, in moving to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—

"This House declines to sanction a Bill which involves the principle of trading by a Corporation, which provides for the sale of Docks to the Corporation of Bristol at an excessive price, which is opposed to the interests of the ratepayers of that city, which is obnoxious to a large number, if not the majority, of those ratepayers, and on which those ratepayers have not had a fair opportunity of expressing their views,"

said, he felt it his duty, in consequence of representations made to him on behalf of a very large number of owners of property and ratepayers in Bristol—a very large number indeed—to try and get the passage of this Bill delayed, in order that the interests of some thousands of persons might be fairly considered. The persons he represented had not yet had an opportunity of having their case considered. Their agent and representative was Mr. Henry Brown, of Bristol, who was the owner of some 20 houses in that city, and ground landlord of 24 more; and Mr. Brown was prepared to show, from his own case, how the rates would be increased by the Bill. It was rather a difficult and complicated matter to deal with. If it had been the practice of the House to present Petitions before proceeding with Private Bill Business, he should have had an opportunity of presenting the very largely signed Petition he held in his hand, bearing the names of more than 15,000 owners of property and ratepayers in Bristol; but by the Rules of the House he could only refer to it in this indirect manner. He believed it was not competent for him to present the Petition then; but if it had been the practice to present Petitions before the time of Private Business, he should have been able to lay this upon the Table, and have it read by the Clerk. The Petitioners were apprehensive that their interests would be very much injured by the provisions of the present Bill. The number of signatures would have been very largely increased, as a great number of ratepayers were anxious to sign the Petition; but, owing to the accident of Mr. Brown now living at Eastbourne, a considerable number of the signatures had been sent there, and were not included in the Petition. Whatever the number of signatures to the Petition was, it should be remembered that the Petition itself followed a much larger one signed by 5,000 or 6,000 of the ratepayers of Bristol, which had been lodged in the Private Bill Office on the 19th of the present month. His objections to the Bill were of a two-fold character. He objected to it first on general principles, upon which point, however, he would not say much, as it was not necessary to do more than simply indicate his belief that it was a very unsound principle for a Corporation to buy up a number of Docks and become a private trading Company. Such action on their part must necessarily amount to undue interference with private enterprize, and certainly was not an economical way of carrying on a trade. He found that in London all the great Dock undertakings were in the hands of private individuals, and even in that wonderful Bill for the government of London, introduced by the Home Secretary, only to be withdrawn, there was no proposition to give power to the Corporation of London to take over the Dock undertakings of the Metropolis. Again, at Liverpool the same principle obtained, and the large Dock interests were kept quite clear and distinct from the business and functions of the Corporation. He knew that, owing to a serious accident, there had been no opportunity yet for the thou- sands of ratepayers of Bristol who were opposed to the Bill to be heard before in Committee. There was an attempt made by Mr. Brown to obtain a hearing before the House of Lords; but that hearing failed, because it was held that he had no locus standi, and that he was really represented by the Corporation, who were the promoters of the Bill. Now, it was quite evident, from what had recently taken place in that House, that it was the tendency of the feeling and wish of the House to give a fuller opportunity to all classes of persons who believed they were injured by a Private Bill to have a locus standi before Committees. Only a week or two ago, the House carried, by a small majority, but still by a majority, a Resolution affirming the principle that such Bodies as a Chamber of Commerce or a Chamber of Agriculture should be entitled to be heard before Railway Bill Committees in reference to a projected railway. Now, whatever value a Chamber of Commerce or a Chamber of Agriculture possessed, it could not be said to be of the same importance or to have the same interests as thousands of ratepayers in a large city like Bristol. Without wearying the House with details which might be somewhat difficult to follow, he would simply say that the present Bill was introduced for the purpose of sanctioning the purchase of no less than four different Dock properties—namely, the Avonmouth Company, the Avonmouth Warehouse Company, the Portishead Company, and the Portishead Warehouse Company. The confusion was made worse confounded by the proposals contained in the Bill for payment by instalments. Nothing appeared to be made quite clear until they came to the amounts that had to be paid. What was it that had to be paid? If they turned to the ninth and tenth pages of the Bill, they would find particulars of the enormous sum that was to be paid by the unfortunate ratepayers of Bristol in order to carry out the designs of the Corporation. Adding up the amounts to be paid to the different Companies by separate instalments, it would be found that they came to the total of £800,000. He altogether objected to these terms, quite apart from the general principle to which he had referred, on the ground that the price was excesive, because these Docks were an utter failure. Hitherto they had not been carried on at a profit; and, so far as the Corporation of Bristol was concerned, he contended that the ratepayers would be required to complete a purchase which would involve a considerable amount of loss. More than that, the people who advocated the buying of these Docks were also the sellers of the property, being holders of shares, and the consent of the Town Council to the purchase had been accorded in a manner that was highly improper. It was quite true that the statutory meeting was held; but the Mayor at that meeting induced the Town Council to leave the matter in his hands. He said, in effect—"Leave it all to me. There are certain difficult matters connected with the business which you will never understand; I can manage the whole matter myself." When the Mayor condescended to give an explanation to a few private friends, they ingenuously confessed that they were no wiser than they were before. The Mayor himself was deeply interested in the transfer, and probably that was the reason why all his proceedings had been shrouded in mystery. He (Mr. Warton) saw both of the hon. Members for Bristol present, and he thought they would not deny that they were also interested, the one to a large extent, and the other to a lesser degree. In fact, many of the would-be purchasers were vendors at the same time; and, therefore, there was no wonder that the matter was pressed before the House as the transfer of the Docks to the Corporation was the only way of saving the undertaking from financial ruin. According to the most common rules of equity, no man ought to be the buyer and the seller at the same time. Regardless of the interests of the ratepayers, the Mayor induced the Council to believe that he alone understood this complicated matter, and the Council acquiesced, although it was true they were given to understand that the annual cost to which the ratepayers would be subjected would only be £900 a-year. But at a subsequent meeting, last Tuesday, the Mayor admitted to the Council that there had been a miscalculation in estimating the expense, and that it would be £8,000 a-year. A meeting was held in May last of the inhabitants; but the agents and servants of the Mayor were able to overpower them by the admission of Avonmouth roughs, who played their part somewhat in the same way as the hired men in the Hyde Park Demonstration last week. Thus the free views of the ratepayers was not heard. In order to show what might be expected if that free view could be heard, he might mention that in reference to the intention of the Corporation to carry out another scheme, having, however, no connection with the present Bill—and he merely gave it as an illustration to show that the Corporation had not the confidence of the ratepayers—the proposal of the Mayor and Corporation was defeated on a poll by 15,000 to 6,000. This afforded ample proof that the Mayor and Corporation did not possess the confidence of the great majority of the ratepayers of Bristol. All he claimed now was that there should be afforded ample opportunity for inquiry. In his opinion, it was eminently a case for inquiry. They were now getting near the end of the Session; time was precious, and the Bill was being pushed forward in a way which prevented it from receiving full consideration. It certainly seemed rather hard that the ratepayers of Bristol should be required to come forward and find out all that was being done within the week. He was satisfied that if the House would allow a full inquiry, and would give the ratepayers an opportunity, in some way, of acquiring a locus standi before the Committee, in order to ventilate the matter free from the hands of the Avonmouth roughs, the House would not consent in the end to pass the Bill. A Petition, largely signed, had already been presented; and he was assured that a very considerable number of ratepayers, who had not yet signed the Petition, were ready to do so. The manner in which the negotiations had been conducted by the Mayor certainly justified the suspicion that things were not altogether as they ought to be, and that, at all events, a considerable body of ratepayers who would be burdened with increased taxation ought to have their case heard. In regard to the price to be paid, he had already stated that these Docks were not worth buying at all; but if the House would analyze the provisions of the Bill they would find that no less a sum than £800,000 was to be paid for them. He contended that such a price was excessive. For the Portishead Dock £230,000 was to be given, added to which was £100,000 recited in the Bill as having been already advanced in some mysterious way by the Corporation, making £350,000 altogether, when, so far as the Portishead Company was concerned, their undertaking might have been purchased for £300,000. It was evident, therefore, that £50,000 were entirely thrown away by the Corporation of Bristol, and that the interests of the ratepayers, which they ought to have protected, had been altogether neglected. He strongly deprecated the manner in which the negotiations had been conducted. It was exceedingly improper for the Mayor to manage everything by himself; no attempt was made to obtain the views of the Town Council before the business was completed. Under such circumstances, it was most objectionable to hurry the Bill through the House, and it was in the interest of thousands of the ratepayers, who were anxious to obtain a locus standi in opposition to the Bill before the Committee, that he submitted this Resolution.

seconded the Resolution.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House declines to sanction a Bill which involves the principle of trading by a Corporation, which provides for the sale of Docks to the Corporation of Bristol at an excessive price, which is opposed to the interests of the ratepayers of that city, which is obnoxious to a large number if not the majority of those ratepayers, and on which those ratepayers have not had a fair opportunity of expressing their views,"—( Mr. Warton, )

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, he had utterly failed in his attempt to discover the ground upon which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was opposed to this Bill. He was there to express his opinion that a more straightforward transaction had never been submitted to the House of Commons. He represented a city which he ventured to say, without any boast, contained about the usual average of men engaged in trade and commerce to be found in any large town; and as to the reflection cast upon the Mayor, in re- ference to his conduct in this transaction, it was utterly undeserved. The Mayor occupied that distinguished position for the fourth time, having been re-elected without opposition, with a view to carrying out the very scheme with respect to which the sanction of the House was now asked. In 1848, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the Corporation purchased the City Docks; and since that period there had been established two large Docks, and there had been carried on for some years a very foolish and a very ruinous competition, by which the trade of Bristol had been seriously affected. Owing to the bitterness of the controversies which it caused in reference to these Docks, it was thought most advantageous that the Docks should be secured under one management. The usual course was followed of calling a public meeting of the ratepayers. He might say that the Council of the Corporation, numbering 64, had, with perfect unanimity, without a division, sanctioned, on two or three occasions, the motions which had been laid before them for the carrying out of this scheme. A meeting of owners and ratepayers had also been called, at which the terms of the purchase were made known, the matter discussed, and the Bill passed in the ordinary way. Any owner or ratepayer could at the meeting have demanded a poll, and a poll was, in fact, demanded by one ratepayer, who was really the Petitioner on this occasion, and who was connected, as he understood, with the Liberty of Property Defence League. [Mr. WARTON: No.] He had had a paper placed in his hands yesterday which was headed "The Liberty of Property Defence League," and it had reference to a Petition to which, no doubt, a number of names had been attached. The Corporation had learnt that the signatures had been obtained to this Petition by canvassers who got so much a hundred for the names attached. It was said that the negotiations which had been carried on by the Mayor were in secret. It was perfectly well known that the individuals engaged in carrying on original negotiations in a matter of this kind must have confidence reposed in them; and he ventured to say there was no man in the City of Bristol in whom confidence had been more largely extended than in the gentleman who occupied the distinguished position of Mayor of Bristol. The meeting at Bristol was almost unanimous upon the question; and the only Petition which had been lodged against the Bill was one bearing a few hundred names, many of which were alleged to be fictitious, in a city of more than 200,000 inhabitants. He sincerely trusted that the House would give the Bill a second reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question put.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

said, he rose to a point of Order; but he did not know whether, if opposition were raised to a Bill, it would be right to discuss the question then?

If the hon. Gentleman objects to the proposal, the Bill must stand over until to-morrow.

said, he had no objection to discuss the Bill now.

said, that as the Motion had been made, and the hon. Member was desirous of discussing it, it must, as a matter of course, stand over.

That is what I intended to convey to the hon. Member.

Question again proposed.

said, the Standing Order directed that when Notice of opposition was given a Private Bill must stand over until the following day.

asked if it was understood that the Bill would not come on to-morrow?

said, that in the case of the Hull and Barnsley Bill, where a similar Notice was given, it was put down for the next day.

said, he apprehended that it would be competent to move that the Order stand over until Thursday.

The time for making that Motion will be to-morrow, until which day, under the Standing Order, the Bill must now stand over.

Ordered, That, in the case of the Earl of Devon's Estates Rill [ Lords ], Standing Order 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

said, he thought that a longer time ought to be given for the consideration of the Bill. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) to say that it was satisfactory to the Body which he represented. The hon. Member, in regard to a previous Bill, made a comparison between the population of Bristol, which was over 220,000, and the 5,000 or 7,000 ratepayers who petitioned against it. The comparison, however, was scarcely fair, because the inhabitants of the city included women and children; and it was a well known fact that when a poll was taken upon a recent occasion 15,000 ratepayers were on one side, and 6,000 on the other. It was, therefore, only fair to assume that the persons who occupied the position of ratepayers in the City of Bristol did not exceed 21,000 or 22,000, and out of that number 6,000 to 7,000 had already shown that they were in opposition to the Bill. Therefore, to say that the question they were dealing with affected 220,000 persons, and that the number who wished to be heard in opposition was consequently very insignificant, was hardly a fair comparison; and, in order to afford further time for the consideration of the matter, he would move that the Committee upon the Bill be not proceeded with until Monday next. He strongly objected to the wholesale suspension of Standing Orders in order that a Bill should be proceeded with which proposed to effect a purchase contrary to the interests of the ratepayers.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Thursday," in order to insert the word "Monday,"—( Mr. Warton, )—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'Thursday' stand part of the Question."

wished to make an appeal to the House. It would be fatal to the measure if this postponement were to take place; and he must, therefore, resist the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

thought that the rule which had been followed in the Hull and Barnsley case ought to be followed in this instance. This was a case of emergency; and, as the Bill was opposed, the further hearing ought to be deferred until to-morrow.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question put.

said, he proposed to make a statement to the Committee in reference to these Estimates.

rose to Order. He wished to know if it was competent for the hon. Gentleman to make a statement when there was no Question before the Committee?

