pointed out that one of the provisions of the Bill involved the erection of school buildings upon one of the open spaces of which there was so much need in the Metropolis. At the present moment the vacant space at Brook Green was an ornament to the neighbourhood in which it was situated, and it would be altogether spoiled if it were appropriated to the purposes of the School Board. Sites equally eligible were to be found in the immediate neighbourhood, and at a much less cost, which, if selected, would rather improve than injure the district. The particular selection which had been made in the neighbourhood of Brook Green would considerably deteriorate the value of the adjoining property, and would inevitably destroy one of the few picturesque open spaces now left in that part of London. He therefore objected to this part of the Bill.

Does the hon. Member make any Motion?

Yes; I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day three months.

Then the Bill must stand over until to-morrow.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been directed to the vaccination on board the Catalia Hospital Ship, of a child when only three hours old, and the re-vaccination of the same child when three days old, on both occasions unsuccessfully, the reason alleged being that the mother had been attacked with small-pox; whether he, or his predecessor in office, have expressed, or will express, disapproval of such treatment of infants; and, whether the child in this case had small pox and recovered, though vaccination was ineffective?

The mother was received on board the hospital ship suffering from small-pox, and the child was horn 12 days after her admission. The infant was vaccinated on the day of birth, and again two days later unsuccessfully, and afterwards had small-pox. The medical superintendent stated that he vaccinated the child in the hope of averting an attack of small-pox communicated after birth; but it was afterwards found that the disease had developed before the child's birth, and that the child was consequently protected against vaccination. I see no reason to doubt that the medical superintendent acted rightly in causing vaccination and re-vaccination of the infant.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will take into consideration the memorials to the late Government from the residents in county Londonderry, complaining of the flooding of their lands by the River Bann, notwithstanding the heavy tax paid for many years by the occupiers for the maintenance of navigation and drainage works; and, whether, having regard to the declared intentions of the late Government, they will take any and what steps to relieve the flooding of the lands, and make any grant for that purpose to the district?

Before the hon. Baronet answers that Question, I wish to ask him whether his attention has been called to the Report presented to this House by Mr. Howitz, the eminent forest conservator, on the most approved method of controlling torrents and floods, including those of the Bann, by means of suitable afforestation, as successfully practised in the Maritime Alps and elsewhere?

So far as I can ascertain, the late Government considered and dealt with the Memorials presented to them on this important question. The Department which I have the honour to represent did not consider that sufficient reasons had been shown for a grant in aid, but were disposed to entertain an application for a loan, subject to the condition, among others, that a Joint Board replacing the three present Boards should be formed for the control of the undertaking, and that this Board should decide whether the whole or any part of the navigation works should be preserved. As at present advised, the Treasury see no reason to depart from that view. As has been stated this year, the Government has no power without legislation to remove the navigation works or otherwise mitigate the floods. However, if any further Memorial is presented to the Lord Lieu- tenant it will receive full consideration, the matter being, no doubt, one of great local importance. As regards the second Question that has been put to me, I have not seen Mr. Howitz's Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether he has made such inquiries by letter or otherwise as will enable him to give the House the information asked for as to the part taken by the Assistant fudge at the trial of the woman Jeffries, and which information he could not give by reason of the absence of the Judge?

in reply, said, that the Judge who presided at the trial would return to town on Monday or Tuesday next, and he would then communicate with him.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that the contracts entered into by the late Board of Admiralty, within the last year, for the building of certain ships, allowed more time for such building than was necessary; and, whether such contracts contained any clause inflicting any penalty for non-completion of such ships within such time?

who replied, said, he had not been able to make special inquiry into the facts of the case, but he had such general knowledge as would enable him to say that in the contracts for the building of ships made by the late Board of Admiralty no more time was allowed than was necessary for building them, and he remembered that certainly on some occasions the contractors were asked whether they could complete the contracts earlier than the specified time; but he was not aware whether any of them did so. As to the second part of the Question, the contract price was reduced if longer time than the contract time was taken by the contractor for the delivery of the ships.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the clerk to the Londonderry Union has reported to the guardians that the list of borough voters made out by him contains over 7,000 names, or nearly one-fourth of the entire population of men, women, and children in the borough; that a third or more of these have no qualification, as being occupiers of lodgings, or for a few months only, or as being minors; that he had no power, in the ease of borough lists, to mark "objected" against their names; that leading counsel had advised that, though he knew of the disqualification in the large number of cases mentioned, he was bound to insert the names of all persons returned by householders on the form contained in the Schedule to the Franchise Act of 1884; and that, if such be the Law, there was nothing to prevent the registration agents returning 15,000 on the list instead of 7,000; whether the Law is as advised by counsel; and, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to prevent the great waste and expense caused by the accumulation of sham entries on the lists of voters under the present Law?

I have been informed that the Clerk of the Londonderry Union has made a report to the Guardians containing substantially the statements referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member. I believe that the Clerk also stated in this report that it appeared to him that the overseers were not bound to take for granted the information contained in the requisition forms sent in, and that they ought not to place on the lists persons whom they knew to be disqualified. I confess that this coincides with my own view of the law; but as there appears to be a difference of legal opinion on the point, I am reluctant to express myself with confidence. Any legislation during the present Session would be ineffectual, and probably before Parliament meets next year there will be some authoritative statement of the law.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement, reported by The Times as having been made on Tuesday last by the late First Lord of the Admiralty:—

"When preparations were being made, it was found desirable that we should get a considerable number of very fast boats on purpose to carry torpedoes and quick-firing guns.…It was intended that these boats should be used for the purpose of defeating the Russian boats with quick-firing guns; but, if peace is assured, it will be necessary to have torpedo gear for these boats, so that they may be used for the purpose of firing torpedoes;"

whether it is the intention of the present Board of Admiralty to adopt the policy of arming these torpedo boats with guns only in war time, and with torpedoes in peace time; and, if so, in what way are these deadly projectiles to be used in time of peace; whether it is the fact that the real reason for not arming those boats with torpedoes was that there were none to arm thorn with; if he will state how many torpedoes there were in stock on 21st April, exclusive of the armaments of ships in commission, what is the cost of these weapons, and at what rate can they be supplied in the event of war; and is there at the Admiralty any Correspondence to show, or is it the fact, that the Naval Advisers of the Board strongly urged arrangements for increasing this supply, but that their suggestions did not meet with the approval of Lord Northbrook?

Several curious statements have appeared in the public Press in reference to these torpedo boats, and consequently I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has drawn some rather erroneous conclusions. I can best answer the series of Questions put to me by simply stating facts so far as they are within my cognizance. The late Board of Admiralty ordered 40 torpedo boats out of the Vote of Credit. The contract was made on the 80th April, and the first of them was to be delivered in the last week in September, and the last of the series in the first week of February. Consequently it would be apparent that these boats would not be available for any operations in the Baltic, as they were going to be delivered when naval operations were practically impossible in that sea. The machine guns were ordered for those torpedo boats; but no design of the mounting of the guns has yet been passed, but they will shortly come before the Board of Admiralty. The late Board proposed to allocate these boats for the defence of certain harbours at home and abroad, and that being so, it was self-evident that they should be armed with torpedo gear. I take it that the late Board got the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include the sum for the armaments in the Estimates of the present year. The Admiralty are fairly well supplied with torpedoes, and arrangements have been made both at Woolwich and with private firms for a larger and more rapid manufacture of these articles during the present year. There are certain Minutes at the Admiralty of a very confidential character with reference to these torpedo boats, which my hon. Friend will see it would be quite contrary to custom and against the public interest to publish.

Would the noble Lord kindly say what is the cost of these torpedo boats?

They cost about £10,000 or £12,000 each, without fittings.

in whose name the following Question stood on the Paper:—

"To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can now state the terms of the Royal Commission on Trade Depression, and the names of the Commissioners?"

said, that he understood that it would be convenient if he were to postpone the Question until Thursday.

I am afraid I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question for the present week at least. This is a Commission of great importance, and there is a desire on the part of many gentlemen of standing in the country to serve upon it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer) has a Motion on the Paper for Friday bearing somewhat on the same subject? It would have been very convenient if a statement could have been made before the Motion was discussed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if Ireland will be represented on the Commission?

I am afraid I must ask for Notice of that Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Aflairs, What steps have been taken in reference to the seizure at Funchal, in January last, by the Portuguese Customs, of the British Brigantine Erma, of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, which was detained until the sum of eighty-seven pounds sterling had been paid by her owner; and what reply, if any, has been received from the authorities at Lisbon to the representations that have been made to them?

Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon addressed a representation on this subject to the Portuguese Government in February last. He reports that a delay has taken place owing to the necessity of referring the matter to Funchal; but he expects to receive in a few days the official answer, which it is hoped will be favourable.

If the answer does not come in the course of the next few days, will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?

Certainly, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State, Whether he will take into consideration the possibility of relaxing the present vexatious system of search of passengers' luggage on arrival from the Continent?

in reply, said, he was afraid it was impossible to make any alteration in the present regulations.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will afford any facilities for the passing of the Suspension of Evictions (Scotland) Bill, which now stands for Second Reading?

in reply, said that the intentions of the Government had not changed with reference to the Bill mentioned in the Question. He was afraid he could not promise any facilities for passing the Bill.

Would it induce the right hon. Gentleman to alter his decision if the period proposed by the Bill were changed from two years to one?

I can add nothing to the answer I formerly gave, which was given without reference to anything in the Bill.

said, that, under any circumstances, he should oppose the Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whose orders the police endeavoured to be present at the last monthly meeting of the Irish National League, Killoughey Branch, King's County, and why they refused to say by whose orders they presented themselves; and, whether the police have any orders to attend meetings which are perfectly legal and held in private houses; and, if not, if he will take steps to prevent this interference with public liberty?

It appears that the County Inspector directed a sergeant of the local police to attend this meeting if there was no objection made by the members to his being there. Objection was made, and the sergeant did not accordingly attend. He refused to state by whose directions he presented himself. The police have no orders to attend meetings that are legal and held in private houses.

asked whether the Inspector was right in asking the police to attend legal meetings of this kind?

I do not think the Inspector should ask the police to attend legal meetings in private houses.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, The reason why the Roman Catholic magistrates for the borough of Belfast do not attend at the Courts of Petty Sessions in their district; and, is it a fact that only three Catholic magistrates (and even these very seldom) occasionally attend the Petty Sessions?

