same view; and, if such were the case, he would beg him to let the Bill have a second reading and go into Committee, when the question of compensation could be fully discussed. By opposing the Bill, he would only help to make it necessary to vote this Estimate, not only for the present financial year, which was absolutely necessary, but for the next and, possibly, other succeeding years.

was glad to find that the Government at last intended to get rid of this atrocious sham. The Government seldom saw things until too late; but they ought to have seen three years ago that this office was a farce. With regard to the Bill itself, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was wrong in supposing that he had blocked the Bill. He thought this sham ought to be put and end to, and he would press the Government to endeavour to carry that out.

desired to know what were the relations between this office and the Board of Trade in regard to bankruptcy proceedings? He had taken some part in the Bankruptcy Bill of last year, and he had always contemplated that one of the great advantages of it would be the public examination of a bankrupt with a view to the disclosure of his affairs; but a great many disclosures had been avoided by bankrupts absconding. So there had been an entire concealment of the state of affairs, and the whole matter wan left in a state of suspended animation. He wished to know whether the Public Prosecutor had been put in motion with respect to these cases? So far as he knew, no attempt had been made to trace these people. He admitted that they had gone beyond the jurisdiction of our Bankruptcy Court; but there would have been no difficulty in tracing them and putting in force the law applicable to such cases; and he ventured to think that the proper person to do that was the Public Prosecutor, on the initiation of the Board of Trade. He was most anxious that the working of the Act should be efficient; but that depended on the way in which it was put in operation by the Board of Trade. It was contrary to all acknowledged principles that facilities should be given to these people to get out of the way, and that the Court should have no notion as to what their conduct had been, or how their liabilities stood. He thought some steps ought to be taken to enforce their attendance, and to make them submit to the examination provided for under the Act.

said, the observations of the hon. Member showed that this matter ought not to be disposed of in a hole-and-corner manner. This sham office ought to be abolished, and not allowed to remain a burden on the British taxpayer. But it was proposed not only to abolish the office, but to give statutory power to compensate those who had received appointments. Could the Government give the Committee some assurance that by the course they proposed they would not be tying their hands with regard to such compensation as they might think equitable?

Vote agreed to.