I understood that the hon. Gentleman was about to move a Vote.

remarked, that the hon. Gentleman had himself said that he desired to make a statement.

said, that, in the ordinary course, the Committee would begin where they left off; but he proposed that the Votes for Law Charges and Prosecutions in Ireland, and for the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland, which would be taken first, in the ordinary course, should be postponed. He, therefore, intended to move the third Vote in Order—namely, that to complete the sum of £18,670 for the Registry of Deeds.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £12,670, 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 Office for the Registration of Deeds in Ireland."

wished to ask the Chairman, upon the point of Order, in what way the manner in which the Secretary to the Treasury was acting at the present moment could be challenged? But before the Chairman gave his decision, he should like to point out the important points that were involved in the course now proposed to be taken. They were promised yesterday that the Votes should be taken seriatim, and they had come down to the House that day with the intention of so discussing them. It was notorious that the reason why it was proposed that these two Votes should be postponed, although the Secretary to the Treasury had not said so, was because they included the salary of Mr. George Bolton. The idea in the mind of the Secretary to the Treasury, therefore, was that he would wait until the trial in Belfast, in which Mr. George Bolton was concerned, was over, and then, if the verdict was given for Bolton, he would be able to come down to the House triumphantly, and move the Vote. The contention of the Irish Members, however, was that, no matter what the verdict might be in Belfast, Bolton ought to be dismissed from the offices he now occupied. The verdict in Belfast could have nothing to do with Bolton's position. The point to be decided at Belfast was whether this man had been libelled in having been charged with committing a certain offence; but the charge made against Bolton in the House of Commons had nothing to do with that. He was charged here with being a bankrupt, a fraudulent trustee, a gentleman who had acted dishonestly in regard to his own wife; and there were various other charges against him which need not be gone into. It was a monstrous thing, therefore, for the Secretary to the Treasury to attempt by a side-wind, in defiance of a pledge which had been given to the House, to place a crown of glory on Bolton's head, after the verdict at Belfast had been given. How long were these Votes to be postponed? Would they postpone the Bankruptcy Vote until they had an opportunity of hearing the decision of Judge Walsh upon Bolton's Petition in Bankruptcy? Judge Walsh, the Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy, had already postponed Bolton's case in that Court for 10 days, and they would arrive at the 9th of August before they could possibly get the decision of that Judge. He wished to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury intended to postpone the Bankruptcy Vote until a decision had been given in that case also; or whether these Votes were to be postponed simply in view of the trial which was to take place in Belfast that day? If he did so intend to postpone the Vote for the bankruptcy proceedings, he (Mr. Healy) must say that a more uncalled for, or a more unheard of, proceeding had never taken place in that House. What he wished to ask was—whether the postponement asked for was merely in consequence of the proceedings in Belfast, which had nothing to do with the Vote, or whether everything relating to Bolton was to be put off until after the decision of the Court of Bankruptcy; and whether the House was to be kept sitting until there was a final decision as to whether George Bolton was a bankrupt or not?

, as a point of Order, wished to say that the Secretary to the Treasury had moved the postponement of three Votes. ["No!"] He had distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman say that he intended to move the post- ponement of three Votes. He wanted to know whether that could be done—whether, if the Votes were not moved in their proper order, the Votes left out were not withdrawn from the Estimates by that course of action?

There is no obligation to take the Votes in the order in which they stand in the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman can propose any Vote in the Civil Service Estimates which is upon the Paper for consideration to-day. He is not obliged to proceed with the Estimates in the order in which they stand here in the Book of Estimates.

remarked, that if the Secretary to the Treasury were not absolutely bound to take the Votes in the order in which they stood, he ought to give some explanation of the course he proposed to take. Some time ago, a Question was directly put to the hon. Gentleman as to the order in which the Estimates would be taken, and he had then stated that they would be taken in their regular order. It was distinctly within his (Mr. Cowen's) own knowledge that that answer was given, and yet now, without any explanation whatever, the hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to deviate from that arrangement. He thought the hon. Gentleman might fairly be asked if there was any reason for that course?

said, he had not the slightest hesitation in giving his reason for postponing these Votes. He had thought that, in making the proposal, he was really consulting the wishes of hon. Members opposite, for it was only on Tuesday or Wednesday last that they had proposed the postponement of the Valuation Vote while the trial of Mr. Bolton's action was pending. On that occasion hon. Members urged the withdrawal of the Vote, or its postponement until the trial was over. As the same questions could be raised on the Votes for Criminal Prosecutions and the Court of Bankruptcy, he had thought that he would be consulting the convenience of the Irish Members by not taking those two Votes now, while the trial was proceeding. That was his simple reason for asking for a postponement. He certainly thought that the House would be in a better position to discuss those Votes on Thursday than they were then. [Mr. HEALY: No.] As he had said, that was the real reason why he asked the Committee to put aside this Vote for the present. He had no interest in the matter, either one way or the other.

said, that upon the last occasion on which the Votes came on a number of Irish Votes were allowed to pass without question, on the understanding that the Estimates would be proceeded with seriatim. Whatever recommendation the course now proposed might have in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, it certainly amounted to a breach of faith with the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wished to get through Supply for Ireland, without the case of Mr. George Bolton being discussed, he would have very considerably to disorganize the order of the Votes, as Mr. Bolton took a salary under most of them. The claims of George Bolton upon the Crown were comprised in various Votes. It was quite true that he took a salary under the Criminal Prosecutions Vote, and his character and antecedents would come under the purview of the Committee when the Vote for the Court of Bankruptcy was reached. Upon Votes 29 and 30 the Irish Members would also be entitled to call Bolton to account in relation to his visits to certain Irish prisons in connection with the Constabulary. Upon Votes 7 and 8, in Class III., an opportunity would also be afforded for discussing George Bolton's affairs. Therefore, there must be an extreme disorganization of the Business of Supply, if everything upon which Mr. Bolton's conduct could be discussed was to be postponed. He would only point out, further, that the present proposal involved a reversal of the Constitutional theory that Supply was the proper occasion for calling attention to grievances. He presumed that it was because grievances existed in the case of George Bolton that the facts relating to his salary and employment were not brought before the House on the last occasion the Vote for Bolton's salary was brought on. In that case, there was no previous Notice; but on this occasion, the Vote was brought on after a Notice, to a certain extent, had been given, and the Irish Members had come down for the express purpose of discussing Bolton's career. It was, therefore, highly objectionable that the Secretary to the Treasury should now suddenly seek to withdraw the Vote from the consideration of the Committee, in order that he might plunge into others, to which the Committee had no opportunity of devoting their attention.

said, he hoped the Government would not press this course of procedure, because it was not only an abandonment of the pledge the Secretary to the Treasury had himself given to the Irish Members, but it was a total departure from the pledge given by the Prime Minister to the House at large, that the Votes would be discussed seriatim. Only yesterday, an attempt was made to persuade the Prime Minister to take them a little out of their turn; but the right hon. Gentleman distinctly told the House he was not able to do so, because he had promised to take them seriatim. All this jumping about from Vote to Vote was extremely inconvenient for those who wished to discuss a particular Vote—such, for instance, as the Diplomatic Vote—and had been calculating when it would be reached. If any hon. Member was inclined to go to a Division against the proposal of the Secretary to the Treasury, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would certainly support him, as a protest against this alteration of the original arrangement of the Government. He could only regard the proposal as an attempt to evade a Constitutional discussion in that House, and as far as the plea went that they were not to consider certain Votes in Supply, because an action brought by a private individual was pending, was, to say the least of it, a remarkably singular one. What had the House of Commons to do with the proceedings in the Law Courts; and what had the proceedings in the Law Courts to do with the Votes in Supply in the House of Commons? The proceedings of the Committee of Supply had nothing to do with actions pending in the Law Courts, and it was altogether unconstitutional for the Secretary to the Treasury to put forward such a plea as a ground for delaying the Vote.

said, the point which had been raised was a very narrow one. He had come down there fully prepared to discuss the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions; but his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who had been attending more recently to the debates on the matter, had led him to imagine that it would be more convenient to the Committee if this Vote were postponed. He was absolutely certain that his hon. Friend had no other motive in the course he had suggested; but he had gathered that that was the wish of the House, from the debate which took place on Wednesday last. It was pretty plain, however, from the discussion which had just taken place, that such was not the wish of the Committee, and he was anxious, therefore, with the shortest possible expenditure of time, to revert to the original order of the Estimates. He would remind the noble Lord that it was not always the Government who wished to postpone particular Estimates, or to take them out of their proper order. Hitherto, on three or four occasions, the Irish Estimates had been taken out of their proper course at the suggestion, and with the full concurrence, of the Irish Members. It was always a proceeding the Government were unwilling to resort to, and they were quite ready to withdraw the Vote, and proceed with the Vote for Law Charges.

The Government will withdraw the Vote?

Yes.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £49,031, 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, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 & 16 Vic. c. 83."

said, it appeared to him that the Irish Members had a right, upon this Vote, to demand from the Government very full and particular explanations. He confessed that he regarded it as an Estimate of a very suspicious character, and he did not think that it was the Irish Members only who had the right, or the inclination, to demand from the Government explanations in regard to it; but every Member of the House, whether he came from Ireland or not, who had a regard for the interests of public economy and the purity of the Public Service, would be startled, if not disgusted, by the extravagant amount of the Estimate now before the Committee. The first fact upon which he desired to fasten the attention of the Committee was the extraordinary one that the amount of the Vote had, during the past year, undergone no material diminution. The amount last year was slightly over £100,000. The amount now was only £1,000 less, because the Committee were asked to vote £99,031 for this year's cost of the Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland. He would not quarrel with the undiminished amount of the Vote, if it could be contended, or if it could be alleged, that crime had not greatly fallen off, and that tranquillity had not greatly increased in Ireland. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that he had inaugurated his part of the Business of the Session by a remarkable speech which still lingered in the memory of most hon. Members—a speech in which the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the House and the country on the great improvement which had taken place in the state of crime in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House, still more recently, that the diminution and falling off of crime was still going on, and that tranquillity was generally on the increase throughout the length and breadth of the country. Indeed, he had gone so far as to say that but for some isolated efforts on the part of the Orange Brotherhood in the Province of Ulster, they would have enjoyed last year a very quiet winter in Ireland. He might also refer to the great change which was visible to anyone who glanced over the criminal calendar, or who studied the speeches of the County Chairmen, and contrasted them with a similar calendar of crime and speeches a year or two ago, they would be aware that the outrages, which were then counted by the hundred, were now counted by the unit. The Returns of special outrages were for the most part blank. The Judges of Assize, instead of painting in vivid colours the growth of crime and the disorganization of society, were now vieing with each other in congratulating the Grand Juries of the various counties on the disappearance of crime. They had heard of the presentation of white gloves this year in many cities of Ireland, and they had also heard, what it would be difficult to rival either in England or Scotland, that the Judges of Assize had themselves been the recipients of white gloves. For a long time grave crimes had almost entirely disappeared, and every kind of crime was becoming rare. That being so, he called upon the Government to account for the inflated condition of this Estimate for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions. Crime was the material from which prosecutions largely sprung. The Government of Ireland, however, appeared to be able to make bricks without straw, and to carry on prosecutions although crime had practically ceased. That was an anomaly which he called upon the Government to explain. He found on Page 273 of the present Estimates certain items which seemed to him to go far towards explaining this extraordinary condition of affairs. The salary of the Attorney General for Ireland was £1,159 a-year; and he was entitled also, in the shape of an allowance in lieu of fees now abolished, to the sum of £1,420, making the total emoluments, in the way of salary received by the Irish Attorney General for the year, £2,579. The salary of the Solicitor General was £974, and he was entitled, by way of an allowance in lieu of fees abolished, to a further sum of £800, making the salary of the Solicitor General £1,774; and, with the £2,579 paid to the Attorney General, making the salaries of the two Law Officers £4,353 a-year. He asked the Committee to turn now to an item in the Estimates under the head of Fees to the Law Officers in the course of the year for which the Estimate was framed—fees to the Attorney General for conducting criminal prosecutions and other contentious business, and also similar fees to the Solicitor General, amounting to—what did the Committee think?—to the sum of £8,000. The salaries paid to these two Officers amounted to £4,000, and their fees for directing prosecutions to £8,000. Now, he contended that if the salaries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland were too small, they ought to be increased. So far as the Solicitor General was concerned, he knew him to be a most careful and painstaking Officer; and if his remuneration was insufficient, he was satisfied there would be no objection to make a reasonable increase. But he did object to the system on which these Law Officers were paid—namely, one-third by salaries, and two-thirds by fees. The Law Officers of the Crown shared the, heritage which was the common lot of human nature; and it was not fair to them, nor considerate to the public, to put the bulk of their income on a system which obliged them to direct prosecutions in order that they might get fees. He would much prefer that the salaries of these Law Officers should be fixed at £8,000, because, if the learned Solicitor General, in addition to the £1,700 he received in the shape of salary, was to receive £2,000 or £3,000 more, in accordance with the number of prosecutions he directed, it was evident that a direct premium was held out in favour of prosecutions. He should be sorry to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman would direct a prosecution unless he found ample cause for doing so; but what he contended was, that they were subjecting the hon. and learned Gentleman to a temptation which he ought not to be placed under. He entirely condemned the system of fees, and he was of opinion that both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General ought to be paid for the services they performed by salary, and that the temptation and inducement ought not to be held out to them to direct prosecutions in order that they might receive the fees. Then, again, it would be seen from the Estimate that the fees of Counsel, other than the Attorney General and Solicitor General, for conducting Crown prosecutions, which amounted last year to £18,500, had amounted this year to £17,000. In the name of reason, and in the name of common sense, he asked the learned Solicitor General and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to make it apparent and intelligible how it was that the amount of fees to Counsel in Ireland remained practically the same as last year, in face of the notorious fact that the gaols were empty, that agrarian crime had disappeared, that crime of any kind was of rare occurrence, and that the Judges had nothing to offer to the Grand Juries but congratulations on the peace, order, and tranquillity which prevailed throughout the country. Then, again, there was this year, as there was last year, an item of Miscellaneous Charges, under which would probably be found the special expenses of persons like George Bolton, who went to the West of Ireland in order to visit a prisoner, and succeeded in driving him to a state of desperation, and then to the commission of suicide. The Miscellaneous Charges last year were £5,679, and this year they amounted to £6,740. It was quite evident that the trade of prosecution in Ireland was a merry trade, if the salaries and amounts derived from it were so very large. There was, however, another sub-head of which he asked for an explanation from the Government. He referred to the expenses of prosecutions and witnesses previous to the 1st of April. According to the Estimate, they amounted to £26,000 last year; this year they had reached the same total of £26,000. What was the explanation of that? He was afraid it was a sad and sorry explanation. It was one of the most disgraceful and scandalous items in the Estimates, the money being spent, in reality, in maintaining a brood of social vipers—informers and spies—men who were easily engendered by unscrupulous employers with plenty of money in their hands, and willing to spend it lavishly; but although easily engendered, they were not so easily got rid of. When the Executive Government once took into the public pay a body of creatures, whose trade was perjury—when once they showed them that the necessity for hard work on their part was over, and that they could live for the rest of their lives in ease and plenty by merely betraying the liberties and swearing away the lives of men—they established a lucrative business that was very apt to thrive on their hands, and not likely to cease when they simply desired it. He said that this £26,000 a-year, which was a scandal and a disgrace to the Public Estimates, was being spent in the nurture and sustenance of this brood of social vipers. He was entitled to be heard; and he asserted that the time had come when, according to the Government's own figures and Returns, and the statements of their own Judges, there was nothing in the criminal or social condition of the country to justify the continuance of this charge, and that they ought to feel called upon to discontinue it, and to send these informers and spies about their business. He could not wonder at the inflation of the Estimates when he considered the fact that he had himself been compelled to complain not long ago in that House of the course which the Law Officers of the Crown were pursuing. He had found that 11 of his own constituents had been arrested on the gravest of all possible charges except that of murder. They were taken away from their business, removed from their families, and thrown into prison four months ago—men occupying a respectable position, against whose character, until the voice of the informer was listened to, nothing had been alleged; and he had found these men remanded week after week, dealt with by private inquiries only, and the evidence against them doled out by instalments. After four months' imprisonment, when the Assizes came round, the Crown, on the flimsiest of pretences, declined to put these men upon their trial. He was afraid that the country would have to go on paying these enormous sums' every year unless Parliament compelled the Irish Government to refrain from arresting at random men against whom there was no evidence, and whom they kept in prison, postponing their trial from time to time, in the hope that some informer would turn up against them. By these means, and by these inflated Estimates, the purity and independence of the Bar itself were injured, if not destroyed, and the members of it were converted into employés of the Castle, because the gentlemen of the Irish Bar received refreshers during the prolonged course of every one of these investigations. What he called upon the Government to do was to return to the ordinary paths of the Constitution. There was nothing in the condition of Ireland to justify the Committee in agreeing to this Vote. So long as conspiracies existed and crime was committed, or so long as there was anything dangerous or threatening in the social condition of Ireland, no one would object to such expenses as these; but in the present condition of Ireland the claim to the disallowance of this expenditure was irresistible and unanswerable. He would say to the English Members, that, whatever their desire might be to economize the expenditure of public money, that expenditure would continue to go on year after year until the Government refrained from arresting men without evidence, and, having arrested them, abstained from bringing them to trial. They were holding them in prison year after year, hoping that some informer more base than another might turn up with evidence, instead of bringing every man who was arrested to trial at once, with a view to his conviction if guilty. If there was anything unreasonable in what he had stated, he desired the Government to point it out. He had made a series of plain assertions, and he held then to apply to the figures contained in the official Returns. If any of his allegations could be denied, let him have the denial. This assertion, at any rate, could not be denied, because it rested upon undeniable facts—namely, that the claim he had urged was a claim which neither in the spirit of good government, nor in the pursuance of a wise policy, ought to be questioned. He would leave it to his hon. Friends near him to consider what reduction of the Vote they would move in respect of the whole of this horrible system of prolonged examinations and telescopic trials in Ireland; but there was one subject upon which he felt bound himself to move a reduction. He had no doubt that the Government and the Chief Secretary would anticipate what he was about to say. He felt himself again obliged, by a sense of public duty, to mention the name of George Bolton; and so long as that man continued in the Public Service, and he (Mr. Sexton) remained a Member of that House, he would never suffer 1 d. of public money to be voted for Mr. Bolton's emoluments without giving to the proposition the utmost resistance he was able to give with the assistance of his Friends. The position of George Bolton had been made a little more plain since his case had been discussed last week. There was some doubt last week whether Bolton had himself lodged a Petition before the Court of Bankruptcy in Dublin. He had now before him a copy of the Petition, and it showed beyond doubt that Bolton himself had applied to the Court of Bankruptcy for an arrangement. On the last day when the case was under discussion, it was said that if an English Civil servant of any grade had placed himself in a similar position, there was no Department in England in regard to which the House, and even the Department itself, would not have demanded his suspension. He contended that the moment George Bolton brought his affairs into the Court of Bankruptcy he ought to have been suspended. The question whether he should afterwards resume his post, or be allowed to retain it, might very well be left to await the result of the Petition; but as the first and preliminary step, the Crown should have suspended Bolton from his public offices the moment he applied to the Court of Bankruptcy to effect an arrangement between his creditors and himself. This gentleman owed, not, as had been said before, £90,000, but £100,000; and he appeared to derive from the public an income of about £2,000 a-year. He had given Notice a few days ago to the hon. and learned Solicitor General that he would ask him upon this Vote what was the amount of emolument derived by George Bolton. It was well known that he had £400 a-year as Solicitor to the Valuation and Boundary Office; that he had £400 a-year as Crown Solicitor for the County of Tipperary; and he (Mr. Sexton) would now call attention to a statement made in the Irish Court of Bankruptcy on Friday last. The learned gentleman who appeared for the executors under the will of the late Sophia Bolton—the wife of this official—asked for a return of Bolton's salaries, and pointed out that, even taking the account which had been mentioned last year, it amounted to at least £1,900 a-year. Yet this man, who was receiving from public employments £1,900 or £2,000 a-year, owed between £90,000 and £100,000; so that if he devoted the whole of his income to the payment of his creditors, he would arrive at a complete settlement of his affairs somewhere about the middle of the 20th century. And what was the offer which this gentleman made to his creditors? He had offered—hon. Members would hardly believe the audacity that was developed in the bosom of an Irish official—George Bolton had offered to allot £200 a-year to the benefit of his creditors; and when pressed by their representative, he consented to increase the sum to £300, but would not go beyond that amount. From that date there had been no advance upon £300 a-year. He held that the position taken by Mr. Bolton was scandalous and disgraceful; and he wanted to know, now the facts had been made known, whether the Government meant to tolerate his continued employment? Was it not an audacious trifling with the principles of justice for a man owing £90,000, and receiving £2,000 a-year from the public purse, to appear in Court and say that he was only willing to allow £300 for the settlement of the claims of his creditors? They had been told that it was not desirable to discuss this Vote that day, because the trial, in which George Bolton was plaintiff and Mr. O'Brien—the Member for Mallow—was defendant, was proceeding at Belfast. Now, what had happened at Belfast that day? Mr. Bolton went to Belfast to defend his character, and the Government were so anxious that he should be allowed a full opportunity to patch up his somewhat damaged character, that they were unwilling that a word should be said in the House in the discussion of his salary until the trial was determined. Mr. Bolton saw himself described from week to week and month to month in United Ireland as a person who was guilty of fraud and forgery, and who had introduced the arts of a swindler into his own house, and defrauded the wife who trusted him. So long as those charges were made against him he was silent; and it was only on a question of the construction of the heading of a paragraph, which he looked upon as imputing to him an unnatural offence, that Mr. Bolton went into Court to clear his character. How had he proceeded to clear his character? He (Mr. Sexton) was informed that in the Court at Belfast that day Mr. Bolton had been called upon to go into the witness-box, and that he had refused to do so. Did the Government regard that as fulfilling their hope as to the manner in which a public official should defend his character? Was that the way to meet accusations of the kind which had been levelled against Mr. Bolton? If the reports which reached him front Belfast were true, and no one could doubt them, he maintained that the case against Mr. O'Brien had already closed, and by the refusal of Mr. Bolton to go into the witness-box to offer himself for examination, and to throw open his life before the jury and the Court—by his refusal to go through that ordeal—the case against the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had gone by default, and George Bolton was already practically found guilty. He (Mr. Sexton) begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,600, which, so far as he was able to estimate, was that portion of the Vote which would otherwise go to George Bolton for salaries and expenses; and in making that Motion he would conclude by saying that he awaited with curiosity to learn what action was left for the Crown, in the new condition of things revealed at Belfast that day, in carrying further their obstinate and unwise defence of this disgraceful official.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £47,431, 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, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."— (Mr. Sexton.)

said, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in approaching this Estimate in the character of an economist, regretted that the amount had undergone no material diminution since last year. He thought the hon. Member would, indeed, have good reason to regret it if such was in any sense the case. Undoubtedly the Estimate this year was, on the face of it, very much the same as last year; but the hon. Member had omitted a most important consideration. The Estimate for 1883–4 was £100,000; the Estimate for 1884–5 was £99,000. The hon. Member, however, could not have forgotten that in the course of the many debates in which they had been engaged this year, and especially early in the Session, the Government had found it necessary to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate of something over £15,000; so that the actual Estimate for last year amounted, not to £100,000, but to £115,000; and, therefore, the reduction between this Estimate and the actual Estimate of last year amounted to £16,000. The hon. Member connected the amount of the Estimate with the state of crime in Ireland. In that respect it would be interesting to the economists of the House to watch the gradual growth, and he was glad to add the gradual reduction, of the Estimate now under consideration, and to observe how closely it followed the course, not so much of crime as the detection and punishment of crime in Ireland. In the year 1878–9 the actual expenditure on this Estimate stood at £82,000. It was noticeable that this was the amount, roughly speaking, of the actual expendi- ture of the Estimate for a great number of years past. There had been only one exceptional year since 1870, and that was the year 1873–4. In that case there had been a Supplementary Estimate of £22,000, which brought up the expenditure upon the Law Charges to £100,000. That was the year in which the riot cases in the Phoenix Park were tried, and the Estimate was swelled by a considerable amount of expenditure on what might be termed the public litigation which took place before the period on which he was about to enter. In 1878 the actual expenditure was £82,000. In 1879–80 the actual expenditure was £80,244; but in the last months of 1879 and in the earlier months of 1880—with increasing velocity throughout 1880—that state of crime began which they had all deplored, and the first signs of it were shown in the Estimates of 1880–1, which rose to £87,000. In 1881–2, as crime grew worse, the Estimate rose to £105,000.

The Estimate or the expenditure?

The expenditure. In 1881–2 the expenditure rose to £105,000. In 1882–3, which he took to have been a sort of culminating point when the state of crime was worse and its detection had begun, the Estimate rose to £118,000. In 1883–4 the actual expenditure, as shown by the bills already got in up to the present time, amounted to £110,633.

£10,000 over the Estimate.

£10,000 over the Estimate, and £7,000 under the combined Estimate and Supplementary Estimate together. That was to say, that while the expenditure for the detection and suppression of crime had risen gradually from £82,000 to £118,000, in 1882–3 the actual expenditure fell off by about £8,000, as far as he had been able to ascertain. Being anxious not to have a Supplementary Estimate, they had estimated the expenditure in November and December at £99,000, thus showing another steady falling off. He had every reason to hope that next year, by which time not only would crime have very much diminished from what it was at its worst, but its detection would have begun to be much less material in its operation, and, therefore, much less active, they would be able, judging from the actual expenditure of 1884–5, to make a very sensible reduction in the Estimates of 1885–6. To show how completely this was the case, and how far this expenditure was due, not to salaries, but to the actual operation of the punishment and detection of crime both present and old, he had taken out the fees to the Law Officers, the fees to counsel, the general law expenses in regard to prosecutions, and the witnesses' expenses, as items which spoke of the actual work done; and he found that in 1878–9 they amounted to £48,000; in 1880–1 to £55,000; 1881–2, £74,000; 1882–3, £83,000; 1883–4, 75,000; and the present Estimate was £69,000, which brought the expenses upon these items down to £14,000 below the actual expenditure of 1882–3. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) thought this was not a sufficient reduction to represent the actual diminution of crime; but it was, nevertheless, a large reduction, and a steady reduction. Crime had fallen off, and so had the expenditure; and he was bound to say that a great part of the tranquillity which Ireland now enjoyed was due to the manner in which the crimes in the past had been dragged to light, and the manner in which they were followed up—an operation still going on, and which had certainly not yet come to an end. [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] He hoped that all hon. Gentlemen would cheer that sentiment. The detection of past crime was one of the most important functions of the Government. It must be remembered, however, that they must not talk even of a diminution of crime with too much triumph. It was quite true that a beneficial change had taken place up to that moment. The outrages reported in some months of the year had fallen very much in number below what were recorded in the most peaceful years in Ireland. But the country was still, in some districts especially, in a state where justice must still keep a tight hand upon crime and disorder; and although the expenditure upon justice must be most closely watched, and reductions made, he maintained that reductions had been made in such a manner as to afford sufficient scope for the operations of justice, while, at the same time, gratifying the economists of that House. He by no means wished to boast; but he still desired to impress upon the Committee that, taking the actual Estimates of last year, and the actual Estimates of this, there was an actual reduction of about £19,000.

asked if his right hon. Friend could give the actual number of cases represented in the prosecutions last year?

said, he was not able to say that.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could give any indication within 30 or 50?

said, he did not know that he was even able to give that information; nor was he aware that the Returns even in the case of England gave judicial statistics in that respect. He was under the impression, so far as Ireland was concerned, that the judicial statistics were not drawn on the principle of giving a Return of that kind. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) objected to the system on which the Irish Law Officers were paid. Although he admitted that their salaries were small in proportion to those of the English Law Officers, the hon. Gentleman said the salaries ought to bear a larger proportion to the expenditure which was incurred in the shape of fees. The hon. Member objected to the payment of fees as holding out an inducement to the Law Officers to promote prosecutions, although, at the same time, he added that he did not think the Solicitor General was influenced by that fact. The hon. Gentleman must remember that prosecutions were not always bad things. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had heard from the Benches on which the hon. Member sat a very warm protest against the Government abstaining from prosecutions in certain cases. Hon. Members opposite were constantly referring to cases in which they thought there ought to be prosecutions. Only that day he had informed an hon. Gentleman who sat near the hon. Member that a person who had falsified voting papers would probably be prosecuted, and that information appeared to give the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction. But he himself reminded the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that, as far as the payment by fees appertained, it appertained in preventing prosecutions which ought not to be undertaken from being set on foot. An uncalled-for prosecution was disgraceful, and the injury done to the reputation of the Law Officers who set it on foot, if it could be shown that it was set on foot from any such motive, would be infinitely greater than any compensation that could be obtained from the fees. The hon. Member had referred to the imprisonment without trial of a number of persons in a district where his own political opinions had great influence.

said, that since he last spoke he had received a telegram from the Tubbercurry prisoners, who wished to have it pressed upon the House that their trial should take place on the 5th of August, and intimating their willingness to waive all right to notice—such as that which was required to be given in a change of venue.