I am informed that there are nine Roman Catholic magistrates for the borough of Belfast, and that, of these, three attend Petty Sessions with comparative regularity, and some of the others occasionally. I am not aware of the reason why some of these gentlemen do not attend. I should observe that attendance at Petty Sessions is not the sole function of a borough magistrate, and that in Belfast there are two stipendiary magistrates whose principal duty it is to attend at the daily police courts.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board intend to sanction the increase of 20 per cent to the salary of Dr. Duckworth, as medical officer of Rathdowney Dispensary district, granted to him by a majority of one by the Donaghmore Board of Guardians on the 12th June; whether he is aware that this increase will give Dr. Duckworth a larger salary as Dispensary doctor than any other doctor in that or either of the other two Unions of the Queen's County; whether he is aware that, on the day the increase was granted, the clerk of the Union announced to the Boord that when bills were paid that day they would not have a shilling in hand; whether the rates in this Union are considerebly higher than in the adjacent Union of Roscrea, and great difficulty is experienced in collecting them, especially the seed rate; whether nine-tenths of the ratepayers of the Dispensary district have signed a protest against the increase of salary; and, whether the said increase was carried on the 10th July only by the votes of six ex-officio Guardians and the chairman's casting vote?

It appears that on two recent occasions the Guardians of this Union have, by a majority of one, passed a resolution in favour of raising Dr. Duckworth's salary from £100 to £120 a year. The Local Government Board do not, however, consider that Dr. Duckworth is entitled to that increase, either by reason of the nature and extent of his duties, or from length of service, and they have accordingly declined to sanction it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in The Standard of the 14th, by which it appears that a collision took place at Rye House on the 13th between a party of Orangemen and some Catholic excursionists from Deptford; if he has received any report on the matter from the police; if it is a fact that a large number of the Orangemen had drawn swords, some of which they used rather freely; and if one of the swordsmen struck with his weapon the Reverend M. P. Fannun, who was superintending the Catholic excursion; and, ifhewould instruct the police to remove dangerous and ostentatious weapons from the hands of such Orangemen as show a disposition to use them?

said, before the Question was answered he would like to ask whether it was not a fact that the two parties were in separate portions of the grounds, with a road and two high hedges between them; whether some of the Roman Catholic women went to the Orange party, and used very abusive language; whether, although taunted and vituperated, the Orangemen conducted themselves with the greatest forbearance, and played no party tunes; and, whether, in the slight scrimmage which took place, the Roman Catholic party were not entirely in fault?

I have no know-ledge of any of the facts mentioned by either hon. Gentleman further than those stated in the brief Report which I have received from the Chief Constable of the county. The Report states that there was an affray, and that the disturbers were separated by the police. Sticks, umbrellas, quart pots, and bottles were the weapons used. Some of the party were carrying swords, but no sword was drawn. Had swords been used they must have been seen by the police. All I can say upon this Report is that I am extremely sorry that such weapons as swords should ever be carried on such occasions. The county police are not under my jurisdiction, but that of the county authorities.

Who carried the swords?

said, he did not know.

asked whether further inquiries would be made respecting the assault on the Catholic clergyman?

I have already ordered a further inquiry to be made respecting the assault on the rev. gentleman. The police said nothing about it.

Is it not true that after the disturbance all the parties shook hands and left thoroughly good friends?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received from Baron Huddleston a Copy of the presentment of the Grand Jury of the county of Cambridge, setting forth the great waste of judicial power and the great unnecessary trouble caused to all jurymen and officers of the Court by the present system of holding four assizes in each year; and, whether he will, during the recess, consider the subject with the view of remedying this grievance?

in reply, said, there was no doubt that this matter would have to be carefully considered; but the question of holding four criminal Assizes in the year was settled many years ago for the express purpose of not allowing prisoners to remain in gaol untried, and he should be very sorry to interfere with it.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would grant a Return of all the cases tried at the present Assize?

said, the hon. Member would find allhewanted in the judiciary statistics.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Rev. Hugh Hanna, D.D., Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, took an active part in the recent electioneering contest in county Down, and advocated the cause of the Conservative candidate on a public platform; whether he took a similar course in the last election in county Derry; and, whether it is a fact that the board, of which Dr. Hanna is a member, did, a few years ago, on the evidence of a newspaper report, dismiss two teachers in the West of Ireland for attempting to aid the candidature of a Poor Law Guardian?

I understand that the Rev. Dr. Hanna did advocate the cause of my noble Friend at the recent election for the County Down. I am not aware what the fact is as regards Derry. I believe there was no contest at the last election in that county. No such case as that referred to in the last paragraph of this Question has occurred.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any answer has been given to the application of the Marine Biological Association for aid in establishing a station on Plymouth Sound to investigate the marine fauna and flora, especially in their relation to the food fishes of these islands, and for which station £8,000 has already been subscribed from private resources?

Yes, Sir. This application has received much consideration both from the present Government and our Predecessors, and a letter was written to the Association a fortnight since in which the Treasury undertook in general terms to ask Parliament for an annual grant for a term of years in aid of their under taking, on condition that their work should be carried on in full concert with the Scotch Fishery Board, to whom Parliament has already granted considerable sums for similar objects. In our view these two bodies must be considered as working together both for the economizing of labour, and for the common benefit of the fishermen and fish consumers of the Three Kingdoms.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners for the West Indies, with respect to the reduction of expenditure in those Colonies; what amount of reduction has been effected in Jamaica; whether there has been any, and what, reduction in the Import Duties in that Island, especially upon food; and, what has been done as to the abolition of the Incumbered Estates Court?

Without detailing the exact steps taken I may say that in Jamaica the Governor has inaugurated reductions, partly based on the recommendations of the Commission, which will eventually effect a considerable diminution of expenditure. In the Windward and Leeward Islands the recommendations of the Commission with respect to expenditure assumed the union of each group into a single Colony. In the Windward Islands the inhabitants have expressed so strong a feeling against union that the Government have not thought it right to press such a measure at present, and in the Leeward Islands the views of the inhabitants on the question of union have not yet been ascertained; but in both cases every effort will be made to reduce expenditure. As regards the second Question, the total annual saving, so far, may be put at £21,000, and probably nearly £2,000 a-year more will be saved. There has been no reduction as yet in the Jamaica import duties. The Legislative Councils of the Colonies in which the Incumbered Estates Act is in force, having been asked to express their views, have with one exception passed resolutions in favour of the abolition of the Court, and the question is now under consideration.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Mr. Charles Alderson has been appointed to the office of Second Charity Commissioner; whether the holder of this office receives special emolument in return for his fitness and liability to act as Vice Chairman of the Board in the absence of the Chairman; whether one of the qualifications for the office by statute is, that it shall be held by a barrister at law of twelve years' standing; whether Mr. Alderson has not been for about thirty years one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools; and, whether he possesses any of the legal experience or knowledge that would qualify him to undertake the duties discharged by Mr. Longley?

Mr. Alderson has been appointed to the office of Second Charity Commissioner. The salary attached to the office is £1,500 a-year, having been fixed at that amount at the time of the passing of the Endowed Schools Act (Amendment Act), 1874. By 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 2, two of the Charity Commissioners must be barristers of 12 years' standing; and they are so. There is no statutory qualification attached specially to the office of Second Commissioner, but I believe that Mr. Alderson possesses the qualification I have mentioned. Mr. Alder-son has boon an Inspector of Schools for many years, and has very large educational experience for the duties in respect to endowed schools assigned to the Charity Commission under the Act of 1874.

asked whether it was not the case that the special emolument of £300 a-year was attached to the office in order to secure the special services of Mr. Longley, and on what grounds this special emolument was given in the case of a gentleman who had no special services to offer?

I do not at all admit that Mr. Alderson does receive any special emolument. It may be that the remuneration was fixed at £1,500 partly on account of the gentleman holding the office being liable to act as Vice Chairman in the absence of the Chairman.

asked whether, seeing that one of the statutory qualifications for this office was that the holder should be a barrister of 12 years' standing, this was not incompatible with Mr. Alderson's having been an Inspector of Schools for 30 years?

repeated that he believed Mr. Alderson to be a barrister of 12 years' standing.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any orders exist regulating the admission to Naval Hospitals, at Home and Abroad, of scripture readers, or other persons engaged in religious instruction, other than the authorised chaplains; and, if so, whether such orders have been recently suspended, and by whoso authority, and for what reason?

Scripture readers are under the control of the chaplains of the Naval Medical Establishments. No recent orders have been given by the Admiralty suspending any of the regulations enforced, the most recent of which were issued in 1878.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, on the occasion of the recent Orange celebration at Portadown, a policeman in coloured clothes got drunk, and cursed the Pope in presence of an excited crowd, and shouted that he was the last Orangeman in Portadown; what steps have been taken to punish his misconduct; and, is it a fact that on 15th July an Orange drumming party was permitted to parade through the Catholic quarter of Portadown, breaking windows and assaulting the inhabitants, notwithstanding that nearly a hundred policemen were stationed in the town, nominally for the purpose of preserving the peace; if so, who is responsible for the inactivity of the police, and what steps will be taken to protect the lives of the Catholic inhabitants?

It is true that a complaint was made to the effect stated in the first paragraph of this Question on the 13th instant, and the three officers who were on duty at the time immediately proceeded to investigate it. They found the policeman to be perfectly sober, and two witnesses who were named by the complainant as having been present when the alleged expressions were used, emphatically denied that the constable made use of those expressions or anything of a party nature whatever. It appears that on the 15th instant, after the extra police had left the town, an Orange band turned out and marched through a Roman Catholic quarter. No windows, however, were broken, and no person was injured. I understand that some proceedings are pending in connection with this affair.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pressure was brought to bear by the police on the person to withdraw the charge?

I am not aware.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has yet been drawn to the account of the "Financial Management of the Navy," given by Mr. H. Burdett, the financial expert and statist, which appeared in The 'Times of the 13th inst.; whether it be true that the Accountant General of the Navy has taken credit in the year 1883–4 for a surplus of armour-clad tonnage of 1,415 tons "weight of hull," whereas the Naval Estimates of 1884–5 show that, at the end of 1883–4, there was really a deficiency of armour-clad tonnage amounting to 974 tons "weight of hull" below that voted for by Parliament, and promised by the Admiralty to be built; and, whether it is true that, in the ten years ending 1879–80, 23,174 tons "weight of hull" of armour-clad less than promised by the Admiralty were built, although the money estimated for the building of this tonnage was voted by Parliament?