said, it was unfortunate that those telegrams came during the debate, and thus acquired additional interest from so coming, because it was absolutely impossible that they could receive the attention which properly ought to be given to them. He would certainly prefer that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General should consider the bearing of this request, as he certainly could not answer off-hand what would be the proper course to take. He could only say, in regard to the complaints of the hon. Member of the arrests of men on insufficient evidence, that in the heat and hurry of the early days of the suppression of the state of crime which had existed in Ireland, it was possible, as it was in the case of a terrible war, for things to have been done hastily in the way of arrests, and from the want of proper communications having been kept up between the Law Officers and others who were Law Officers no longer, and the responsible magistrates and police. He did not know much about the facts of this particular case; but nothing had engaged his attention more than this—namely, the propriety of impressing upon all those who were concerned in the detection of crime that they were not to make arrests, except in serious cases, until the case had been laid in full before the Law Officers. That ought not to be done except in the most exceptional cases, where the suspected person was likely to leave the country, or where there was imminent danger of a crime being about to be committed. Exceptional circumstances only would warrant a sudden arrest being made, because a sudden and ill-considered arrest was frequently productive of fatal results. He had been glad to hear the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) lay particular emphasis upon this particular case, because it made him think the hon. Member realized the fact that there were not many unfortunate men still left in the position of being remanded over and over again. He believed that resulted from the caution now displayed by persons in authority, who saw that arrests were not made without very great deliberation, and on a full case being established. He thought he had now gone through everything the hon. Member had alleged, with the exception of his remarks in reference to Mr. Bolton. He must say that he deprecated any conclusion being drawn—such as the hon. Member had drawn from the telegram he had read to the House. He knew nothing about the facts of the case; but he could very well conceive that when a very grave charge had been made, and the person who made it was being prosecuted as a libeller—he could well conceive that before going into the box to be examined as to the whole of his life, on any question which might be put to him, the plaintiff might insist that some primâ facie case should be made out against him. He might give an instance in illustration of what he meant. If a man was charged with having stolen a watch, he might bring an action for libel, but refuse to go into the box to be examined as to whether, at a contested election, he had given a man 5 s. to buy some ale. He might insist that a primâ facie case of his having stolen the watch should be made out, in the first instance, and that the libel should be properly established before he was called upon to refute it. But he did not think that this was a case to be argued in Parliament while it was pending in a Court of Law, and he had no wish to argue it. But if the hon. Member thought it right to prejudice the case against Mr. Bolton during the progress of the trial by commenting upon a single fact which had come to his knowledge, and which might bear a very different complexion from that which the telegram put upon it, he thought it right to say, on the other side, that there might be a possible explanation of everything stated in the telegram. He did not think, however, that the House of Commons ought at present to concern itself with the general character of Mr. Bolton. He thought that the character of that gentleman was at that moment sacred; and hon. Members must have an opinion whether the course pursued was not calculated to prejudice the case in the public mind. While litigation was proceeding with regard to the attempt of Mr. Bolton to vindicate his character, and while Mr. Bolton was in the position of a litigant vindicating his character, that character ought to be sacred, and ought not to be discussed in that House. From that point of view, he altogether deprecated any remark upon Mr. Bolton's general character. As to the question of Mr. Bolton's bankruptcy, he was aware how grave a matter the question of bankruptcy in regard to a public officer was. He was perfectly aware what the practice was in the case of English Civil servants, and he considered that practice, in the essence of it, to be a righteous one, and that no man whose private affairs were brought under the notice of the Government, by bankruptcy, or by proceedings equivalent to bankruptcy, should be continued in his position, unless, on examination, it turned out that his difficulties were not occasioned by fraud, or by culpable extravagance, or by culpable improvidence.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman meant that the Government was to form its opinion upon these matters by the examination which took place in the Bankruptcy Court?

said, that, of course, the materials upon which the Government would be required to form a conclusion would be what came before the Court of Bankruptcy. What he maintained was, that the Government would have to satisfy themselves on these points by what was brought under their notice by the proceedings in bankruptcy, or proceedings equivalent to bankruptcy. That was the principle adopted in regard to the English Civil servants, and it was the principle on which the Irish Government intended to act in regard to Mr. Bolton, and in the case of any Civil servant who received a salary under the Crown. He thought that was a plain and simple statement on the part of the Government, so far as Mr. Bolton was concerned. In regard to any other question relating to Mr. Bolton, they could not enter into it while the trial was pending.

said, he had never heard anything more convincing than the speech delivered by the Prime Minister last Wednesday against the postponement of the Vote. He agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman then said, that the proceedings now going on at Belfast had nothing whatever to do with the Vote before the House; and if he had any influence with hon. Members opposite, he would certainly ask them to avoid in this discussion any reference to the trial now going on, which could have nothing whatever to do with the present Vote. There was not a Member in that House who did not think that very great extravagance was apparent in regard to the Irish Law Charges, and he knew that in the whole of Europe there was not a similar case in which the salaries of the judicial officers of the country bore such an extravagant proportion to the Revenues of the country in which they lived. He had risen, however, for the purpose of making one or two remarks directly in reference to Mr. Bolton. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had given a definition of what he considered ought to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government in reference to Civil servants. He was sorry to differ from so great and respectable an authority as his right hon. Friend, but he did differ entirely from him in regard to this matter. When the discussion took place the other day, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) said that Mr. Bolton had not presented a Petition in Bankruptcy. The right hon. Gentleman did not pretend to make that statement to-day. It was now admitted by the learned Solicitor General for Ireland, and it was perfectly well known in all quarters of the House, that Mr. Bolton had presented a Petition in Bankruptcy. That being so, he held that there ought to be an inviolable rule that when a public servant presented a Petition in Bankruptcy he should be immediately suspended. He differed entirely from the Chief Secretary in thinking that Her Majesty's Government ought to suspend their judgment until there had been an adjudication in reference to that Petition in Bankruptcy. What had happened in this particular case was this. Only two days ago it came to light in the proceedings connected with Mr. George Bolton's bankruptcy, which were fully and accurately reported in The Times newspaper, that Mr. Bolton had made an offer to his creditors of £300 from his annual official salaries. The Judge of the Court was advised to make Mr. Bolton a bankrupt; but he declined to do so, because that course would probably involve the loss of the official salaries. What was now happening was only what would happen in any case of default. Bolton, farmed by his creditors, might go on for years, and it might happen that the money voted by the House of Commons might, under the existing conditions of the case, be made available by a person who had presented a Petition in Bankruptcy for meeting the demands of his creditors, and pre-venting an adjudication in bankruptcy from taking place. The debtor had in this case an interest in continuing in the receipt of his salary in order that it might be farmed—although the debtor was an officer in Her Majesty's Service—by his creditors. Now, he held most strongly that no officer of the Crown ought to be in that position—that he ought not to be in a position in which he could be farmed by any one of Her Majesty's subjects. Holding that view, he should support the Motion for reducing the Vote by the amount of Mr. Bolton's salary.

said, they had had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland of a kind which had unfortunately become too common in connection with this case. The right hon. Gentleman, a man of brilliant abilities, well able to hold his own in debate with almost all comers, had been struggling almost incoherently, for half-an-hour, in a lame and halting speech, to screen Mr. Bolton. In fact, he did not think there had ever been a more remarkable instance in that House of an official palpably and obviously discharging a duty which was odious and loathsome to him than that which the right hon. Gentleman had afforded that evening. As to the excessive amount of the Estimates now under the consideration of the Committee, he would leave the case where it had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and the hon. Gentleman who had just now spoken. The conviction was firm and fixed, and no amount of rambling speeches by the Chief Secretary would remove it from the mind of the Committee and from the public of this country, as well as of Ireland that the Law Charges in connection with Ireland were beyond all reason and beyond all decency. That was a fact which had passed out of the sphere of disputable or disputed proposals, and was well established in every rational and unofficial mind. He would now refer to the Tubbercurry prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman commented on the fact that the case had been brought forward so frequently by his hon. Friend, and he had drawn the extraordinary inference that it was the only case of the kind in Ireland. As a matter of fact, the explanation of the interest taken by his hon. Friend in the case was that the prisoners were his own constituents, whose grievances he was specially required to bring under the notice of the House. That there were other cases in which similar hardships were experienced he had not the slightest doubt; but in all probability the persons who had been so treated had not the good fortune to possess a Representative in that House as energetic and as influential as his hon. Friend. With regard to the Tubbercurry prisoners, they had been in gaol since the 2nd of April, and now on the 29th of July they were still untried, and had not been admitted to bail. The right hon. Gentleman had himself deprecated the principle of making fishing arrests in Ireland; but the circumstances of this case, in which men had been kept in prison from the 2nd of April until the 29th of July without being brought to trial, afforded convincing proof that the arrest was a fishing arrest. The mere statement of the facts must bring conviction home to the mind of every hon. Member that when the Government arrested these men they had no evidence against them; but that they took up the case experimentally, in the hope of being able to get evidence by-and-bye. When at last, in obedience to the strong pressure put upon the Government by his hon. Friend, these men were brought to the Assizes for trial, the Government again suggested the postponement on the miserable and flimsy pretence that subscriptions were being got up by their neighbours to assist them in their defence. In this country, even in the case of the most odious criminal, if the public had an idea that he was in danger of being unfairly tried for the want of legal advice, an appeal would at once be made for support, in order to produce evidence and see that the case was adequately conducted. It was within his own recollection that many criminals of the worst type had been helped in this way to defend themselves lest the sacredness of trial by jury should be violated, and they should not receive proper treatment. The Tubbercurry prisoners, through their solicitor, had addressed a telegram to his hon. Friend, asking that they should he tried on the 5th of August; and he should like to hear from the Solicitor General for Ireland any ground why this reasonable request on their part should not be complied with. They were perfectly convinced of being able to establish their innocence. All that they asked was that they should be tried on the first opportunity, and not kept languishing in prison week after week and month after month because no opportunity was afforded to them of establishing their innocence. The re-appearance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the present occasion suggested some strange inquiries. Why was the right hon. Gentleman not in his place when the case of George Bolton was under discussion last week? There was a general impression last Wednesday that the absence of the right hon. Gentleman from the House was due to the fatigue he had undergone for several days in defending his Department from the attacks which had been made upon it in that House. No doubt the amount of labour the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to go through owing to the responsibilities which attached to his Office were extremely onerous; but he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. It was a categorical question, and he hoped that a categorical answer would be given. Was the right hon. Gentleman wilfully absent from the House on Wednesday last when the Vote for Mr. Bolton's salary was under discussion? Was his absence deliberate and intentional, or the result of accident and the consequence of fatigue? All he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could say was that the Irish Members had seen the re-appearance of the right hon. Gentleman upon the Treasury Bench in order to defend these Votes with a certain amount of curiosity and interest, especially after his absence on Wednesday. He must say that the position of the right hon. Gentleman was one which entitled him to sympathy. What evil fate had condemned him to stand up in the defence of such men as George Bolton; and if his conscience did not justify him, what evil fate compelled him to swallow the odious dose? The right hon. Gentleman ought not to stop a moment longer in Office if he found that he could not discharge the duties of it with the full consent of his heart and conscience. He would recall to the memory of the right hon. Gentleman a remarkable incident which occurred in the last Parliament, and in which the right hon. Gentleman himself took a prominent part. A noble Lord sitting on the Bench which the right hon. Gentleman now occupied was a Member of the Administration of Lord Beaconsfield. There was a financial trial going on in the City of London at the time, and in the course of the evidence at the trial certain transactions with which the noble Lord had been concerned were brought to light. They were supposed to have been of a somewhat questionable nature. Who was the man who then stood up in that House and compelled the resignation of the noble Lord? It was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was now the advocate and exponent of George Bolton. Although the noble Lord might have committed a certain amount of indiscretion, there was sufficient proof in the exposure which took place that there was nothing criminal in the transaction. His conduct might have been foolish, thoughtless, and unworthy of a man occupying his high position; but his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) sympathies were with the noble Lord, rather than with the right hon. Gentleman, who had taken a malignant course in matters which he himself—a man of large fortune—might have treated with indulgence. Yet this rigid economist, this relentless purist, was the man who got up now night after night to defend as bad a class of criminals as any who ever had the misfortune to be connected with the Civil Service of any country in the world. He wished to correct one misconception on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gen- tleman, speaking on the attitude of the Irish Members towards George Bolton, admitted that the result of the trial at Belfast would have a material influence upon the action of the Government. Now, the position of the Irish Members in reference to George Bolton was that he ought to have been dismissed long ago. He asked any English Member to rise in his place and declare that any man with the antecedents and character of George Bolton ought to have been retained for a single week in the Civil Service of this country? That was a fair challenge. Would any Member who was not a Member of the Government—indeed, would any Member of the Government except the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland get up and declare that a man with the antecedents and character and position of George Bolton ought to be kept for a single hour in the service of this country? He awaited with some curiosity to see the manner in which that challenge would be taken up by the Government. The real secret of all these matters was that the Government of Ireland were determined to stand by their tools, no matter what dirty instruments they might be. There was not a single man whose dismissal had been agreed to by the Government during the last two or three years who had been dismissed voluntarily, or who would have been dismissed at all but for the constant pressure of public opinion, and after wearisome discussions in that House. Every official who had been prosecuted had been proceeded against at the eleventh hour, and after the Government had exhausted every means of evading a prosecution. He maintained that that was a shameful and pitiable position for the right hon. Gentleman to occupy. For the right hon. Gentleman himself he had great respect and sympathy; but he must say that his official conduct in these matters had brought about all the trouble in which he found himself involved.

said, the question was not precisely whether Mr. Bolton ought to be dismissed for his past misconduct, because all that had been condoned. The real question was whether he ought to be suspended at present. Now, it appeared to him that in suggesting his suspension hon. Members only treated Mr. Bolton precisely in the same way as every other public servant was treated, and as they were treated themselves if any one of them filed a Petition in Bankruptcy. If an hon. Member presented a Petition in Bankruptcy he was suspended from all legislative functions until that Petition was disposed of; and he thought they had a right to ask that the same rule which was applied to Members of Parliament, and which was applied to all public servants in England, should also be applied to those who were employed in Ireland. They had been told that one reason why this course had not been taken in regard to Mr. Bolton, and why Mr. Bolton had not been suspended, was that he was proposing to enter into some bargain with his creditors, by which he was to hand over to them some portion of his official emoluments. He had always understood that the salary given to an official was in order that he might maintain a certain position in society; and it would be very strange to have a man occupying an official position, with the greater part of his salary in the hands of his creditors. What could be more objectionable than that a man, holding the position of Crown Solicitor in Ireland, and exercising legal functions, and obliged to conduct the prosecution of prisoners, should be, to all intents and purposes, in the hands of his creditors? He knew nothing about Mr. Bolton, except what he had read and heard in that House; but, speaking generally, ho thought the facts which were admitted by the Treasury Bench rendered it only just and proper that Mr. Bolton should be at once suspended.