I have read the account referred to by the noble Lord, and have had some communications with Mr. Burdett upon the proposals contained in his letter. A Return between the tonnage estimated and that built will, in a few days, be laid upon the Table of the House, and it will show some discrepancies between estimates and work accomplished. But so long as the present system of estimating progress in the construction of ships is continued these discrepancies must occur, as the whole basis of the calculation is defective.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to take any steps to appoint an independent financier as a Finance Lord at the Admiralty, with a view to securing a permanent financial control over Admiralty expenditure in the future?

in reply, said, the Admiralty were now considering what would be the best financial check. He did not, however, think the specific proposal to place a Finance Lord upon the Board would be likely to meet with approval.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state on what authority General Wolseley announced the death of Monsieur Olivier Pain; at what place Mons. Pain's death was stated to have taken place, and at what date; and, whether General Wolseley has any knowledge whether any papers belonging to Mons. Pain have come into the possession of either the English or Egyptian Government, or any of their agents or officials; and, if so, whether they will be surrendered to Mons. Pain's family?

On the 9th instant, in reply to a Question, I stated that Lord Wolseley had telegraphed on the 27th of June to the effect that Luigi Bonomi, a priest who escaped from Kordofan, received in November last from Lupton Bey a letter stating that Olivier Pain was dead; but that, on the other hand, one Ghalli, a merchant from Khartoum, alleged that when he recently left that town Pain was there. Beyond this information Lord Wolseley informs me thathehas no knowledge on the subject of M. Pain's death, and that he is not aware of any of his papers having come into the possession of any English or Egyptian official.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the great interest taken by a large number of Members in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, he will arrange that the consideration of the Bill in Committee shall continue de die in diem until it be concluded?

Of course, we should be anxious to consult the convenience of the House in such matters as this; but I am afraid it will not be possible for us to do what the Question seems to suggest—namely, take this Billon Wednesday and Thursday; and I will give some reasons for this to the House. In the first place, we have still more than 50 Votes to take in Supply, and I think the House will wish that Supply should be proceeded with. Then the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill ought to be taken soon; and I would further add that this Bill has passed the other House, and therefore would necessarily stand after the measure I have last mentioned. But there is another reason which, perhaps, I may mention incidentally, and that is that the State duties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will require his attendance elsewhere during part of Wednesday and Thursday, and it would be extremely inconvenient to the House that we should take this matter in his absence. But we shall take it as soon as we can.

Are we to understand that it will not be taken on Thursday?

Yes.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to a recent case in the Newcastle on Tyne Bankruptcy Court of the Vicar of St. Mark's, South Shields, in which it was stated in evidence that he had handed over for the purpose of liquidating his debts, among other sources of income, his draft from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and his "school grant;" whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of these statements; and, whether the teaching staff of the school for which the grant was intended have lost any part of their income in consequence of such reported diversion of funds?

in reply, said, he was making inquiries into this matter; but he was sure the hon. Member would not expect him to answer the Question until he received the result of the inquiries.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has read the report of a speech recently delivered by Sir Admiral Cooper Key, at Willis's rooms, in which the Admiral stated that "on the whole coast of England there was not a harbour in which our Fleets could take refuge;" whether, therefore, Her Majesty's Government intend to retain, or alter, the policy of the late Government in the case of the deep water harbour at Dover, which policy involves a delay in the completion of that harbour for about a quarter of a century; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend, in the construction of harbours generally, to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee on Harbours, viz. that, in place of annual votes spread over a long period of years, the cost of national harbours in the future should be provided by 99 years' terminable annuities, and the works be completed thereby in the shortest possible time?

I have not seen the report of the speech to which the hon. Member alludes, and I am afraid I have not yet had sufficient time to consider so important a matter as the recommendation of the Select Committee on Harbours referred to in the third paragraph of the Question; but with regard to Dover Harbour, I venture to say that I do not think it would be possible to alter the policy that has been pursued. I am in-informed that the construction of a harbour at Dover by convict labour was determined upon in 1882, after a Committee on Employment of Convicts had reported in favour of that work or of one at Filey as a means of affording the required employment. This Report was presented to Parliament. A considerable sum of money has been laid out in land and buildings for prisoners at Dover, and the prison is now in part ready for occupation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the deep-water harbours at Boulogne and Calais will be completed in two years?

No, Sir, I am not.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of employing convict labour on a harbour at Galway?

I shall be prepared to consider any recommendation coming from the Irish Government on the subject.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is now in a position to state to the House the intentions of Government with reference to the National Portrait Gallery?

Since the last occasion on which my attention was called to the danger from fire to the National Portrait Gallery by the Question of my hon. Friend, I have, as I promised the House that I would, inquired carefully into the subject, and I have bad the advantage of conferring with, the trustees of the collection and with Captain Shaw of the Fire Brigade, and I have come decidedly to the opinion that the present position of this invaluable collection in the Southern Exhibition Gallery at Kensington is most unsatisfactory, and that the pictures ought immediately to be transferred to a place of greater safety. A suggestion has been made that they should be removed from the southern to the western gallery; but Captain Shaw has reported to me that the construction of that gallery is not satisfactory either, and that the risks from the surrounding buildings are similar to those in connection with their present position. There is not, at present, any other suitable place that I can offer for their exhibition, and the trustees have decided to request the (Science and Art Department to receive these pictures as a loan and exhibit them at Bethnal Green Museum. That is, of course, only a temporary measure. I feel certain that Parliament and public opinion will desire that a suitable and perfectly safe building should be specially provided for this most interesting collection, which, in case of its destruction, it would be impossible to replace; and I cannot help thinking that if such a permanent home were found for it the collection would much more rapidly increase. At all events, I shall during the Recess consider the question of a proper site and a proper building for such a purpose; so that, if possible, some proposal on the subject may be made to Parliament next year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Royal Commission on Accidents in Mines has submitted any Report, and whether such Report will be laid upon the Table during the present Session; whether he can state when the final Report of the Commission is likely to be presented; and, whether, having regard to the frequency of accidents in coal mines involving great loss of life, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of taking measures for the more effective inspection of coal mines, and for imposing further restrictions in the use of explosives in such mines?

This is no ordinary Commission. Many years ago the Royal Society were good enough to meet me when I was Secretary of State, and to allow some of their best men to be placed upon the Commission. The Commissioners have been very busily employed, among their other engagements, in making these inquiries, and I am happy to say they are drawing very near to the end. They say that in the course of the autumn their final Report will be published, and I believe a great deal of it is in print at the present moment. My Predecessor arranged for the appointment of seven additional Inspectors, six of whom have been already appointed, and I will take care that no time is lost in appointing the seventh. The question as to the use of explosives deserves the most serious consideration. Personally I have always been in favour of preventing the use of explosives entirely in mines; but I think it would be wise to await the Report of the Commissioners, because I know that is a subject which they have had most fully brought before them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that great delay has taken place in the audit of the accounts of the Town Commissioners of Bangor, county Down; whether, so far, any irregularities have been detected; and, whether he will take means to have the audit finished?

The auditor began his audit on the 2nd of last month, but found it necessary to adjourn. He resumed on the 1oth instant, and has completed the audit. His Report will, I understand, be received by the Local Government Board this afternoon. He has verbally informed the Board that his Report contains allusions to some irregularities.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the statement which appeared in The Times Newspaper of 15th July is true, viz.: — That the war ship Beacon was about to be presented to one of the Australasian Colonies; and, if so, to which of the Colonial Governments it will be given, and whether as a training ship; and what is her tonnage and equipment?

in reply, said, the statement was inaccurate; but Her Majesty's Government were in correspondence with the Government of New South Wales on the subject of providing that Colony with a training ship.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the recent escape of burglars, after attempting to murder a police constable, through the garden on the north side of Kensington Park Gardens, Whether he is aware that the police hold keys of the larger garden on the south side, and of the smaller garden on the west, and that the Commissioner of Police, in October last, refused to allow the police in the same manner to hold keys and to visit the northern garden, stating that "the place is very free from burglaries;" and, whether he approves this partial system of protection?

in reply, said, he was informed by the Commissioner of Police that in 1882 the Home Secretary laid down a rule that the police were not to go off their beats to patrol private grounds. Since then they had ceased to do so, except in a few cases where strong objection was raised to their withdrawal after they had held keys of the ground for some years. The cases quoted by the hon. Member wore in point, and showed the danger of making such concessions.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police in this matter if any burglary or attempted burglary should take place in these gardens.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has had under his notice the position of high sheriffs of counties at the approaching General Election who will be responsible for the counting of votes given in contested elections for the several divisions of their respective counties; and, whether there is any source from which the expenses of the deputies who will have to be appointed can be defrayed, or if the burden of providing for such expenses will fall on the sheriffs?

in reply, said, he thought it would not be the wish of the House or the country to remove any part of the responsibility of High Sheriffs of counties for the progress of the elections at the forthcoming General Election. The expenses and sums allowed to Returning Officers for expenses of Presiding Officers and polling clerks were regulated by the Schedules of the Act of 1875. But assuming the amount so fixed not to be sufficient, of course the extra expenditure would fall upon the Sheriff. Amendments had been proposed in the Returning Officers' Expenses Bill, now in Committee, upon which the House will have an opportunity of considering whether the amount of allowances should or should not be increased. At the same time, he must point out that by the Act of 1875 the amount allowed varied according to the number of elections, and from that consideration it might turn out that the expenditure would be met by the provisions of the Act.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following instructions contained in the Calendar of the Royal University (Ireland) for 1885 regarding the Second Examination in Arts:—

"In the year 1885, the Second Examination in Arts …will he held not only in Dublin, but also in Belfast, Carlow, Cork. Galway, Limerick, and Londonderry … But any candidate who desires to present as portion of the course of examination any of the following subjects—

• "Experimental Physics,
• "Chemistry,
• "Biology,
• "Geology,

"must attend for the whole examination in Dublin;"

and also to this note appended to the programme of examination in Experimental Physics:—

"For the present there will not he for pass candidates any practical examination involving the use of apparatus;"

and, whether, having regard to the fact that no experiments with apparatus will be required of pass men, they could not be examined in Cork, or any other large town, as well as in Dublin, and thus spared the trouble and loss of going up to Dublin from places like Cork, Galway, and Londonderry?

I am informed that, although it is true that this year pass candidates in Experimental Physics will not be required to perform experiments, yet that they will have to undergo an oral examination by the Examiners, for which their presence in Dublin will be necessary; and the Senate of the University consider it desirable to have the complete examination of a candidate conducted at the same place.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What rule the Inspector General of the Irish Constabulary has resolved to make with respect to the imprisonment of more than one intoxicated person in the same police cell at the same time, and whether it will be ordered that, in case of such imprisonment, care is to be taken that the prisoners are kept constantly in sight, or at least in hearing, of the orderly; and, having regard to the fact stated by the police at the inquest on the body of Peter O'Grara at Sligo, that at the time when he lost his life another person charged with drunkenness was in the same cell, and the cell was in total darkness, whether arrangements will be made to supply some light to cells, especially when more than one person is confined in each, and in cases of drunkenness.