said, it was not his province to defend Her Majesty's Government, nor did he know anything about this case beyond what had been said in that House; but he did think that there ought to be some right understanding as to the course which should be adopted. What was now before the Committee was the proposal that Mr. Bolton's salary should be omitted from the present Vote; that he should, in fact, be deprived of his professional remuneration, and dismissed as a solicitor from public employment. He did not think that sufficient reasons had been assigned for taking such a course. He had very little respect for the antecedents of Mr. Bolton, and he was not there to defend that gentleman; but if he had been a fraudulent trustee there were remedies in Ireland, as well as in England, which could be put in force against him, and he might have been prosecuted in that capacity. If he had committed an unprofessional act, he presumed that there might have been an application to strike him off the rolls in Ireland, as in England; but he could not find that either one step or the other had been taken against Mr. Bolton. All that was left was the Petition in Bankruptcy, and the proceedings which were now pending in the Court at Belfast. It was admitted that that House ought not to be influenced by those proceedings. Reference had been made to the fact that Mr. Bolton had not appeared when he was called upon to appear as a witness in Court in the case now pending at Belfast. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had put that matter very fairly. He might, of course, have been examined from one end of his life to another; and until some case was made out by the other side to justify the libel it was not for Mr. Bolton to go into the box at the call of the other side. ["Oh!" from Irish Members. ] He hoped that hon. Members would hear him out. If a plaintiff was required by the defendant to appear in the witness-box, the defendant had the means in his own hands of putting him there. He might summon him by subpœna, and ask him pretty well what questions he liked, treating him even as a hostile witness. Therefore, he did not think much importance attached to the refusal of Mr. Bolton to go into the witness-box in this instance. In all probability the telegram which had been referred to was founded upon some observation in Court—such as "Where is Mr. Bolton?" or something of that kind. Nor did it follow that Mr. Bolton would not present himself as a witness at the proper time. Then it was said that Mr. Bolton had presented a Petition in Bankruptcy. Now, as he understood, the bankruptcy was brought about in consequence of some unfortunate purchases which Mr. Bolton had made in the Landed Estates Court of Ireland. Mr. Bolton had fancied the purchases he made to be of very much larger value than they turned out to be. Many other gentlemen had made mistakes in the purchase of land, and had lost something in con- sequence. The Committee had a right to assume that, being pressed by his creditors, Mr. Bolton had presented a Petition in the Court of Bankruptcy for the proper administration of his estate, in order to secure that it should be duly administered among his creditors generally. It would appear from the investigation, when it took place, whether the circumstances attending the bankruptcy were discreditable to Mr. Bolton or not; and, therefore, he did not see that there was sufficient ground for taking steps against Mr. Bolton until the circumstances of the bankruptcy were disclosed. Until those proceedings were fully heard, he did not think it would be right to suspend Mr. Bolton during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings he had invited. Of course if it turned out that the circumstances of the bankruptcy were discreditable to him, or that there had been anything fraudulent in his transactions, the case would be different, or even if it shout turn out that the bankruptcy had been brought about by undue means, such a extravagance, or wanton expenditure, it would be another question, and the Government would have it in their power to deal with him; but until that fact was ascertained, he did not think there was any ground for the refusal of his salary. If it were purely a bankruptcy of misfortune, not attributable to the fault of the bankrupt, it would be a harsh thing that he should at once loss his appointment.

said, he thought the point raised by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) was really the one which the Committee were called upon to consider. As to the trial at Belfast, it seemed to him that the Government were wise in not throwing the weight of a feather in either scale. The simple question was, what was the ordinary rule of the Service in the case of the bankruptcy of a public servant? If it was the rule in other Departments b suspend a public servant in the event of bankruptcy where the bankruptcy was the act of the servant or of his creditors there ought to be no difference made in Mr. Bolton's case. He knew the case of young officer in the Army who had undertaken to pay his father's debts by instalments, and, having failed to do so bankruptcy proceedings were brought against him; and he (Mr. Illingworth) was told that, in spite of all the interest brought to bear to save this youug officer, he had been compelled by the Commander-in-Chief to resign his position. What he held, and what every right-minded man would hold, was that if the rule ordinarily observed was suspension there ought to be no exception made in the case of Mr. Bolton. Of course, if any of the charges now made against Mr. Bolton were substantiated, then it was clear that suspension would not be sufficient, but that it must be followed by absolute dismissal with disgrace. All he said was that the Government would not be justified in this case in deviating from the clear and well-understood rule in all other cases when a man was overtaken by embarrassment in regard to his pecuniary circumstances, and matters had proceeded so far as to involve a Petition in Bankruptcy. It seemed that the proper course which ought to be taken in this case was to suspend Mr. Bolton.

said, he had understood on the last occasion this question was before the House that it was stated from the Treasury Bench that there was no certain rule laid down as to bankruptcy or arrangement with creditors. Of course, there were bankruptcies and bankruptcies; and, therefore, it was absolutely impossible to lay down an absolutely rigid rule. Last Wednesday the statement made was that the presentation of a Petition for arrangement, or even adjudication, in bankruptcy would not, ipso facto, necessarily cause dismissal from the Public Service, and it was pointed out that every case must be considered on its own merits, and on the circumstances which brought the bankruptcy about. As an illustration to show the reasonableness of this rule, the case was given of a person who had been trustee of moneys invested in shares in the City of Glasgow Bank. The failure of that bank had brought about the ruin of such trustee, whose own affairs were put into the Bankruptcy Court, with the result that the trustee was adjudicated a bankrupt. Now, it was obvious that such a bankruptcy was perfectly consistent with the entire innocence of the man who was made bankrupt, and it would be an extreme hardship to subject a man under such circumstances, who ought to have the sympathy of all persons, to a dismissal which would deprive him of the only means he had of effecting a settlement with his creditors. He did not assert that that was the case here, and he did not pretend to have any special knowledge of the rules enforced either in the Army or in the Public Service. But the statement from the Treasury Bench on Wednesday last was not challenged or contradicted in any part of the House; and he was bound to say that it seemed to him to be a rule which, if applied with discretion, would recommend itself to the common sense of everyone.

said, it was quite possible that a man might become bankrupt by accident or misfortune, and many bankrupts were neither fraudulent or disreputable persons. In his part of the country he was satisfied that many persons whose estates were administered under the Bankruptcy Act, and who were held to be bankrupt, had become so by misfortune; but in this case it was evident that Mr. Bolton was a man of questionable character, and while legal proceedings were pending against him in the Courts of this country the Government, having full knowledge of the proceedings, not only took no steps against him, but actually promoted him. In this case, instead of suspending him or instituting a full inquiry into the charges against him, his superiors acted as his protectors. He (Mr. Joseph Cowen) maintained that the Government were fully aware of Mr. Bolton's antecedents, and therefore he should support the Amendment.

said, he also intended to support the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote, and he agreed with the Mover of the Motion in the opinion he had expressed that the Law Charges in Ireland were altogether swollen beyond the necessities and requirements of the case. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had shown the Committee that there had been very little diminution in these charges, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a very considerable diminution in the crime of the country, and not only in the crime of the country, but in many other respects. The one thing which would not diminish, so long as it was possible to keep it up to high water mark, was the Law Charges, the fees paid to lawyers and policemen, the reward of spies, informers, Crown Pro- secutors, and all the rest of them. Those charges were kept up at the highest level, notwithstanding the fact that crime and outrage were decreasing, and the population and wealth of the country were also decreasing. No doubt there had been a high old time for the lawyers, who had an interest in keeping up the Law Charges as long as they could. This class of people had been rolling in wealth and wallowing in the public money for years past; and, of course, it was very desirable on their part to continue the same game as long as possible. As regarded George Bolton, he had been the pet of Dublin Castle—the pet of the Executive, and the Public Service of that country. He had not one salary only, but many; and yet, out of those many salaries, he could not afford to pay his creditors. He enjoyed an income from the Government of £2,000 a-year. He contracted debts to the amount of £100,000, and he found that the Government and the House of Commons did their best to shield and shelter him. He (Mr. Sullivan) had seen the evidence of what had occurred recently in Dublin, when the Judge of the Bankruptcy Court kindly consented to postpone the hearing of Bolton's case in order that Mr. Bolton might have an opportunity of obtaining damages at Belfast. That was the sort of support he got from men in high office in Ireland. When they came into that House—the highest Court of Justice—they found an endeavour to postpone the Votes lest the fair fame of Mr. George Bolton should suffer. They found Ministers of the Crown standing up and defending him when there was a clear case against him. Using the word "Crown" put him in mind that in Ireland Mr. George Bolton was "the Crown;" that admirable gentleman, in conducting prosecutions in Ireland called himself "the Crown," and the Judges and Magistrates referred to the excellent and famous George Bolton as "the Crown." Ought not the Government to be ashamed at such a name being applied to such a man, and that such a man should be retained in the Public Service? He said it was a public scandal that these things should be; it was one of the many scandals connected with the Government Departments in Ireland, and the Government had good reason that night to be ashamed of it.

said, he was not quite sure whether the Treasury Minute of November, 1868, had been read to the House; but it had been very often cited, and it might be well to read the exact words, which were as follows:—

"In the event of any civil servant being arrested, or being adjudicated a bankrupt, or entering into a composition with his creditors under the Bankruptcy Act, he will, on the fact being known, be suspended from duty and from salary, and he will not be reinstated unless, after examination of the facts and of the schedule prepared for the Court, it shall appear that his difficulties have been occasioned by misfortune, and not by extravagance or culpable improvidence, or unless the case shall be characterized by previous circumstances of extenuation."

That was the measure which the Irish Government were anxious to apply to Irish Civil servants; they included Mr. Bolton in that category, and that measure, and no other, they proposed to apply to him. The question obviously was, whether he had hitherto come under any one of the first three heads—being arrested, or being adjudicated a bankrupt, or entering into a composition with his creditors. What was the meaning of "adjudicated a bankrupt?" That was the point, and he was not willing to state the opinion of someone on the Treasury Bench on so purely legal a question; but they proposed to lay the case before the Law Officers, and likewise to apply to the proper authority, whom he would not then name, to ascertain what was the practice in the English Civil Service; and exactly that practice, so far as it could be ascertained, would be followed in this case. This was a clear statement of the course which the Government proposed to take, and he earnestly hoped it would be satisfactory to the Committee.

said, he thought the Committee were in a position of some difficulty, because they had not had much light from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who contented himself with the oracular remark that there were bankruptcies and bankruptcies, and then sat down and left the Committee where they were before. The Committee wanted to know the rule that was in force in the Service from official sources, and that had been clearly stated by the right hon. Gentle- man who read the Treasury Minute. And they wanted to ascertain clearly the course which the Government intended to pursue, and they learned that it was one which differed widely from the course they had taken in other cases, because it appeared by the Minute that where a man was arrested or adjudicated a bankrupt, or made a composition with his creditors, he was to be at once suspended from the Public Service. He understood that, under the new Bankruptcy Act, the first step to be taken in order to make a composition with creditors was to file a Petition; and though he did not state it as a question of law, he was informed that a composition could not be made without first filing a Petition in Bankruptcy. At any rate, the fact remained that, on the 24th of June last, Mr. Bolton filed a Petition in Bankruptcy, with a view to compounding with his creditors; and, without sympathizing with hon. Members behind him in their attack on Mr. Bolton, he did not see why a rule should be laid down for him different from that applied to others. Nor did he see why the fact that Mr. Bolton was attacked by a certain party and defended by others should give him a privileged position. They had Mr. Bolton applying to the Bankruptcy Court on the 24th of June last, with a view to compounding with his creditors. Why, then, did not the Treasury Rule come into operation? Not only did the Rule not come into operation when Mr. Bolton filed a Petition in Bankruptcy, but he doubted whether it would have come into operation at all but for the question having been raised by hon. Members behind him. If Members of that House and of the House of Peers became, during the time of bankruptcy, incapable of discharging public duties, he would ask the Prime Minister whether he thought that exceptional treatment should be adopted in the case of a legal official in the Public Service, and whether he thought it advantageous with regard to Ireland that an official who had come very prominently before the public, and who occupied a position which exposed men to much adverse criticism—namely, that of Crown Prosecutor—that such an individual should be singled out above all other officials for exceptional treatment? He thought, if it were necessary, as a general rule, to exercise care in administration, that extreme care should be exercised when the Irish Government was concerned, because, unfortunately, the Irish Government did not enjoy the respect of the great majority of the people of Ireland; and he could conceive nothing more likely to stimulate the unpopularity of that Government than that the House of Commons should be led to understand that an official of the Government was to be exempt from the operation of one of the ordinary Rules of the Public Service.

said, he could venture to assure the noble Lord that nothing was further from the intention of the Government than to apply an exceptional mode of treatment to the case of Mr. Bolton. The whole question was this. What was the rule of the Public Service, and what was the just application of that rule? The question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) a few minutes ago had been answered by what had been read by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from the Treasury Minute of November, 1868. When the noble Lord spoke to him he had no recollection in the matter which was very serviceable; but his recollection was, that the administration of the Minute had generally been in conformity with what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—that there were bankruptcies and bankruptcies—that was to say, that everything depended upon the character of the bankruptcy. It might be said that this was with regard to the ultimate steps to be taken, and that suspension was not inevitable in any case; but suspension was not invariably insisted upon, and there was the case of a person in the Education Department, whom it would not be necessary to name, holding an important situation, who was actually adjudicated a bankrupt, but who was not suspended for an hour, so far was the nature of the case known to be in his favour. That, however, he admitted, was not a case in the same sense. It appeared to him that there was no room left for doubt. The Minute of November, 1868, was clearly in the nature of a penal law, and, being so, it was the duty of the Treasury to administer it strictly; and, whatever might be the amount of feeling in that House, it was their duty to ascertain its legal construction—not stretch its application—and that his right hon. Friend said was being done by the best means in his power. The Secretary to the Treasury was said to have been defending Mr. Bolton; but the extent of that defence was to see that strict justice was administered to him. He had one addition to make to what had been stated by his right hon. Friend, which, he thought, would satisfy the Committee. His right hon. Friend had promised that he would obtain the best legal judgment he could of the meaning and construction of this Rule; and to that he might add, as it was fair matter for discussion, that if this Vote were now allowed to pass, the Government proposed that the Report of the Vote should not be taken until his right hon. Friend had obtained the judgment he sought. He hoped the Committee, under the circumstances, would see that, if the Vote were passed, this question could be raised at a time when the Government would be in a position to state decisively their course.

said, they were entitled to demand from the Government to take immediately a step which they were clearly not disposed to take. He failed to discover any reason in the statements of Members of the Government why this should not be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had read a Treasury Minute to the Committee, the existence of which was quite as well known to the Government on Wednesday last as it was that night, Now, that Minute provided that if a Civil servant became bankrupt, or entered into a composition with his creditors, he should be suspended in consequence. What was the position of Mr. Bolton? He had filed affidavits in the Court of Bankruptcy; one of them, dated the 2nd of July, was headed "In the Bankruptcy Court, Ireland, in the matter of George Bolton. Petition for arrangement." He (Mr. Sexton) said then that Mr. Bolton had entered into a composition with his creditors, so far as it was possible for him to do so. He had done all in his power to make a composition with his creditors; and he maintained that, applying the rule of the English Civil Service, the Government were bound to suspend him. They were told that action would be taken when the construction of the Minute was ascertained; but he said that Mr. Bolton ought to be suspended now. No doubt, as it was said, there were bankruptcies and bankruptcies—so much the worse for Mr. Bolton, for a bankruptcy like his had not been seen for a long time. Judge Walsh had declared his conduct towards his own relatives and family to have been of a fearful character, and yet the Prime Minister contended that there were reasons for still further delay. He would not go so far as to say that if the Government agreed to take the Report of the Vote at a reasonable hour, and undertook before that to ascertain the law, they might not change the character of their present opposition to the Vote.

said, the term "reasonable hour" was a relative one. As Mr. Speaker had stated the other day from the Chair, it did not mean exactly the same thing in August as it did in the month of May. With that reservation he was prepared to assent to the proposal of the hon. Member.

said, he supposed the Government meant by a "reasonable hour" 9 or 10 o'clock. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] No doubt, then, they considered 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning a reasonable hour. They had just had an instance of that, for the House had been discussing the Irish Magistrates Bill until 5 o'clock that morning. But there was one point about which he should like to have some information at the present moment. Mr. Bolton had committed flat perjury on Thursday last. What notice had been taken of that by the Government? He swore before Judge Walsh, in order to procure a postponement, that he required an adjournment on the ground that he was a material and necessary witness. His words were—

"I say I am a material and necessary witness, and I believe a material witness for myself on the trial of both actions."

That affidavit was sworn in the Bankruptcy Court on Thursday last. But what had occurred to-day in Belfast? After swearing in the Bankruptcy Court the other day that he was a necessary and material witness for himself for the purpose of procuring a postponement, Mr. Bolton declined to go into the witness box at Belfast. Now, he asked, what notice were the Government going to take of that affidavit? Here was a man charged with a series of crimes by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) in United Ireland; he had been called by that hon. Member everything but one thing; and, notwithstanding the affidavit he had made, his case had to-day been closed without his daring to go into the witness box. They asked the postponement of the Vote; but he must say it was not merely as a bankrupt that he impeached Mr. Bolton. He regarded him as a fraudulent, perjured swindler, all along the line. He cared nothing whether he was a bankrupt or not. However his bankruptcy might go, or whatever might be the verdict, he said it was a disgrace and a scandal for the Government to keep the case over the Belfast Assize. Then they were told that it was a question whether Mr. Bolton's bankruptcy was of a character which ought to carry with it the penal action prescribed by the Treasury Minute. He would ask, who were the people seeking to make Mr. Bolton a bankrupt? Why, it was his wife's trustees, who claimed to the extent of £26,000; and it was with regard to that money that Judge Walsh declared that Mr. Bolton had acted in a fearful manner towards his wife. Bolton had been let off by the late Lord Chancellor Law in this way—he produced a letter from his wife stating that if she got this £26,000, she was willing that her husband should continue in the Public Service—she did not want, so to speak, to take the bread out of his mouth. Having entrapped Lord Chancellor Law into continuing him in his position, what did he do? So far from paying the £26,000, he had pocketed the money which he got by a fraudulent deed; he had acted as a fraudulent trustee, and in a way contrary to the rules of the Profession, and in such a way that the Judge declared that he ought to be struck off the Rolls. And now it was his wife's trustees who were seeking to make him bankrupt in Dublin. Such was the man whom the Government retained in the Public Service. The declaration of the Judge alone, with regard to his conduct, he should have thought would have been sufficient to induce the Government to come to a speedy issue in this matter. Whether the Rule of 1868 applied or not, George Bolton was not the man whom it was desirable should conduct prosecutions in Ireland. Hon. Members on those Benches had pointed out his acts in that House; they had shown exactly the position in which he stood to English Gentlemen, not once but many times.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had used the expression with regard to this case that there were "bankruptcies and bankruptcies;" and the Prime Minister also appeared to convey that the nature of the bankruptcy should be considered; but one of the most extraordinary excuses for Mr. Bolton was that which had been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Mr. Bolton, it appeared, had bought a lot of land; he had raised the rents, and when he was wringing out of his unfortunate tenants sufficient to pay his debts, that laudable object was defeated by the operation of the Land Act. He (Mr. Dawson) asked whether that would be considered an extenuating circumstance when Mr. Bolton's bankruptcy was considered? Would any man, who had acted as Mr. Bolton had acted, be allowed to remain member of a London Club, an institution which, of course, had no responsibility, as the Government had, towards the people of Ireland. He wished to say a few words on a subject referred to in connection with this Estimate before the Prime Minister entered the House. There were remarks made upon the payments by fees instead of by salary, in the case of the legal officials in Ireland. That practice, payment by results, pervaded the whole system of Government in Ireland. It was the cause of the delay in the administration of the law, because every delay was money to the Law Officers; it was profit in the hands of those who denied justice; and the people of Ireland in consequence did not get that justice which, as the Attorney General for England said, the English people so much respected. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pointed out that the hon. Member for Sligo had forgotten to refer to the £15,000 in the Supplementary Estimate, which he should have taken into his calculation. But how, he asked, were hon. Members to have information which was not put into their hands until it was too late to be considered? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had disestablished the English Church in Ireland; the right hon. Gentleman must also disestablish that hierarchy of people in Ireland, who held their position on the pernicious system of payment by results, if he would complete the improvement of the condition of the Irish people. It had been shown by evidence given before the Committee sitting to inquire into the prisons' system that there were Assizes in Ireland without crimes to try, and prisons without prisoners; and, therefore, that there was no need for the expensive arrangements with which the country was saddled, and no reason for this enormous expenditure on prosecutions and law establishments. They had no Assize business of any moment; and, therefore, it came to this—that if the men who were receiving the enormous salaries complained of were to give some value for the money they received, crime must be directly promoted, so that there would be some justification for the great Law Charges in Ireland. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was very badly paid. He (Mr. Dawson) had a very high opinion of the conspicuous professional ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he should certainly be disposed to give him a salary commensurate with his abilities; but to give a salary of £5,000 a-year, and fees to the amount of £8,000 a-year, pointed the moral of the tale which the Irish Members were anxious to lay before the Committee. He trusted that at no distant date public officials in Ireland would be paid by some fixed salary.

said, there was just one point he wished to direct attention to with regard to Mr. George Bolton. He was perfectly satisfied with the assurance given to his hon. Friend by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he believed that that the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman had promised to make could result in nothing but that which he (Mr. Harrington) and his hon. Friends had for some time been fighting for. He wished, however, to point out to the Government what the position of Mr. George Bolton was at the present time before the Court of Bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, Mr. George Bolton pledged the Government and the character of the Government and the Treasury in trust to his creditors. Now, that was a position which the Government ought immediately to take steps to disassociate themselves from. The chief objection to the position Mr. Bolton had assumed was that he pledged himself to give out of his salary a sum of £300 a-year to his creditors as a portion of his arrangement. Now, he thought it should be made clear at the earliest possible moment to Mr. Bolton and his creditors that while the Government was considering the question of the character of the bankruptcy—that was to say, considering whether Bolton had been brought into Court by his own misconduct or by the course of circumstances over which he had no control—the Government should take steps to secure that his promise to pledge them and their credit should not be a portion of any arrangement which he proposed to make with his creditors. He (Mr. Harrington) was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would see the justice of that suggestion. In the first place, what he suggested was only just to the country. It was not that a public servant, whose conduct was to be made the subject of an official inquiry, should be able to pledge the credit of the Government as one of the means he intended to employ in order to escape from the position he had been reduced to. Then, again, it was not just to the creditors that Bolton should be able to state to them that he would allocate the sum of—300 a-year out of his salary. The creditors knew the man's position in the Government of Ireland, they knew the character of the man, they were aware of the influence he had with the Executive, and they would naturally imagine that it was only by an arrangement with Her Majesty's Government that he was able to make the offer in question. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that, at the earliest possible moment, it should be clearly stated that Bolton was not in a position to offer £300 a-year out of his salary until Her Majesty's Government had considered whether his bankruptcy had been brought about by his own misconduct, or by the course of circumstances over which he had no control. That was the only point to which he (Mr. Harrington) wished to direct attention. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had taken a very judicious and proper course in promising to inquire into this case. No doubt, Mr. George Bolton had for a long time been in the service of the Crown in Ireland; but if the right hon. Gentleman knew the character of Mr. Bolton's services—if he knew the estimation in which those services were held by the vast majority of the people of Ireland—a majority composed of people who differed very widely as to political opinions and religious convictions—he would have no hesitation in saying that the length of Bolton's services to the Crown in Ireland should be no element in the consideration of whether justice ought to be done; whether a man who had misused his position, and who had been a source of vital contention between the Government and the people of Ireland for years, should not be removed from office.

said, he could not fail to admire the Irish Members for the clearness and power with which they had put their case before the Committee. As they always did, they had on the present occasion put their case in the very best aspect before the Committee; but it was impossible to disguise from one's mind the fact that for a considerable time the Committee had been subjected to a repetition of the same arguments, the same phrases, and the same expressions, all of which led to the same conclusion. He put it to hon. Members opposite whether, when they had once stated their case with great fulness, and with the skill and power which was characteristic of their race, it was not fair to the Committee generally that they should be allowed to proceed with the work in hand? Was it not particularly reasonable that hon. Gentlemen should allow Business to be done on the present occasion, inasmuch as they had extracted from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a pledge, as distinct and clear as it was possible to be, that before the matter proceeded one step further, it should be fully considered in all its bearings? Furthermore, the pledge had been given that Mr. George Bolton should be placed on exactly the same footing as that on which any English Civil servant stood. What more could be asked? If the pledges of the Government were accepted, why discuss the subject further? If they rejected the pledges of the Government, of course, the question assumed an altogether new phase. He hoped the Irish Members would now be content with the assurances of the Government, and allow the Vote to be taken.

said, that, inasmuch as the assurance had been given that the subject should be discussed on Report, it would be rather hard on the Committee and on the Government, if hon. Gentlemen insisted on debating it now. It was generally admitted that the offer of the Government was a fair one; and, therefore, he thought he would not be asking too much if he asked that the Committee should now be allowed to proceed with its Business.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made an offer which, under all the circumstances of the cases, was a fair one, and one which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), before he left the House, commissioned him to accept in his name. But before doing so, he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to two points with reference to this matter. First of all, they might fairly ask that the decision of the Government with regard to the suspension of Mr. Bolton should be taken without any unnecessary delay. They were entitled to ask that, because it was two months since this matter was first brought to the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and he (Mr. Parnell) was certainly entitled to say that so far there had been very unreasonable delay on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It was only now, after the lapse of two months since the differences in the customs regulating the English and Irish Civil Services was first brought before the notice of the House, that the Irish Members were told that the Irish Executive would inquire how far the suspension of Mr. Bolton would be necessitated by following out the custom of the English Civil service. Under the circumstances, he thought he was entitled to ask, firstly, that there should be no unnecessary delay in coming to the decision with regard to Mr. Bolton's suspension; and, secondly, that the Report of this Vote should be brought on at a not unreasonable hour—say, after 11 or half-past 11 o'clock at night. He had now to ask, in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), for leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of continuing the discussion with regard to the case of Mr. Bolton; but there were one or two points on this Vote which he should like to bring under the notice of the Committee. He should like, in the first place, to say, in passing, that if Irish Members were sometimes forced to repeat arguments, it was owing to the stolid indifference with which their arguments were received by the Members of the Treasury Bench. One of the points to which he wished to direct attention concerned the Law Adviser to the Crown. It seemed, from a foot-note, that the salary attached to this Office had ceased; and what he desired to know was, whether it was proposed to discontinue it altogether? The second point to which he had to refer was that some time ago he called attention to the conviction of two persons at the Cork Winter Assizes of last year. The name of the persons convicted was Delahunty, and the significant point in the case was that one of the witnesses examined had since died; but immediately before his death he made a declaration to the effect that a policeman had induced him to swear against the prisoners, although, as a matter of fact, he knew nothing at all against them. That dying declaration was of so unusual a character that the Chief Secretary decided to submit it to the Judge who tried the case—Mr. Justice Barry—and to ask the learned Judge's opinion as to its bearing upon the conviction. Seeing that that dying declaration was submitted to Mr. Justice Barry six weeks or two months ago, and seeing that the Delahuntys were still in penal servitude, and knowing, as he (Mr. Kenny) did, they had been convicted on the most trivial evidence, a portion of which, according to the dying declaration of a witness, was suborned, it would be of great interest to the people of the district in Ireland to which the prisoners belonged, and also of great interest to many Members of the House, to know what the opinion of the learned Judge was in the matter. He (Mr. Kenny) gave Notice last night of his. intention to ask further questions of the Chief Secretary on the subject next Friday, in order that, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman might, when the Vote was taken—he (Mr. Kenny) was not aware it would be taken to-night—be in a position to make some explanation regarding the case of the unfortunate men in question.

said, he should prefer to say nothing upon the question that night. His impression was that the papers were still with Mr. Justice Barry. He would attend to the matter at once, and he had no doubt that by Friday he would be in a position to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny). He had no difficulty, however, in answering the question with regard to the Vote for the Law Adviser. It was absolutely necessary that the Government in Dublin—at any rate, it had been thought necessary during the last four or five years—should have someone who could fill the part of Law Adviser. That position was filled at present by the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Naish). If the time should ever come when the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) both found seats in the House of Commons, it would become necessary to consider whether a Law Adviser should be appointed. He assured the hon. Gentleman that the Office would not be revived unless the services of a Law Adviser would warrant the payment of his salary. That contingency had not occurred, and he conceived it would not occur for some little time to come. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with his assurance as to the case of the Delahuntys.

said, of late it had been very difficult to get opinions on legal subjects from Dublin Castle. He did not know whether that arose from the lapse of the Office of Law Adviser; but he hoped that in future it would not take three or four months to get an opinion from the Law Officers with respect to a very simple point of law. There were two other items in the Vote which struck him as very remarkable. One was the increase in the Estimate for the support of Crown witnesses. He presumed that the Estimate was for the year beginning on the 1st of April, 1884, and ending on the 31st of March, 1885, so that the £1,000 which was put down for the support of Crown witnesses was pure guess work. But the charge was £250 in excess of the amount which was required last year. Now, they all knew that criminal prosecutions in Ireland, especially prosecutions of that character in which it was necessary for the Government to get under their control, and to keep under their control, for a considerable period persons who were required to swear against others charged with serious crimes and offences had greatly diminished; and, therefore, he was anxious to receive some explanation of the extra amount which was asked for. The other item he had to bring under notice was the defence of prisoners in case of murder. Now, the fees which were paid by the Crown under the Prevention of Crime Act to counsel who were engaged to defend prisoners were notoriously small; indeed, they were so small that it frequently happened—it happened in the case of the Phoenix Park murders—that the prisoners were deprived of the most efficient legal advice which was obtainable, and which, if it had been obtained, might have seriously altered the aspect of affairs. The item for the defence of prisoners was increased by the sum of—85. In view of the diminution of cases of murder, it was very surprising that the expenses in connection with them should have increased in so striking a manner.

pointed out that the item for defence of prisoners charged with the crime of murder had no reference to the cases of murder which came under the Prevention of Crime Act.

said, that some time ago his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant a Question with regard to the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners, and the right hon. Gentleman read a telegram which had been received from the prisoners' solicitor, asking that those of them whom the Government intended to bring to trial should be brought to trial at once before the Dublin Commission, and waiving, on their behalf, the usual notice of trial which prisoners were entitled to receive. He (Mr. Parnell) would be glad to know whether the matter had received the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the interval which had occurred, and whether he had any announcement to make?

said, the Government would be very glad to bring these prisoners to trial at the earliest possible moment; but, as the hon. Gentleman must see, it would be impossible to dispense with the usual notice, because the result would be a mistrial.