There is a rule in force that, whenever possible, prisoners under the influence of drink are not to be shut up together, or with other prisoners. The Inspector General informs me that the cell accommodation in several of the barracks renders it impossible to give a positive order that only one intoxicated person shall be in a cell at the same time. As a rule the cells are so situated as to be quite within hearing of the orderly, who must at all times be on the spot, and must visit the prisoners from time to time. He could not keep them constantly in sight unless he remained in the cell with them, which would not be advisable. The Inspector General does not think it would be expedient, even if it were practicable, that police cells should always be lighted; nor is it clear that such an arrangement would tend to the greater security of the prisoners.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the monetary situation created in Ireland by suspension of payment on the part of the Munster Bank, and considering that the Bank of Ireland enjoys special facilities under the law, and exceptional advantages from the Government, and has at its disposal increased note-issue power to the extent of about a million sterling, Whether the Government will use its influence to cause the Bank of Ireland to sustain, in case of need, by temporary aid, any other Irish bank which may be threatened by the excitement of the moment; and, to assist the Munster Bank to recover its position, if, on investigation, its affairs are found to be in a condition to warrant the adoption of such a course?

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether any application was made to the Bank of Ireland before the suspension of the Munster Bank; and, if so, whether that application was refused?

The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)is probably aware, from statements that have appeared in the Press since Notice was given of this Question, that the Bank of Ireland has already taken action of the kind indicated in its second paragraph; and I can refer him to the statements made by the Lord Lieutenant on July 18, and also to a deputation from the shareholders of the Munster Bank today, as explaining His Excellency's views of the situation and in proof of the earnest attention he is devoting to this important subject. I must ask for Notice of the hon. Member for West Surrey's (Mr. Broderick's) Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he, or any other Member of the Government, could communicate to the House the substance or practical effect of the statement made by Lord Carnarvon in Dublin with regard to the position of the Munster Bank?

No, Sir; I am not in a position to do so.

Was the statement made by Lord Carnarvon made on the part of the Government?

Of course, Lord Carnarvon made the statement on his responsibility as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and as a Member of the Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he can inform the House if it is true that there has been a severe outbreak of foot and mouth disease at Ampthill in Bedfordshire; and, whether the origin of the outbreak has been ascertained?

Yes, Sir; I regret to say that it is true that there has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Ampthill in Bedfordshire. It was reported to the Privy Council upon the 10th of July last as having occurred in the park at Ampthill, in which there were both cattle and sheep, and the report stated that the first animal was found to be affected on the 6th of July. An Inspector from the Department visited the park as soon as possible after the news was received of the outbreak; and the latest intelligence from the travelling Inspectors, who have paid frequent visits to the infected place since then, is to the effect that 17 cattle and 15 sheep are now infected with the disease, and that these animals are completely separated from the rest of the herd. Every exertion has been made and is being made, both by the Privy Council and the Local Authority, who are acting most energetically in the matter, to secure the complete isolation of all the animals in the park, and to prevent the further spread of the disease. An inquiry is being actively prosecuted, but the origin of the disease has not been discovered.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware of the fact that the furniture of Lady Ampthill arrived at Ampthill Park from Berlin a short time before this outbreak took place, and whether he was also aware that the animals had access to the hay and straw in which the furniture was packed; and whether he caused special investigation to be made in view of what had taken place?

in reply, said, special investigation was made into that matter. Although it was quite true that the furniture was packed in hay which was left about the premises and to which the animals had access, yet he was informed that the packages had been so long in London that, according to the professional authorities, the disease could not have been conveyed in that manner.

asked what Business would be taken to-morrow and on Wednesday?

said, the Business to-morrow would be the Medical Relief Bill as the first Order, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill as the second Order. Those Bills would practically engage the attention of the House the whole evening. Supply would be taken on Wednesday, probably the Army Estimates; and on Thursday the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken.

I rise to ask the permission of the House to make a very short personal statement. On the 8th of July I gave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I should move that it was inexpedient to treat Scotland in the matter of grants in aid of local taxation differently from England. On the same day some hon. Member of the House gave Notice that in Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates he would move to reduce the item of current accounts by the amount of the Sheriff's expenses in Skye. That hon. Member inadvertently omitted to put his name on the Notice of Motion, and, following the usual practice in such circumstances, the Notice appeared on the Paper with along line which indicates "Name illegible" or "Name omitted," and those who are unacquainted with Parliamentary procedure gave me the credit of having put down the Motion in Committee of Supply. I desire to say that I was not the author of the Motion relating to Sheriff Ivory's expenses. I desire very respectfully to suggest that on occasions of this sort, to prevent misapprehensions of the same nature in future, it may be considered whether it would not be proper to put, instead of a line, the words "Name omitted" or "Name illegible;" and I desire, in the third place, to thank the House for the opportunity it has given me to make this explanation.

I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from Mr. Gosset, the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, which I propose to read. It is as follows:—

I beg to propose that the letter read by Mr. Speaker be taken into consideration by this House at a quarter-past 4 on Thursday next, when I shall move a Resolution on the subject.

said, that before the Committee went into the merits of any question connected with Public Buildings in Ireland, which would probably be discussed at some length, he would like to make a remark upon a subject connected with the Phœnix Park, in Dublin.

said, the question of the Parks in Ireland would more properly come under the Public Works Vote.

asked what the Vote was the Committee were now asked to consider?

replied that the present Vote was for Public Buildings; the Vote for Public Works would be the next but one.

said, that he was not going to discuss the question of Public Buildings, but simply to point out a matter which he thought would properly come under the present Vote. What he would take leave to say was that he thought the Board of Works might very properly spend a little more money than they did in Phœnix Park upon seat accommodation for the public. At present there were only seats in those portions of the Park that were in the immediate neighbourhood of the gates; and when an inhabitant or a visitor desired to go into the Park he found that the seats were of a most inconvenient character and quite unworthy of the Metropolis of Ireland, and altogether inadequate to provide accommodation for the number of persons who frequented the Park. That was an important matter when people were out for a holiday endeavouring to enjoy themselves. It certainly did not add to the enjoyment of visitors to the Phœnix Park to discover that it was impossible to find seat accommodation; and as the expenditure of a very few pounds would remedy the defect, he hoped the Government would instruct the Board of Works at a very early period to remove that grievance. There was another point to which it was necessary he should call attention—namely, the cutting up of the Park for polo and cricket grounds. He had raised that question before. In London there was nothing of the kind, although there was larger park accommodation and a much greater number of people who might be supposed to require special accommodation for cricket and other recreation. In the case of the Phœnix Park, three or four acres of ground on the best level of the Park were railed off as a polo ground, and a notice was stuck up of the most audacious nature, which, in his opinion, was quite illegal, warning persons not to attempt or dare to ride over that portion of the Park, which, as a matter of fact, was railed off solely for the accommodation of the officers of the Dublin garrison. Then, again, there was a cricket ground of 30 or 40 acres on one of the pet spots in the Park. He thought the Park was quite large enough to provide accommodation for those polo and cricket gentlemen without selecting the choicest sites in it. It was monstrous that the pet portions of the Park should be given up for the sole amusement of a limited body of the public. If such a course were pursued in regard to Hyde Park, he felt satisfied that any structures similar to those which had been erected in the Phœnix Park would be pulled down in the same way that the Hyde Park railings were destroyed some years ago. His own opinion was that if a few of those illegal inclosures were pulled down by the people a salutary lesson would be taught. Phœnix Park was large enough to accommodate everybody; but he thought that some special portion of the Park should be set aside in a very different spot, away from the road which was most used by the public, in order to provide for gentlemen who desired facilities for special amusements. So far as the polo ground was concerned, he thought that the notice warn- ing the public off should be taken down. Why should the officers of the garrison of Dublin have allocated to their own sole use the very beautiful piece of level ground which, they were now enjoying, and every other person be prevented from riding over it, while in London no attempt was made, either in Hyde Park, Regent's Park, or in any of the other Parks, to make inclosures of the same character? His own opinion was that the Phœnix Park ought to be treated in precisely the same way. It might be said that it was an ungenerous thing to attempt to restrict the privileges of any particular class of the people; but what he maintained was this—that the enjoyment of the Park should be equally open to all, and that the best pieces of the ground should not be allocated to particular individuals, especially when there was no difficulty in obtaining all the accommodation that could be required elsewhere. He was afraid that it was the old story of giving an inch and taking an ell. The usurpers were not even content with a wire inclosure, but they were erecting stone buildings, which he maintained were an unjustifiable intrusion upon the rights of the public with regard to the enjoyment of the Park. Then, again, he thought the system of grazing cattle over portions of the Park created a public nuisance in many respects which prevented the people generally from walking over the grass. All those things in regard to Phœnix Park formed an eyesore which would not be tolerated in London for a single moment, and especially so far as the grazing of cattle was concerned. He had no idea who the owners of the cattle were. No doubt, there were deer in the Park; but they were an ornament, and so would the cattle be but for the nuisance which they created. It was very objectionable to see the large area of the Park turned into what he might almost describe as a cow-keeping establishment for the remuneration and profit of some particular body of whom he knew nothing. He trusted that the Government would remember that the Phœnix Park was intended not for the use of a particular set of persons, but for the public at large, and if the system were persisted in of sanctioning cow-grazing over the Park it might be carried altogether too far. The pleasure of the people ought to be the main con- sideration; and for those who required exceptional privileges it was most undesirable, either for cow-grazing or polo and cricket playing, that special privileges should be reserved against the general user of the public. Personally, if the present practice were persisted in, he would recommend the people of Dublin to do as the people of London did in Hyde Park—to go over and tear down the rails.

said, his attention had not been called to this particular point in connection with the Vote; butheheartily concurred with the hon. and learned Member in the opinion that the Phœnix Park was intended for the use not of individuals, but of the public at large. The point as to providing more seats in the Park should receive consideration. He understood the hon. and learned Member to say that in regard to the polo ground there was a notice put up warning people off.

said, that there was not only one notice, but two.

said, there could be no question that anybody had a right to ride over the polo ground, and he would bring the matter under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant in the hope that the notices referred to by the hon. and learned Member would be removed. With regard to the cricket grounds be trusted that before the violent steps shadowed forth by the hon. and learned Member were taken, an opportunity would be afforded to the Government to consider whether some of the grounds could not be removed to another part of the Park, if the public were really at present inconvenienced. On public grounds it might not be desirable to retain them in their present position; but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that they would be very useless if they were placed in a part of the Park which would be practically inaccessible. He would ascertain whether the cricketing could not be removed to other parts of the Park, where it would not hinder the people from walking about; but he did not understand the hon. Member to be opposed to all cricket grounds in the Park. For himself, he could not agree in any such view.

said, that if he were not out of Order he would ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to consider the propriety of imposing better regulations with regard to the use of the Queen's Park in Edinburgh.

said the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was hardly correct in saying that in the London Parks no spaces were allotted for cricket or football. In Batter sea Park, and he believed in some of the other Parks, spaces were appropriated specially for cricket and other games, as well as to riders.