What are you going to do?

said, the prisoners could not be tried at the coming Commission. It was impossible. [Mr. PARNELL: Why?] Because there was not sufficient time to serve the notice of trial; the earliest day the men could be tried would be some day in October.

said, he thought that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was monstrous. It was now some weeks since the postponement of the trial of these prisoners was obtained from the Judge at the Sligo Assize, on the ground that the trial could not fairly take place in Sligo. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Walker): Not very long ago.] It was more than 10 days ago; that was to say the Crown had ample time, and more than ample time, to servo the requisite notice with regard to the trial of these prisoners at the August Assize. Did he understand the hon. and learned Gentleman adhered to that statement as a matter of fact? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Walker): I do.] He should like to know why it was, if the only motive of the Government, with regard to the case of Mr. Fitzgerald and the other Tubbercurry prisoners, was to secure a change of venue, in order to obtain a fair and impartial trial, they did not proceed to take steps for a trial elsewhere immediately after they obtained the postponement of the trial? What were the Irish Members and the Irish people to infer from the conduct of the Government in this matter? Was it the opinion of the Government that it was undesirable to keep untried prisoners in Ireland awaiting trial for lengthened terms; and if it be not the opinion of the Government that it was so undesirable, then all he could say was that all the understandings, and protests, and accusations upon which the Government obtained the powers conferred upon them by the Act of 1882 for changing venues would be utterly thrown on one side by their conduct with reference to this case. Having regard to the whole course of the Crown prosecution with reference to the Tubbercurry prisoners, it was monstrous that a Liberal Government, having resorted to the policy of delay from the very commencement of these proceedings, after having obtained repeated adjournments of the proceedings before the magistrates, after having postponed the trial before the Sligo Assize upon flimsy pretexts that the act of another person in connection with the prisoners had prejudiced the chance of the Crown obtaining a conviction—he said it was monstrous they should not have immediately proceeded, with all the machinery at their command, to put the men upon their trial in a Dublin Court. What had the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Naish), with his swollen salary and his enormous fees, which the Committee were asked to pay him, to do but to attend to matters of this kind? He (Mr. Parnell) asserted it was monstrous that the Government should lose a single minute in taking the necessary steps to bring these Tubbercurry prisoners to trial. On a former occasion his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) read a telegram, which he had received from the solicitors to the parties, offering to waive the customary notice; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland now said that the waiver would be of no use, and that it was impossible to bring the prisoners to trial on the 5th of August, as 10 days' notice of trial must by law be served on the prisoners, and that it was not in the power of prisoners in criminal cases to waive that duty on the part of the Crown. But this matter was under discussion four or five days ago in Committee, and the demand was specifically made that the Government should bring these men to trial at once. A telegram was sent from the prisoners claiming to be placed on their trial at the forthcoming Dublin Sessions; and the Chief Secretary replied, in the usual stereotyped fashion, that there was no unnecessary time being lost. He had another telegram from one of these longsuffering men from Sligo Gaol—

"Please press the Chief Secretary to put us on trial at the Commission which opens early next month in Dublin."

In the face of the repeated delays and subterfuges resorted to by the Government, if these men could not be placed on their trial next month, the only other honest and straightforward course open to the Government was to release them all on bail. How could they trust the declarations of the Government that they would bring these men to speedy trial, when this was the way in which a number of prisoners were bandied about, and kept in prison for seven months, as they would have been next October, which, according to the Solicitor General for Ireland, was the next earliest time when they could be put on their trial? The truth of the matter was that, from the first moment of their arrest, the Government had no case against them, and they knew it. They were fishing for evidence, and were attempting to work on the fears of the prisoners, and in that illegal manner to induce them to turn Queen's evidence against each other. They had a wretched informer, a man whose character was so bad that the Government were obliged to apply for a change of venue, because they could not produce this wretched character in the box as their sole reliance, in a district where his character and history were so well known. What evidence had they against Mr. Fitzgerald, one of his constituents in Cork? He was a gentleman whom he had known for years, and was as incapable of any dishonourable act as the Chief Secretary himself; and he would say that, although Mr. Fitzgerald had opposed him more than once in political matters. He was arrested in the streets of London opposite Scotland Yard five months ago, and the English newspapers were at once instructed to insert paragraphs about his arrest, saying that it signalized the arrival in London to show what a great man he was, and how speedily he could unravel the designs of the rebels against the Queen. He was arrested without a warrant. They had heard the other day of the unwillingness of the police to arrest persons accused of the most horrible offences without warrant; but there was no such unwillingness in the case of Mr. Fitzgerald. He was arrested without a warrant, and the English papers were at once instructed to say that the chief of the dynamiters had been discovered. He was then hurried over to Ireland and put in prison in Dublin; he was then sent to the prison in Sligo, and a rumour was sent round by the Crown officers that he had turned Queen's evidence against the persons who had been previously arrested. Every attempt was made to prejudice his case and excite public opinion in this country against him. Then he was charged with treasonfelony; then with conspiracy to murder; next the charge of conspiracy to murder was withdrawn, and the charge of treason-felony only was proceeded with. In 1882, when the Prevention of Crime Act was being passed, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary gave an assurance that these charges of treasonfelony should not be raked up against men under the provisions of that Act, and he now claimed the fulfilment of that pledge. In view of the fact that the Government had taken the necessary steps to bring these prisoners to trial at the Special Commission in Dublin and not at Sligo, and that there had been abundant time to serve the notices on the Judges in Dublin for a change of venue, there was now no course open to the Government but to release these men on the solid and substantial bail they were prepared to give. They would all come up for trial when the time arrived. It was abominable and infamous that the wives and families of these men should be left in starvation owing to the illegal conduct of the Government towards these prisoners. He could not see what difference there was between the state of affairs in Ireland now and last year under the Prevention of Crime Act of the present Chief Secretary and under the Coercion Act of the former Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster). The right hon. Member for Bradford kept a vast number of men in prison for a long time without trial under the ordinary laws; and it was not right, or just, or Constitutional, or in accordance with the traditions of the Liberal Party, that this course of conduct should be persisted in, and he demanded from the Government the release of these men on that solid and substantial bail they were prepared to offer, or else that they should be at once put upon their trial.

said, the Chief Secretary would do well to listen to the advice of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). It was evident that the Government had been doing all in their power to delay bringing these men to trial; and although, no doubt, the Solicitor General for Ireland was technically accurate when he said there would be no opportunity of accepting the offer of the prisoners to bring them to trial before October next, yet he wished to draw attention to this fact—that a true bill had been found against these men at the Sligo Assizes. It was not necessary that they should be put on trial at the opening of the Commission in Dublin. A true bill having been found against them by the Grand Jury in Sligo, it was not necessary to have their case submitted to the Grand Jury in Dublin. If the Commission was to last several days in Dublin, was there not still time to serve the 10 days' notice of bringing these men to trial before the end of the Commission? If not, then he would ask the Government to recognize the fact that the delay in this case had been all their own. From the commencement these men had been most anxious to be brought to trial, and they had challenged the Government to bring them into Court and try the charge made against them. A postponement was obtained at the recent Sligo Assizes, on the ground that a document had been circulated throughout the country asking for evidence for the defence of these men, and that that had been circulated in order to prejudice their trial. If that was so, the document was certainly circulated a month or two before the day of trial; and if the document was circulated so early as that, the Government had cognizance of it. Why, then, did they not change the venue in time to bring the men to trial on the 5th of August? Whatever might be the interpretation Ministers in London put on the action of officials in Ireland, the people in Ireland would only take one view, and that was that this was only a part of the Government policy in that country for years past. They had taken innocent men and put them in prison, and then worked upon their fears to get some of them to give information against others, and so get convictions against them. If that was not the intention of the Government what was their objection to admit these men to bail? They might, at least, admit some of them to bail. They had said the evidence was not so strong against some as against others; but they had no right to set themselves up as judges of these men. The delays were not the fault of the men, but of the Government, and it was quite time that the Government stated they would not oppose the release of these men on bail. Bad as was the administration of the right bon. Member for Bradford when he was in Ireland; infamous as was the system practised under his règime, the policy of keeping men in prison month after month and year after year without trial was far more infamous and disgraceful than anything practised by the right hon. Member for Bradford. There were now in prison in Ireland men who had been kept there for 18 or 19 months; and some men who had reeently been put upon their trial at Sligo had been kept in prison waiting for trial 18 months. When the man who was charged with and convicted of the murder of a policeman in Galway was put upon his trial he had been kept waiting for 18 months in prison, and whatever means he had of defending himself having been exhausted in that time, when he met his accusers in Court he was unable to meet the charge against him. When this man was convicted a further postponement was obtained of the trial of the other men who had been kept in prison 18 months. He himself had seen them brought to the prison office day after day, and there, without the presence of any of their friends, or of the Press, or any protection such as men in their unfortunate position ought to have had, an informal inquiry was made, and the remand was granted. On no less than nine occasions they were removed, and what was the object? Was it to get additional evidence? No; the evidence obtained at first was not altered in the least, and the evidence upon which they were committed on the last day was the evidence sworn to on the first day. What, then, was the object of the Crown in these repeated applications for delay? Simply to allow the Assizes then being held to slip over, so that the Crown would then not have to make application to the Assizes for an adjournment; and that enabled the Government to get over one Assizes. The March Assizes came on shortly afterwards, and then they claimed an adjournment on the strange ground that they were searching for witnesses, and because they were searching in America for evidence these men were kept in prison six months longer. At the end of those six months there was another opportunity of bringing them to trial; but another application was made by the Crown for an adjournment, and on the very same ground that they were searching for a witness in America. A more monstrous proceeding could not take place in any part of the world—on the flimsy pretext that they were searching for a material witness in America! That material witness in America had not yet turned up, and the Crown could not possibly make an application for another adjournment on that flimsy pretext; but this time they had applied for an adjournment at Sligo, and another remand had been granted. They had no faith in the intention of the Crown to try these men. They believed that their policy with regard to these men was precisely the policy they had been pursuing and intended to pursue with regard to Mr. Fitzgerald and the other prisoners in Sligo Gaol. What had occurred with regard to the man who had been convicted of the murder of a policeman? He had been offered a free pardon if he would give evidence against other men. The Government might say they had not offered that; but so long as they engaged such a man as Bolton they knew what the system was. If the Government wished to free themselves from the character of keeping men in prison in order to give information against others, and to swear away the lives of other men—a character which they held in Ireland, and very well deserved—there was only one course to adopt, and that was to at once consent to the release of these men on bail. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to look at this question in something like a fair spirit. Here was the case of Fitzgerald, 200 miles away from his home and friends. He was first arrested in London. and most infamous rumours were circulated about him by the police officers who arrested him, to the effect that he intended to become an informer, and had offered to do so. That unfortunate man was taken not to Cork, his native place, where he could have communicated with his family and his friends, but to Sligo; and although his material witnesses were in Cork, and all the expense of bringing them to Sligo would fall upon him until his innocence or his guilt was established, yet the Government would not admit him to bail on the substantial securities he was able to give them. What was it the Government wanted? They wanted, he supposed, to put these men on trial. Well, the largest possible security necessary they were willing to give to come up for trial and to meet their accusers and establish their innocence; and if they offered the most solvent security, what was the pretext upon which the right hon. Gentleman defended the action of the Crown in refusing to admit these men to bail? If he wanted to rid himself of the character of keeping men in prison in order to make them become informers and swear away each other's lives, he would no longer justify their continued imprisonment.