To the extent of 30 acres?

said,hewas not in a position to say what amount of space was allotted. The acreage devoted to such purposes was, of course, a matter of detail, and did not affect the principle involved. All he wished to point out was that there were portions of the London Parks allotted to cricket and football, independent of the other parts of the Parks which were placed at the disposal of the general public. He trusted that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, when he inquired into the matter, would not be disposed too prematurely to concur in the idea that the allocation of a specific portion of ground for polo or cricket was an infringement of the rights of the public. He hoped his hon. Friend would not jump at the conclusion that it was not for the general convenience of the public that a portion of the Parks should be allocated for such purposes. And if such an allocation were made it was most desirable that the spaces allotted for those purposes should be within easy reach of the people who had recourse to them. If they were situated in such an out-of-the-way part of the Park as the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) seemed to indicate they would be of little use to anybody. He, therefore, trusted that his hon. Friend would not commit himself, without inquiry, to any particular declaration upon the subject.

said, there was an item in the Vote for the conversion of military barracks into Constabulary buildings. In fact, he saw items for that purpose—one of £700, another of £800, another of £900, another of £600. and, in the case of Tullamore, one of £1,670. He was at a loss to understand why those sums were asked for, and he thought that some explanation was demanded from the Government, for they certainly appeared to be very large items.

said, he believed that some of the existing barracks were much too small or too dilapidated, especially in the larger towns, for further occupation. The sums referred to were only Estimates, and therefore conveniently given in round sums; and of course all the money that was not actually expended would be returned. He believed that this expenditure was due to the postponement of certain works that were asked for last year. It was contemplated that a considerable portion of this expenditure should have been incurred last year; but the work itself had been postponed. He was informed that this outlay had now become absolutely necessary, and that the work must be done at once. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), he had no special information as to Tullamore as distinguished from the requirements of other towns.

asked whether he was to understand the hon. Baronet to say that this sum of £1,670 was to be expended in Tullamore for the conversion of military barracks into Constabulary buildings?

said, he believed that was the case.

said, that upon page 61 of the Votes there were two items in reference to the navigation of the Shannon to which he desired to call attention. There was a great flood a few years ago, which did a considerable amount of damage; and he wanted to know bow a similar disaster was to be guarded against in future years, so as to prevent the injury from occurring again to which the farmers were liable from summer floods? He believed there had been many complaints in regard to the Killaloo sluice, and that there had been more than one flood of a serious character, which had been brought about in consequence of that sluice. The Government had promised to make inquiry into the matter; but so far as he could learn they had never done so. He trusted that the present Secretary to the Treasury would bear the matter in mind. There was another question which it was important to mention. He trusted that there was still time to get some declaration from the Government as to their intentions in regard to the Ulster Canal Bill. It was most inconvenient to find that Bill put down in the Orders night after night. He believed that there was no objection to the measure itself if the Government would leave out the provisions which related to the keeping up of the summer level. So far as he could learn that was the only serious objection to the Bill. Personally, he thought that an undoubted claim had been made for getting rid of this summer level in order to prevent the farmers, whose holdings were higher up, from being flooded in an attempt to maintain the level. He hoped to receive a precise and specific declaration from the Government on the matter; and he thought he was justified in assuring them that that was in reality the only point upon which objection was taken to the Bill.

also expressed a hope that some statement would be made in regard to the arrangements which were proposed to be carried out in reference to the Ulster Canal.

said, that an allusion had been made by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) to the items which appeared in the Vote for the conversion of military barracks into Constabulary buildings. His own opinion was that the whole of the arrangements for providing sumptuous accommodation for the Constabulary were objectionable and extravagant. He saw that in one instance a sum of £250 was put down for providing a bath room. Considering the very unpretentious bath rooms which ordinary people had to put up with, he did not see why the country should construct a bath room on so magnificent a scale, and should be called upon to pay £250 for it, in order to enable half-a-dozen or a dozen policemen to enjoy the luxury of a bath in Dublin, where there were plenty of public baths and wash-houses in existence. Then he saw that a sum of £2,300 was asked for the barracks in the little town of Portadown. He had had occasion not very long ago to call attention to the fact that the people who were proposing to set up this establishment were most neglectful of their duty, and that the lives of persons who found it necessary to pass through the place were left very much at the mercy of the Constabulary themselves. There was also an item of £2,500 for providing a Constabulary barracks in the little town of Dingle, in the county of Kerry, He did not suppose that all the other buildings in the town put together would cost as much as that. There was also a sum of £4,500 for a barracks in the town of Galway. Estimates of this kind were perfectly scandalous. What on earth was all this money required for at a time when they were professing to reduce the strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary by more than 2,000 men? It was quite notorious that one-half of the present Constabulary Force would be quite ample for the purpose of preserving law and order if they were not treated as soldiers. When he found that in the present Vote about £1,200 was devoted to the building of these palatial residences for policemen, and that only £1,000 was set apart for the building of residences for the National School teachers of Ireland, every man in Ireland, and the country generally, must be impressed with the fact that while policemen were munificently paid and housed in magnificent buildings, the unfortunate National School teachers, and every other person who added to the happiness and prosperity of the Irish people, were shamefully neglected. He thought they were entitled to have some explanation of this mania for building police barracks at this extraordinary rate. In many places it was found impossible to afford money for building a church in honour of the Almighty; whereas it appeared that there was to be no stint in building temples for police officers.hehoped the Chief Secretary would be able to afford some explanation as to the reason why the Estimates had become so swollen for the Constabulary. He wished, further, to know who had the controlling authority in the matter?

said, he could not understand why the Estimates should be increasing while the number of the police themselves was falling off. He certainly failed to see what ground there was for increasing the barrack accommodation. If they were going to increase the number of police in Ireland it would be a very different matter; but they had been assured over and over again by the late Government that the number was being decreased, and, therefore, he could not see what reason there was for increasing the expenditure. The instance of Galway had been mentioned. He understood that that was a decaying town—at any rate, it had not been a flourishing town for some time past, and he believed that premises quite suitable for the accommodation of the Constabulary were to be had in the town for a very moderate rent. It was notorious that in most of the places where it was proposed to incur this expenditure very decent accommodation was to be had at much more reasonable rates. The proposal to expend £4,500 in Galway was altogether extravagant and monstrous. There could be no justification for such an outlay in a town of the size of Galway, nor, indeed, in any other Irish town except Dublin. He strongly objected to the spending of a lot of money in extravagant police barracks, especially when the Government must be fully aware that they were able to get the necessary accommodation at a much more reasonable rate.

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that last year they had had a discussion upon this subject; and on that occasion the items asked for under this particular head were shown to have been already obtained for the same purposes for which they were again asked for; but it was admitted, in the course of the discussion, that they had not been expended for those purposes, but applied to others. It was proved that sums of money had been obtained for the purpose of purchasing sites for police barracks; and it was further shown that the money so obtained had never been expended at all. In more than one case it appeared that money for a site had been voted two or three times over; and yet when a distinct question was put to the Government it appeared that no site had in reality been purchased at all. He asked the hon. Gentleman who was now in charge of these Estimates to see that the money drawn for police barracks was really expended for that purpose, and not, as was the case last year, taken for one purpose and expended upon another.

said, that, in regard to the question of police barracks, there was one point to which he desired to call attention. It must be borne in mind that these Estimates were not drawn by the present, but by the late Government; and he was very much surprised to find that there was no Member of the late Government present who was able to get up and give an explanation. With regard to police barracks, it was within his knowledge that the number of the Force had been largely diminished, and the buildings themselves had been allowed to fall into decay, so that the Government had now to build fresh houses. It was utterly impossible to obtain premises already in existence that were suitable. It had, therefore, become absolutely essential that the Government should build fresh houses, in order to replace those which had been allowed to fall into wreck and ruin.

said, he had no wish to criticize adversely the Estimates now under discussion as the Estimates of the present Government, because, as had already been remarked, the present Government had had no hand in preparing them. At the same time, no one who had studied the question of Public Works in Ireland could fail to see that there was a great want of that supervision in connection with this expenditure which was undertaken in connection with every other Department of the Public Service. There was, apparently, an ambition on the part of the Department charged with this expenditure to submit inflated Estimates every year by putting in a number of services which never could be completed within the year. His hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had referred to one such case, and precisely the same thing would be found in the Estimates of the present year. He had before him the last volume of the Appropriation Accounts, and he found that in the case of the Constabulary barracks at Galway a sum of £3,000 was voted in that financial year, but not spent. So also in the case of Limerick, and in other instances; and it would be found that the sums voted had never been drawn from the Exchequer at all, for the reason that no site had been available. Could anything be more ridiculous than to ask for large sums—thousands and thousands of pounds year after year for building structures for which they had not the ground upon which to erect them? The inevitable result was that the Estimate was inflated to a very considerable extent, and the officials of Dublin found that they were in a position to draw a large amount of money under the nominal scope of this Vote. What was it they did last year? Instead of using the money for the services for which it was asked in Parliament, they went in for building things which had never been mentioned at all, such as an expenditure of £1,000 in connection with the Land Commission in Cork; £1,100 for Royal Constabulary huts, which had never been voted by Parliament; £1,200 at Ennis for Constabulary barracks; while the Botanic Gardens at Dublin were provided with new buildings at an expenditure of £1,800. In this latter case there was a marginal note stating that the expenditure had been sanctioned by a Treasury Letter of the 29th of November, 1883, a very long time after the Estimates had been passed by the House. On referring to the year 1884, he found that the Treasury was asked to consent to the appropriation of money for services entirely different from that for which Parliament had sanctioned the Vote. In other cases he found that the sanction of the Treasury was given to the expenditure after the financial year had altogether closed. He thought that was a piece of administrative irregularity which ought to require a very searching investigation on the part of those who were responsible for the matter. He only referred to these points in the history of this Department in order to show the laxity with which the Department was administered—a laxity which was greater than that which was permitted in any other Department either in Ireland or in this country. When he came to consider the character of the Votes submitted by the Irish Board of Works he could not help being struck by the fact that almost all the money asked for was to be spent on works that were of no permanent advantage to the country. It would be seen that the money was expended upon Constabulary barracks to any extent. Large sums of money were also voted in connection with the navigation levels of the different river valleys, everyone of which had already resulted in disaster to the farming population of the locality in which they existed. The consequence of the existence of these levels was that below Athlone, and below a very wide stretch of the Shannon, the whole of the agricultural produce of the low-lying lands was annually swept away, and the grazing was so deteriorated by the summer floods that the farmer was scarcely able to got anything out of the lands he cultivated. So it was, also, in the case of the Barrow, and one consequence was that the lands above were not drained at all. A Commission had been appointed to inquire into the drainage of the Barrow Valley, and it was found that as a consequence of the existence of these works it was necessary to maintain a high summer level. The result was that the agricultural occupations of the people, which were affected by this level, were rendered perfectly hopeless. And yet he found in this Vote that there was a sum of £12,000 for works proposed to be carried out by the Lagan Navigation in connection with the Ulster Canal. He was informed that the Ulster Navigation Bill would be withdrawn, and that the Vote would not be wanted. Nevertheless, there was an annual charge of some £1,000 or £1,200 for the maintenance of the Ulster Canal—a canal in regard to which there was no reasonable prospect of its ever being made available for commerce. As a matter of fact, in its present position, it was never likely to pay the wages of those who were employed upon it, and there was a strong recommendation that it should be drained, and its site converted into agricultural purposes. He failed to see why the Government, year by year, should ask for this grant of £1,000 or £1,200 for the purpose of keeping up this canal, when it was most desirable, for the interests of all concerned, that it should be closed altogether. There were a number of other items in the Vote to which, if the occasion were favourable, he should like to call the attention of the Committee; but, as he had said before, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite were not responsible for them, and, therefore, he did not think it would be fair to press the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to them.

said, it was quite true that the hon. Baronet opposite was not responsible for the drawing up of this Vote; but he might, therefore, be in a position to express a more impar- tial opinion upon the various items of which it consisted. He shared to the fullest extent the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) as to the mode in which the Vote had been drawn up, and he thought that no criticism upon it could be too strong or too severe. Had the hon. Baronet noticed the fact that the Board of Works asked for these purposes last year a sum of £250,000, and. that this year they were asking for a further sum of £221,000? Two years ago £210,000 was asked for, and "only £204,000 expended. He, therefore, failed to comprehend the audacity with which the Board of Works now came forward and asked for this enormous sum of money, amounting to £17,000 more than was expended seven years ago. Was there any pretence of increased crime to justify the demand? As a rule, the Board of Works had been in the habit of asserting that disturbed times in Ireland were the reason why it was necessary to expend large sums of money on military barracks and Constabulary buildings. But there were no disturbed times in Ireland now. On the contrary, the political sky was almost obscured with showers of white gloves; and the Judges and Sheriffs were congratulating each other all over Ireland upon the absence of crime. Nevertheless, having only expended £204,000 upon public works in 1884, the Board of Works now asked for £221,000. In what items were the increase to be found? The Board were actually asking for £16,311 more than they did last year for new works. Not one word of explanation was offered; but, on looking more closely into the subject, he found that the increase was to be found in these items. £6,000 more was asked for Coastguard stations. What were they wanted for? What duties had the Coastguardsmen to perform? Was there an increased amount of smuggling going on? He had not heard of anything of the kind; and he could not find that the Coastguard did anything except worry the poor fishermen who were trying to earn a livelihood.hecertainly did not feel disposed to vote more money for Coastguard stations unless some satisfactory reason could be assigned for it. There was also the large item of £5,000 for sanitary improvements in Dublin Castle and the Lodge in the Phœnix Park. A great many eminent persons had been able to get on very comfortably in Dublin Castle and the Viceregal Lodge in the Phœnix Park since 1800, and he did not understand why a large increase of expenditure should have been rendered necessary now. Then, again, there was an item of £4,000 more for county police barracks. What was the meaning of that? The Estimate for the pay of the police was not diminished, although there were 1,000 fewer policemen than there were last year; and, in addition, they were asked to expend £4,000 more for police barracks. He felt bound to ask that the Government should give some attention to these Estimates, and offer some explanation to the House of these extraordinary items. £4,000 more for police barracks, while the number of the Constabulary had been largely decreased ! He should have thought that fewer barracks would have been sufficient. Then there was an item for the conversion of military barracks into police buildings. They were always converting something or other in Ireland. The Government were never satisfied to allow anything to remain long for its original use. If they built a house for soldiers, they wanted it for policemen, and they would at once find it necessary to undertake alterations at a cost of several thousand pounds. Surely barrack accommodation that was good enough for a soldier was good enough for a police constable; and he protested against this large increase of expenditure for Coastguard stations, sanitary improvements in Dublin Castle and the Viceregal Lodge, police barracks, and one thing and another that were not of the slightest interest or advantage to the Irish people. It was in this way the Estimates were increased by £4,000 in one direction, and £6,000 in another, while the sum asked for Science and Art buildings was £2,700 less. There was plenty of sanitary accommodation in Dublin Castle and in the Phœnix Park Lodge, and very scanty arrangements in connection with the promotion of Science and Art. Yet the principle upon which the Vote was framed was to increase the expenditure upon unnecessary purposes, and to diminish it wherever an increase was really demanded. The Vote was one for Public Buildings; but the item for the Post Office was £3,000 less, for inland navigation £3,000 loss, and for fishery piers £2,650 less, notwithstanding the fact that the harbours around the coast were falling (into decay, and the poor fishermen were year after year sent into the deep waters at the risk of their lives. £4,000 more was asked for police barracks for a diminished Constabulary Force; and although the Board of Works had been constantly warned that the harbours were falling into decay, they put down£2,650 less for fishery piers and harbours, and, at the same moment, inflated the Estimates for Coastguard stations, and provided £700 for additional furniture for the Public Departments. Even the cost of maintaining the Board of Works itself was £800 more this year than last. Last year it cost £700, and this year the Office which drew up the Estimate was brazen enough to come to Parliament for £1,576. Why had the cost of maintaining the Office of Works jumped up in one year from £700 to £1,576? The Estimate certainly appeared to him to partake somewhat of the nature of fraud. Was money to be spent in this way simply because it was public money? Would the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, if he was connected with a Railway Company, or owned a mill, or even a shop in a small village, allow his money to be spent in this manner? Of course he would not. If any private Member of the House found that his money was expended in such a way he would not only discountenance the proceeding on the part of his employés, but he would take care that it met with the punishment due to the offence. He (Mr. Sexton) did not think the money of the country ought to be expended with less care, consideration, and responsibility than that of a private individual. Then, again, there was an item of £245 to provide a depot in Dublin for Crown witnesses. Had the informer, whose principal business was to swear away the lives of innocent men, become a permanent official of the Crown in Ireland? He had entertained the hope that with the disappearance of disturbed times they might have heard the last of the informer. He should not have thought that he ought to exist and carry on a lucrative traffic in an atmosphere of white gloves and congratulations between the Judges of Assize and the county authorities as to the absence of crime. Instead of fitting up a depot to make these men comfortable, the sooner they were removed to Mountjoy or to some other convict prison the better for the country. Turning to the English Votes, he was able to compliment the English Board of Works upon having no such increase of their Vote. He knew that it would be out of Order to discuss that Vote, andheonly referred to it by way of illustration.

said, that it would, perhaps, best consult the convenience of the Committee if the discussion upon Public Works was taken upon the Vote which would come on later in the next Class. When it was reached he intended to make a statement upon it. He understood that it was simply by way of comparison that the hon. Member drew attention to the expenditure on Public Works in Ireland and England.

said, he had only been paying a compliment to the English Department; and if the hon. Baronet objected, of course he would not pursue the matter further. He was simply endeavouring to show that in the Irish Vote certain charges were made which ought not to be made; and he now proposed to point out how the Vote was managed in the Appropriation Accounts. If the hon. Baronet would follow him he would see that a most objectionable course had been pursued. The Board of Works obtained a Vote of £210,000; but of that sum only £204,000 was expended, leaving a net surplus of £6,000. In addition to this inflated Estimate, out of a further sum voted of £82,000 they only expended £66,000, leaving a further surplus of £16,000. And how was that money spent? It was spent for purposes which had not been authorized by Parliament at all—Sites for police barracks, £2,700; police employed in emergency work, £1,242; erection of Constabulary huts, £1,140; travelling expenses of carpenters employed in erecting Constabulary huts, £463; furniture for themselves and their friends of the official class in Dublin, £3,900; accommodation for Marines, £1,228; gas, &c, owing to the disturbed state of the country, £670; and in other items amounting altogether to more than £11,000 out of the £16,000 by which the Vote had been over-estimated. Having over-estimated the wants of the Department by £16,000, they expended £11,000 of the excess upon purposes wholly unauthorized by Parliament. They made an inflated Estimate for Coastguard stations and police barracks, and, taking the money' from one pocket, put it into another, expending it upon purposes which the House had had no opportunity of discussing, and of which they might strongly have disapproved. He maintained that there had been gross maladministration on the part of the Board of Works, and an evasion of the control of Parliament which ought not to be lightly passed over. Within the last few years the Board of Works had under-expended by £36,000 the money voted by Parliament. The whole Vote for Public Works was £82,000; but they had under-expended on Coastguard stations, barracks, and fishery harbours and piers, £16,000, altogether, which they had transferred to another head and expended upon purposes not authorized by Parliament. They had expended £2,300 on the General Post Office, £1,000 on the Parcels Post, £2,400 on barracks, and so on; and in some instances they had established new items of expenditure which had never been voted or considered by Parliament at all, such as the Land Commission at Cork, the erection of Constabulary huts and houses in the Botanic Gardens, and a gas engine at the General Post Office. He maintained that this was a system of jugglery and misappropriation of public money, which was most discreditable; and, in point of fact, it was a question whether it did not amount to a criminal offence. When it was found year after year that an important Public Department wilfully over-estimated the amount it required to spend upon certain items by tens of thousands of pounds, and then expended it upon matters that were not authorized by Parliament, that Department must not feel shocked if their conduct, when brought under the notice of the country, excited not only harsh criticism, but a feeling of indignation.