said, this Tubbercurry case was a very painful one, and he had no choice but to denounce the course pursued by the Government, as announced by the Solicitor General for Ireland, as a scandalous outrage upon justice. Four months had passed away since these men were arrested. There was no pretence for saying that their conduct in life or their personal character was open to the slightest suspicion. Their lives had been honourable; their position was respectable. They were suddenly seized on the 2nd of April, upon the whisper of an informer, and were taken from their farms in the district of Tubbercurry, and from their shops in the town, and thrown into the gaol at Sligo. The whole course of the Government in regard to these men had been furtive and stealthy. It was the course of men who, conscious that they had no case aginst the prisoners, deprived them of their liberty on one pretext or another in the hope that some man might come and patch up a case against them. The first step taken by the Government was significant of the course they intended to take against these men. It was to refuse the admission of their relatives and their solicitor to the gaol. It had been said, when he had repeatedly called attention to this case, that such cases were few in Ireland. If he had been obliged repeatedly to call attention to this case, it was because at every step he had found the Government, and the agents of the Government in England, determined to pursue these men by mean and cowardly tactics. Why were they refused the right of the admission of their relatives? Why was their solicitor forbidden to see them? Why was it necessary for him to take advantage of the Rules of that House before the ordinary right of prisoners under such conditions to see their friends and their legal adviser was granted? After their arrest, what was the next step? A system of "Star Chamber" inquiry—secret examination. There was an absurd pretence of a judicial inquiry by the Resident Magistrate, who went to Sligo Gaol every eight days. and went through a formal examination of these men. What was there in that proceeding in the nature of a proper examination? No witnesses were examined. The paid agent of the Government went every eight days, and sat down at a desk and received some formal police evidence, and then went through the insulting and outrageous form of further remanding these men, although the principle of the Constitution was that no man should be imprisoned unless there was cause shown. Several weeks had passed away, several remands had taken place, without anything like a proper examination. At last he had succeeded in putting an end to that system; but what happened then? He found, as he had found at every stage of this disgraceful case, that the Government pursued oblique and cowardly tactics such as the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was never mean enough to pursue, and while "giving a promise to the ear broke it to the hope." After they had undertaken to abandon this system of secret remand, he had surely reason to expect that they would proceed in a proper way to prove their case in Court, or confess that they could not do so. They had already exhausted all the tactics of their unscrupulous police agents and spies. They had circulated from day to day general rumours with regard to Fitzgerald and the other men. He would invite hon. Members to allow their minds to travel to the prison cells where these men were lying without association with other men; and to consider the state of mind of a man in such a position when a George Bolton or some other agent crept into the cell and told him the abominable lie that some of his friends had informed against him. No matter how innocent that man might be, no one could tell what suspicions might enter his mind, and he might say it was better to save his own name and liberty, at the cost even of perjury, than to allow others to do so at his expense. This was how perjury was promoted. During the weeks following the arrest of these men, society in Sligo was saturated with such rumours by the agency of the police. The police went to every one of these men and told him if he wanted to save his own life and liberty, and to have a fortune by-and-bye, he had better be the first to give information, lest he should be too late. At the same time, they were scouring the county of Sligo day and night for evidence. They established in Tubbercurry an inquisition far more terrible than that of the Star Chamber, and so ruthlessly was that conducted that the aged mother of two of these men was taken by the police to Sligo Gaol, and there subjected to a secret examination. And now, he asked if, after four whole months of constant endeavour to convict these men by resorting to these shameful tactics, it was not time to do either one thing or the other with regard to them? If it had taken so many months to make out a case against them, was there not a strong presumption of their innocence? There had been secret inquiries conducted by a magistrate who had raised himself from a humble position in connection with the Constabulary; but all the skill of Mr. Horne and of the police had not been sufficient to enable them to send the men for trial with a confidence that they would be convicted. Under such circumstances, had not the time come when the prisoners should be set free, or allowed to go out on bail; or, failing these alternatives, to be put upon their trial at once? When did the Government mean to have them tried? When was this private inquiry system to end? When they professed to bring it to an end they only "kept the promise to the ear and broke it to the hope." They distributed the evidence of informers as if it was precious manna—they gave it only in small fragments; it was evidently too rich a thing to be wasted. They would not allow it to be published all at once; and it was only at intervals of eight days that the Gospel, according to the Informer Moran, was doled out. Some months had been wasted in this way, and when he had renewed his appeals for justice, he had found himself fooled and humbugged over and over again. It was impossible for any public man to place any reliance nowadays upon the words of a Minister. If a Member of Parliament chose to believe the statements that were made to him, he would find that he would gain nothing by his credulity, but that he would be regarded by the constituents he represented as little short of an idiot. In this way the Irish Executive exhausted a few more weeks, and in the meanwhile the minor Fouches of Ireland were roaming all over the county of Sligo, holding private inquiries, although nothing came of them in the end. On his third appeal upon the floor of that House he obtained a promise that the Crown would give them the last fragment of their precious manna, by either bringing the men to trial, or by setting them at liberty. All this time the families of these men were left without care or guidance, and their businesses, both in town and country, were without supervision, so that the men themselves had been driven by the efforts of the Crown to secure what they called justice to that pitch of bankruptcy which seemed now to be so fashionable among the pet Crown agents in Ireland. On the 16th of June, when the Crown made up its mind to commit these men for trial, an appeal was made for funds to help the prisoners and to assist them in obtaining a fair trial. That appeal was circulated throughout the county of Sligo, and the learned Solicitor General claimed that it was framed in terms that were calculated to intimidate the jury and prevent a fair trial in that county. If that were so, why did the Government delay to take action in reference to that appeal until the Sligo Assizes were over. The Attorney General went down to Sligo to conduct the trial—at least, so it was said. Let who would believe it, he (Mr. Sexton) refused to do so. The Attorney General knew on the day he went down to Sligo, as well as upon the day he left it, that this appeal had been in print and had been circulated. The hon. and learned Gentleman went down for the purpose of other trials, and not for this. He would be aware at the earliest possible moment what the terms and substance of the appeal were; and he would, therefore, know whether it was calcu- lated to warp the judgment of any jury who might be selected in the county of Sligo. What did the Attorney General for Ireland do? He allowed a week or a fortnight to pass; and it was only when the Assizes were coming to a conclusion, and when it was too late for the unfortunate prisoners to secure that any action should be taken in their own behalf, that the Attorney General for Ireland, at the last moment, came forward, possessed of full knowledge of the evidence on which he claimed a conviction from a jury, and having all the facts in the dark recesses of his mind; but instead of avowing them, and allowing the prisoners out on bail, he came down at the last moment and pitifully put forward the fact of this appeal, published eight weeks before, as a reason why the trial was to be postponed. And now as to the question of bail. These 11 prisoners were almost all of them in the same boat. Two informers—one, a branded soldier dismissed from the Army; and another, possessing a treble qualification in consequence of having first committed a cowardly highway robbery upon a poor woman, next an attempt to murder a Judge, and charged, lastly, with being mixed up with the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke—it was upon the evidence of such a man as that that these unfortunate prisoners were kept month after month without their liberty. The whole of the evidence against them was that of this branded soldier and this monstrous criminal. What happened? When the question of bail arose, the Solicitor General for Ireland spoke to him (Mr. Sexton) as if he ought to be thankful because the Crown allowed three of the accused persons to be admitted to bail, and also because the bail was small. Now, if the Crown seriously believed that such an offence as treason-felony, and such a combination of offences as treasonfelony and conspiracy to murder, could be proved against these three men, or that there was a shadow of hope of securing their conviction, did the Solicitor General mean to say that the Crown would have liberated them on bail for the paltry sum of £25? The admission of a man to bail upon such terms would appear to show that it was not of the least importance whether he ever turned up again or not. It was perfectly evident that if the Crown had a case against these men, they would never have admitted them to bail upon such terms as would be hardly likely to secure their appearance in the event of their being wanted again. Further, there was no difference whatever in the case of any one of these men as contrasted with that of the rest; and he could only conclude that the Crown believed that no jury would—he would not say hang a dog, but even consent to put a dog to momentary discomfort, upon the evidence of this wretched brace of in-formers. He had received two telegrams that evening, which his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had already read to the Committee. In the first of these he was desired to impress upon the Government and the Committee the necessity of putting these men upon their trial at once. In the second telegram the prisoners implored that they might be brought to trial, and declared their readiness to waive their right in respect of any change of venue. The Solicitor General for Ireland was a lawyer, and he told them that this waiver of right by the prisoners would not save the Crown. When he (Mr. Sexton) stated the other night that the motion of the Attorney General for Ireland at Sligo for the postponement of the trial was interpreted by some persons as indicating the intention of postponing the trial to the next Assizes, the hon. and learned Gentleman told him that the Crown had no such intention at all. Then why, when the postponement of the trial was moved for, had not due notice been given in regard to when and where it was to take place? It had been said that the appeal which had been made to the public would have the effect of preventing a fair trial in the county of Sligo; but the Attorney General for Ireland had not conveyed, in any way, an opinion that the circulation of that appeal would prevent a fair trial in any other county of Ireland. The 5th of August, when the Commission was to meet, was still seven days distant, and there had been between a fortnight and three weeks for the Attorney General for Ireland to give the necessary 10 days' notice. What he now pressed for was a trial in some other part of Ireland than the county of Sligo, and he could not understand why the Attorney General for Ireland, on making the application to postpone the trial, had not served the prisoners with the necessary 10 days notice of his intention to move the High Court of Justice in Dublin to change the venue and proceed with the trial elsewhere. He contended that the Government had broken faith with him, and that there was not a shadow of pretence for any further delay. There was no evidence which they did not possess now which they would get hereafter. He therefore called upon them, and he hoped his hon. Friends would support him and persist in the demand, to take the necessary steps for bringing forward the trial at once. The course they were at present pursuing simply conveyed to the public mind a sense of the unfairness of the treatment to which these men were subjected. After four months of imprisonment, and after having exhausted all the tactics of prosecutors, informers, and spies, it was their duty either to bring the men to trial at once, or to liberate them. He could not say where they were to be tried, and the prisoners themselves cared not; they were ready for trial anywhere. If the Crown declined to put them upon trial, let them then take the only legal alternative, and accept bail for their appearance, setting them at liberty until they were prepared to put them upon their trial.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

said, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had called attention at some length to the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners. He desired, therefore, to state to the Committee the position in which the matter stood. The crime of which these men were accused occurred some years ago. There were in all 12 men charged, and the charge brought against them was for one of the most grievous offences which could be imagined—namely, conspiracy to murder a Government official connected with the workhouse in that town, who, beyond all doubt, was fired at by some person. The other charge against these 12 men was one of treason-felony, which was also is itself a grave and serious crime. As he had said, these crimes occurred some time ago—as a matter of fact, two years ago—and he thought it would occur to the common sense of all in the House that when crimes of that nature had oc- curred a couple of years ago, and the number of men accused was 12, that it would require a much greater time to complete and to inquire into the evidence than if the charges were against one man, or if the crime had been of recent date. Some time in April last, these prisoners having been arrested, evidence was taken in the usual and authorized way, according to the Act of Parliament, under the powers vested in the Executive by the Prevention of Crime Act. It was the duty of the Executive to enforce the law, and they would be very much to blame if they did not do so. In pursuance of the power the law vested in them for the suppression of crime, inquiries were held from time to time under the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and also when the men were arraigned. It was perfectly true that there had been a considerable number of remands in the course of the inquiries, and it was inevitable from the nature of the case that these remands should take place. There were a considerable number of prisoners, and a very large number of witnesses, and they had to make out a case not only against each, but against everyone of them. It was, therefore, impossible to bring the case to a complete issue until a considerable time had elapsed, and it was for the benefit of the prisoners themselves, and in the interests of justice, that in every case a complete case should be made out before they were committed for trial, so that they might not find fresh charges launched against them on the trial. The evidence given upon the committal was the property of the prisoners. They were ab1e to use it, and sift it thoroughly between the date of the committal and the period fixed for the trial. Therefore, it was in the interests of the prisoners themselves, and in the interests of justice, that a complete case should be made out, as far as possible, in every instance before prisoners were committed for trial. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had commented upon the refusal to allow the prisoners to see their solicitor. What occurred was this. There were 12 men accused, and the 12 men had one solicitor in common, and the Prison Rules did not allow the 12 men to be brought into one room for the purpose of consulting him. The Attorney General for Ire-laud, however, as soon as the difficulty was communicated to the Government, in the exercise of his discretion, gave orders that the prisoners should be allowed to see their solicitor together, subject to the Prison Regulations, and that was done. The inquiries had proceeded, and necessarily they had occupied considerable time. They went on diem in diem for a number of days. The evidence of Moran, the informer, took up a considerable time. He told a long and a succinct story; but his cross-examination occupied a considerable time. It was said that a rumour had been circulated throughout the prison that information had been given by A. and by B., and Mr. Bolton's name was mentioned as appearing on the scene, and endeavouring to poison the mind of this or that person in obtaining evidence for the Crown. That was altogether a gratuitous assertion as far as Mr. Bolton was concerned. He had neither acted nor appeared in any shape in this prosecution, which had been conducted entirely by the Solicitor for the county—Mr. Anderson. It was stated by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that after the prisoners were committed for trial, the Attorney General for Ireland did not go down to conduct the prosecution. He would not notice the imputation which had been made against his right hon. and learned Friend in regard to the motives upon which he had acted. It was asserted that his right hon. and learned Friend went down there as a sham, and that he had no intention when he went down to Sligo of conducting this trial at all. Now, what was it that occurred? His right hon. and learned Friend went down to Sligo. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had taken the opportunity, in the course of his speech, of going through the evidence, from his own point of view, and of commenting upon the evidence of the informer, Moran. He had not only commented upon that evidence, but all the other evidence, and with all the eloquence he was master of he had condemned the case for the Crown. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) proposed to leave the evidence against the prisoners exactly where it was, remembering that these men were still to be tried, and because he did not think it his duty for one moment to answer the hon. Member. All he could say was that there was a strong primâ facie case against the prisoners; but it would be improper for any person holding the position he did, now that a trial was pending, to go into the evidence and endeavour to establish a case in answer to the statements of the hon. Member. Then, what was it that occurred? In the local newspapers there was circulated a document, dated the 16th of April, appealing to the public throughout the county for what was called a fair trial for these men. This appeal was made before the trial was to have taken place; and in consequence of the influence which such appeals were likely to have upon the minds of the jurors, the document having been circulated throughout the county not two months before the trial, but immediately preceding it—in consequence of that, a conclusion was arrived at that the trial ought to be postponed. The learned Judge who presided at the Assizes, in the exercise of his discretion, came to the conclusion that a fair trial could not be had in the county of Sligo, and he, therefore, postponed the case. It was proved, to the satisfaction of the Judge, that these documents had been circulated, and circulated in order to influence the minds of the jury, and to produce such an amount of terrorism as might affect their verdict. It was upon that ground, and upon that ground alone, that the learned Judge, who was otherwise quite prepared to try the case, came to the conclusion that the trial ought to be postponed. He was not there to say that the learned Judge did not exercise a proper discretion, having the documents before him; it certainly was a wise and prudent discretion. He had gone down solely for the purpose of hearing the Tubbercurry trial. The Judge had come to the conclusion that a fair trial could not be had in Sligo. Was it, then, the fault of the Public Prosecutor that the venue had been changed? The prisoners could not be altogether dissociated from those who were their false friends. The letters of these false friends it was which led the Judge to the conclusion that a fair trial could not be had on the spot. The Attorney General for Ireland, therefore, was coerced to the conclusion that a fair trial could not be had in Sligo, and the case was postponed until the next Assizes. What, then, did he start with? In the first place, with the authority of the Judge that a fair trial could not be had in Sligo. He was told that the Crown was responsible for the delay—abuse was poured on the Crown officials unstintingly because of the postponement; but through whose act was the postponement? Why, through the act of the prisoners themselves, or those for whom they were responsible.

Who made the affidavit on which the Judge acted?

The District Inspector of Tubbercurry himself, who was thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of the case. ["Oh!" and a laugh. ] Hon. Members opposite sneered—did they wish to imply that a District Inspector was not to be believed in Ireland?

Not as a rule.

said, he should let that observation have all the weight it was entitled to. He should pass from it.

District Inspectors are entitled to no more credence than any other officials in Ireland.

If the hon. Member for Wexford continues these interruptions after I now call him to Order, I shall have to call attention to his conduct.

said, the Judge had considered the evidence impartially, and, acting on his discretion, had come to the conclusion that the trial should be postponed. It was the Judge who had come to that conclusion, and no one else. When this matter was considered in the House on Friday last, the complaint was that the prisoners were not going to be tried in Dublin at all. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had brought it forward in Committee of Supply, and he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had said a few words in answer to him. He had stated then, as he stated now, that the men were to be tried in October, the earliest time at which they could be tried. No complaint was made then about the postponement, the only grievance being that the venue was to be changed, and that the prisoners had not been let out on bail. The complaint now seemed to be that, at the time the order was made to postpone the trial, the Judge should have seen, that such postponement was unnecessary, and that the venue should have been changed then, if it was necessary to change it at all. But at that time it was doubtful whether it was necessary to change the venue. The Attorney General for Ireland had to exercise his discretion in the matter. Within a few days the Attorney General for Ireland came to the conclusion that the proper course for him to follow, in the exercise of his discretion, was to change the venue; and before this subject was discussed on Friday last, July 25th, the Attorney General for Ireland had come to the conclusion that the proper course for him to adopt was to change the venue, and change it to Dublin. It was said now—telegrams were produced by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) from the legal adviser of the prisoners—that the prisoners were willing to waive the 10 days' notice to which they were entitled under the Prevention of Crime Act. That was an idle and empty offer. Coming from a lawyer it was an idle and empty argument, because every lawyer knew that prisoners could not waive their right. No man accused of a crime could give any consent of the kind on which the Crown could act. The Government were in the position in which they were on Friday last, when they stated openly in the House that the case was to be tried in October, the earliest time at which it could be tried. No objection was made on Friday, the objection then taken being against the trial being held in Dublin at all, instead of the locality in which the offence was committed, which would have led to the case being postponed until March. So far as the interests of justice would permit, and even stretching a point—considering the observations which had been made about a delay of two months—the Attorney General for Ireland would, he was sure, carefully consider the case of every one of the prisoners, in order to see how far he could add to the number who had been let out on bail—namely, three; and, speaking for himself, he might say he should be glad to see the Attorney General for Ireland exercise his discretion as largely as possible with that object.

Is it not possible to serve the 10 days' notice and take the prisoners to trial at a later date?