said, that as an Irish Representative he protested against the expenditure of £12,100 for the erection of Constabulary barracks in Ireland. No person could travel for any distance in Ireland without seeing villages in decay, houses falling down, and everything in a state of ruin and dilapidation; and yet the Imperial Treasury was asked to erect splendid barracks for police constables, who lived in absolute idleness and luxury, and who had nothing whatever to do in the wide world. The new Chief Secretary had not as yet had much practical experience of Ireland; but it was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would recruit his health as well as his political experience when the House ceased to sit by visiting Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman did so, he was sure he would be struck very much indeed by this fact—that all through Ireland, even in the poorest districts, policemen were to be met with in large numbers living in splendid houses and having absolutely nothing to do. Some time ago there might have been some excuse for increasing the accommodation of the Irish Constabulary; but, as had been clearly pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), at this period, of all others, it was extraordinary that the Government should desire to spend such a large and unusual amount of money in the erection of police barracks. He did not know whether it was that the present Government were apprehensive of the results of their proceedings or not; but it was certainly regarded in Ireland as a most extraordinary thing that this particular period, when a certain amount of calm prevailed all over the country, should be chosen by the Government for the expenditure of £12,400 on police barracks. His hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), in drawing attention to the matter, had compared the expenditure for public buildings in Ireland with the expenditure proposed to be made upon the residences of the National School teachers. Now, he did not think that any people except Government officials in Ireland would have the supreme audacity to go before the House of Commons, or any assembly in any part of the world, and ask for a grant of £12,400 for building police barracks, for a force which did nothing but excite evil passions in the country, when they were only proposing to expend £1,000 upon the residences of the school teachers—people who were supposed to educate and train the children of the country in the way in which they should live. If the hon. Gentleman who was proposing this Vote could prove to the Committee that there was more necessity for spending money on police barracks than in building decent houses for the National School teachers, he might, perhaps, induce some of the Irish Members to look with greater favour upon the Vote; but they knew very well, and the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Vote knew, or ought to know very well, or if the Government did not know it, by reason of their inferior information about Ireland, they would soon know it, that there were no people in the United Kingdom or in the whole world who were more in need of decent habitations to live in than the National School teachers. And yet, although many of these good men, and well-educated men, were performing a work of incomparable service to the people of Ireland, they were compelled to live in hovels with miserable rooms, which in many cases were not water-tight. Notwithstanding the admittedly miserable condition of these persons only £1,000 was asked from Parliament to improve their condition, while £12,400 were asked for police barracks. He did not know whether it was the intention of his hon. Friends and Colleagues from Ireland to oppose this Vote or not; but he certainly thought it deserved to be opposed, because it was a most monstrous thing to spend £12,400 in building splendid houses for men who did nothing, while they only spent £1,000 for the most useful class of persons in the country. That was a state of affairs which deserved to be exposed in every possible way. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had drawn attention to the increased charge for Coastguard stations for Ireland. He would say this for the Coastguard, that they were a somewhat less offensive force than the police, but they were quite as useless, and, if anything, still more useless. It was seldom that the public heard of anything they did. They absolutely did nothing; and unless the Government were scared in regard to the prospect of an invasion by Russia,hedid not know what in the wide world, in a peaceful country like Ireland, they could want with expending £6,000 in building extra Coastguard stations. He could perfectly understand the necessity of keeping up an Army, and even of housing the police in good dwellings, because if they did not do so the men composing those Forces would throw them overboard; but he could not understand why they wanted to spend £6,000 more this year upon Coastguard stations when there was nothing more to be done by the Coastguard than to burn blue lights when an Evolutionary Squadron went over to Bantry Bay to overawe the peasantry of Ireland, and show them what the power of Great Britain was. So far as the police were concerned, although they had very light duties to perform, it was natural enough that the Government should desire to put them in good houses, because if that were not done the Constabulary would not consent to do their work, and in that case the Government would find it very difficult to get other men to perform the very unpleasant duties which the Constabulary were required to perform in Ireland. Therefore, there might be some sense in housing them in good buildings; but there could be no sense whatever in spending £6,000 on the Coastguard in Ireland, while the people were starving and Irish industries were going more and more to ruin, and when, from the want of the judicious expenditure of £6,000 here and there, the people were emigrating in thousands. There were many public works in Ireland upon which the public money might be expended with advantage. It was as much as the Irish Members could do to squeeze a few thousand pounds from Parliament for building- piers for the fishermen or anything of that sort. It had been found very difficult indeed to get advances of that nature in the county of Wexford. He knew that in that county applications had been made over and over again for the erection of piers for the benefit of the people, which would only cost a few thousand pounds; but it was found impossible to obtain the money. Nevertheless, for no object in the world. they were lavishly expending £6,000 in the establishment of Coastguard stations which were absolutely not wanted. There could be nothing more irritating to a starving and industrious people than to see the way in which the public money was squandered on a force of men, who did nothing all day long, from the time they got up in the morning until they went to bed at night, but look at the surrounding sea, and shoot seagulls. No more disreputable item than the sum of £6,000 it was now proposed to spend upon the Coastguard stations had ever appeared in the Votes, unless it were the item of £250 for the establishment of a depot in connection with Crown witnesses. If it wag recognized as a necessity in Ireland to make provision for the Constabulary and Coastguard, why on earth should it be necessary to provide a depot for Crown witnesses, and to supply thorn with fuel and water, rent, insurance, furniture, and so on? The Crown witnesses in Ireland were notoriously the greatest blackguards and ruffians the world had ever produced. In point of fact, it was a mutual co-operative business—the Government had to keep up the police, and the police kept up the Crown witnesses, and so the whole of this infamous system in Ireland was converted into a public institution. He should certainly vote against these monstrous items in the Estimates of £12,400 for police barracks, £6,000 for Coastguard stations, and £245 for a depôt for Crown witnesses, especially whenheremembered that they were allowing all kinds of worthy objects in Ireland to go to the wall for the want of a judicious expenditure of a little money. He trusted that his hon. Friends, if they did not get some sort of satisfactory explanation from the Government, would divide against these Votes. He was afraid that these Estimates were never regarded in a sufficiently serious light. The Government came down to propose them for the acceptance of the Committee, and two or three Gentlemen who had nothing else to do came into the House to loll about the Benches, and hear the Estimates discussed. The Votes were then passed in the coolest and calmest manner, and if it were not for a few of the Irish Members they would be passed without comment, no matter how absurd, or for what useless object they were proposed. If the hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Financial Department of the Treasury and right hon. Gentlemen who held an official connection in that House with Ireland were desirous of strengthening their position, and of claiming a fair and impartial hearing in Ireland, it would be well if they commenced their career now by explaining to the Committee what in the name of goodness was meant by spending these extravagant sums upon useless purposes in Ireland, while, at the same time, the Irish fishermen wore left to pursue their dangerous avocations without harbours to run to or any means of protection.

would suggest to the Government that, instead of erecting new police buildings, moans should be taken to discover and rent suitable buildings already in existence. He had in his mind two or three cases in which new buildings had been erected that were wholly unnecessary, and representations had been made to him by the proprietors of house property that they had houses quite fitted for the purposes for which police barracks were required, which would have been available at one-fourth of the expenditure. He thought the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury should make it a rule to ascertain before submitting such Votes whether other accommodation might not be obtained, and whether there were not suitable premises, or premises which might not be made suitable, in existence already. It was most desirable that that fact should be ascertained before a large sum of money was expended in the erection of new buildings.

wished to call the attention of the hon. Baronet opposite, for a moment, to another question— namely, an item of £966 in connection with the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum. One of the items in the Vote was £446 for raising the boundary wall. He understood that the raising of this boundary wall was rendered necessary by the fact that there had been numerous attempts to escape from the asylum. A most extraordinary course of proceeding had been adopted in placing a body of 12 policemen, with a sergeant, in the hospital of this criminal lunatic asylum to guard against escapes, and distributing the hospital patients throughout the wards, a most objectionable arrangement, and one for which no precedent could be found. Formerly, when the grounds were only partially inclosed, and the attendants fewer in proportion to the number of patients, there was no necessity for extra precautions, and an escape rarely occurred. He knew that the hon. Baronet could not by any possibility have a personal knowledge of the matter owing to the brief time he had been in Office; and, therefore, he did not propose to do more than ask the hon. Baronet to inquire into it. There was a Commission appointed some time ago. Great complaint had been made in regard to the management of the asylum, and three of the officials connected with the Government were sent down to inquire into the complaints. When, however, he (Mr. Corbet) asked the then Chief Secretary, or his Predecessor—he did not at the moment remember which—to place the Report of that Commission upon the Table the right hon. Gentleman declined to do so, on the ground that it was, in a certain sense, a private document. How the Report of a Commission to inquire into such matters as grave charges preferred against the officials of a criminal lunatic asylum could be regarded as a private Report he failed to understand. He would only now ask the hon. Baronet to look into the matter, and see whether he could not lay the Report of the Commission upon the Table.

said, that in connection with the subject which had just been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet)—namely, the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum,hewished to point out that while in 1863 there wore 130 patients there and only one death, or about ¾ per cent, in 1883 there were 172 patients and 16 deaths, or nearly 2½ per cent. This change had taken place during the tenure of office of the present Governor, or whatever his title might be.

He is the resident physician and Governor.

said, he proposed to deal with that officer in a few moments. Taking the same two periods, for the purpose of a comparison, he found in 1863 the cost was £3,679, whereas in 1883 the amount was very nearly double, although the number of patients had not largely increased, having reached £6,623. Previous to the appointment of the new Governor any attempt to escape from the prison had been almost unknown; but now these attempts had become so frequent that the authorities had been obliged to place police constables within the asylum, and the patients in the asylum had been huddled together in order that the police might have proper accommodation. He did not object to that, because, of course, if they placed policemen there they must provide thorn with adequate accommodation; but he did object to the great increase in the cost of the establishment. They were now building up a big brick wall around the asylum; and he was afraid that there could be nothing more calculated to injure the patients and deprive them of all hope of cure than to surround them with a high and gloomy stone wall. In fact, the asylum would be made worse than a prison, and the effect, mentally, upon the patients would be exceedingly grave and serious. Wherever it could be done, it was desirable to provide lunatic patients with cheerful garden scenery, plenty of light and colour, and everything that was attractive; but hero, owing to the mismanagement of the asylum, they were now compelled to build up a wall, and treat the persons, not as persons suffering mental disease, but really as if they were all of them prisoners in an ordinary prison. The number of cures that were effected in the first period to which he had alluded was largo, and very large in comparison with the number of cures that were effected now. The inquiry of the Commission to which his hon. Friend alluded was made in consequence of strong complaints from various quarters, both inside and outside this criminal lunatic asylum. Among other things disclosed in the Report was the fact that the resident physician and Governor received, in addition to his pay, a considerable number of perquisites; and yet he was in the habit of skimming the milk supplied to the patients in order to supply it to his own children. He could quite understand why the Report referred to by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) had never been produced. The reason was that it was so highly condemnatory in its character that it justified all the complaints which had been made, and showed how lax the supervision had been which was exercised over this asylum. A certain quantity of milk was supplied by the contractor both to the Governor and his children, and also to the patients in the asylum, under a medical order. So serious had been the practices resorted to on the part of the Governor and resident physician, that this question of skimming the milk of the unfortunate patients and taking the cream away from them had rendered it necessary for the authorities to pass a Rule, which would almost seem incredible—namely, that none of the milk intended for the use of the patients should be skimmed, and that the officers of the institution should only receive the allowance fixed for them on the 5th of May. What would be said in this country if such a Rule were found necessary in an important public institution? Nevertheless, it would appear that in the Dun-drum Asylum the Governor and resident physician had acted towards the unfortunate people placed under his charge in such a way that a special Rule of this kind had to be passed. He had been quoting from official documents, which any hon. Member could see for himself; and the Rule he had referred to was Rule No. 8, which would be found in the Appendix to the 37th Report to the Visitors of the Criminal and Private Lunatic Asylums of Ireland.

wished to point out to the hon. Member that in discussing the Vote it would not be in Order to go into all these details. It was certainly not desirable, when the only question was the erection of a boundary wall, to enter into such elaborate questions.

said, he was probably trespassing upon another Vote which would have to be taken presently.hehad done so because he thought that as the erection of the wall for this asylum came under the present Vote it was desirable to include the whole matter.

said, the hon. Member would not be deprived of the opportunity of discussing the details into which he was desirous of entering. The only question now before the Committee was whether a sum of £446 was a proper sum to be voted for the purpose of erecting a boundary wall.

said, he would not trespass any further upon the time of the House in regard to this question; but he would proceed to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to page 59 of the Vote, where he would find one item connected with the expenses of Dublin Castle and the Viceregal Lodge in the Phœnix Park. Ifhewould look at the second column for maintenance and repairs, he would find that a very large sum was paid for regular maintenance and repairs. That appeared in the first column; but when they came to the second column it would be found that there was a charge for incidental repairs—when slates come off, or it was necessary to make an alteration in the brick-work and so forth; and in one item there was a sum of £1,080 for labourers' pay. Of course, the labourers' pay did not include bricks and other materials; and, turning to the item of cost in that respect, he found that the amount asked for materials was only £39, so that in order to use £39 worth of bricks and mortar, and wood, and so forth, it was necessary to expend £1,080 in labourers' pay. Then, again, for bricks and masonry, there was an item of £30 in connection with the Viceregal Lodge and Gardens, while the labourers' pay came to £1,200. He asked for an explanation of those items. He presumed that the work was carried out under the supervision of the officers of Public Works in Ireland; and it would appear, taking all the items together, that although only £100 worth of materials had been used the sum of £3,075 had been paid for labour. He would ask any hon. Member of that House, who knew what work was in connection with buildings, whether, on the face of it, this was not a palpable fraud? £3,075 spent in using up £100 worth of materials! He desired to point out how grossly these figures were exaggerated in the Estimates. The total amount for the maintenance and repairs of these two official residences in Dublin amounted to £15,000. If hon. Members would take the trouble to look at the amount expended in the repairs of the Royal-Palaces in this country, which, of course, were very much larger than Dublin Castle, or the Viceregal Lodge, it would be at once admitted that he was fully entitled to ask for an explanation from Her Majesty's Government.

would ask the hon. Baronet in charge of the Estimates if he could inform the Committee in what Office the Government insurances were effected? The Irish people thought they had reason to complain, in many respects, of the Government expenditure. It was expended with the least advantage to the ratepayers of Dublin and the people of Ireland generally that was possible. There were two or three Insurance Offices in Dublin of acknowledged solvency; and in this matter, as in other respects, the ratepayers of Ireland ought to have some advantage out of the Government expenditure. He trusted that the hon. Baronet who had just acceded to Office would in this particular, as in others, turn over a new leaf; andhe(Mr. P. J. Power) would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would give the information now asked for.

was anxious to say one or two words, and in doing so he wished to guard himself against being supposed to make any attack upon the present Government for bringing in these Estimates. He knew very well that they were not responsible for preparing them; but at least they would be justified in not expending all the money asked for if they held it to be required for objectionable objects. A very important point had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)—namely, the immoral system of getting money voted for one purpose and devoting it to another. That was a practice which, in his opinion, was altogether indefensible, andhehoped that it would receive no countenance from the present Government. The Committee would be justified in not sanctioning a particular Vote; but when money was voted they had a right to expect that it would be spent for the purposes for which it was asked, and not devoted to objects that were entirely different. He hoped the new Government would turn over a new leaf, and refuse to allow the public money to be expended upon purposes which had never been sanctioned by Parliament. The Irish Members represented the views of the Irish people, and he wished to impress upon the Government the desirability of allowing themselves to be influenced, as far as possible, in Irish matters by the Irish Representatives. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had drawn attention to the amount of money which was expended upon canals in Ireland. He knew something about that question, andhewas prepared to say that, in regard to the Ulster Canal, the money expended had been absolutely thrown away. Before railway communication was developed in England, large sums of money were expended by this country in inland navigation; but since the establishment of railway communication this expenditure had been an entire failure, because it cost more to keep the canals in repair than the profit derived from the traffic upon them. He questioned very much whether the total amount of money derived from the freight for the carriage of goods upon the canals would pay the expense of keeping the canals themselves in order. That, however, was only a secondary and minor portion of the mischief which these canals did in Ireland. The principal mischief was in the drainage of the country and the injury inflicted upon farming operations 03' the floods which took place from the overflowing of the summer levels. They were maintained at an artificial level, and when the artificial obstructions wore removed the water would flow in its natural course, and agricultural operations would be carried on without the injurious results which now followed from the flooding of the low-lying lands. Much mischief was done by keeping up Lough Neagh at a summer level, because, when the wet weather came, the water invariably overflowed the valleys. The same injury was inflicted by the artificial obstructions on the Shannon, the Bann, the Barrow, and many other Irish rivers; and if they were removedhebelieved the result would be highly beneficial to the farmers who lived on the banks of these rivers, and in addition a considerable amount of public money would be saved. There would be two decided advantages—first, the saving to the Imperial Exchequer; and, next, the benefit derived by the farmers who lived on the banks of the rivers and loughs.

intimated that he intended to call attention to the condition of Arklow Harbour either upon this Vote or the Vote for Public Works. If the hon. Baronet wished him to postpone his remarks until the next Vote he would be glad to do so.

said, he was afraid it would be somewhat difficult for him to answer all the different questions which had been put to him; but if he omitted any one of them he hoped hon. Members would ask it again. He felt bound to admit the justice of one observation which had fallen from hon. Members opposite, that he was not responsible for these Estimates, and had not had sufficient time to make himself acquainted with all their details. He also felt bound to express his regret that neither the late Chief Secretary nor the late Secretary to the Treasury was present to defend the Estimates, or to explain what, no doubt, they would have been able to ex- plain. Generally speaking, there had been complaint as to the increase of the Vote. He would point out, without referring specially to the complaints which had been made of the expenditure on Constabulary buildings, that the increase was more than accounted for by the increase upon education, which amounted to £13,000; upon sanitary improvements, £4,000; and the improvement of Kingstown Harbour, £2,900, making altogether £19,900. One hon. Member complained that no more than £1,000 was proposed to be spent on residences for the National School teachers; but, although that was true, yet upon the schools and for educational purposes the sum of £13,000 had been altogether expended. With regard to the Coastguard, although the Treasury were primarily responsible for the Vote for the Coastguard, the Admiralty, whose opinion in a ease like that they were bound to follow, were of opinion that for some years a considerable expenditure would be required. It was said that while a large sum of money was proposed to be expended upon Coastguard stations, nothing was asked for such useful works as the construction of fishery harbours and piers.

said, he had not stated that no money was asked for.

said, he was speaking generally, and not alluding specially to the hon. Member. He was sorry that he was unable to distinguish between the Members who had put the different questions which had been addressed to him. Certainly one remark which had been made was that only £1,000 was to be spent on education; whereas he had shown that the sum asked for that purpose was £13,000, and not £1,000. Another observation made by some hon. Member was that, while large sums of money were to be expended on the Constabulary and Coastguard, nothing was spent upon useful works in the shape of piers and harbours. He did not think the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), who had done such good work on the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission, would endorse that statement, that no money bad been advanced for any useful purpose. As to the Constabulary buildings, he was afraid he could add nothing to what he had already said. It was true, he believed, that the number of extra police -was being diminished; but these buildings were required for the regular body of Constabulary. In former years it was said that the Estimates submitted and passed in connection with providing Constabulary buildings had not been expended upon those objects, but had been devoted to others. That brought him to the very important point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and other Members, as to the employment, on works not voted for by Parliament, of savings effected on works which had been voted. He could only say that he entertained a very strong opinion upon the impropriety of that proceeding, and he had always fought strongly against it. He was quite convinced that, except in cases of very great emergency, or on very special occasions which might arise from time to time, there could be no necessity, in a Service like the Civil Service of this country, for employing money voted for one purpose upon another. Of course, he must point out that in cases of this kind it was not the Department alone that was responsible, because the sanction of the Treasury had to be obtained; and it was necessary, therefore, that the matter should be submitted to them. So far as the estimated expenditure upon Constabulary buildings in the different localities was concerned, as he had said before, the items appeared in the Estimates in round numbers; but he would undertake to say that, as far as possible, the actual expenditure should be carefully watched. He imagined that it was of advantage to have these buildings erected rather than to continue in rented buildings. One hon. Member was of opinion that it would be better to rent them; but he (Sir Henry Holland) was informed that no buildings suitable for the purpose could be obtained, and it was considered much better to have their own buildings rather than to rent them, as, amongst other reasons, rents were apt to be raised at the end of a lease, if it was known that it was practically necessary for the Government to continue the occupation. As to the sanitary improvements in Dublin Castle and the Viceregal Lodge, it might be true that there had been no necessity for sanitary improvements before; but it was considered that the time had now arrived when something should be done in this direction. It was admitted that no work of this kind had been done for a long time, and therefore the present necessity became more apparent. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) complained that while money was expended on Coastguard stations and Constabulary buildings, works of great value to the country were not undertaken. He did not understand the hon. Gentleman to object to the expenditure on canals, but only to the manner in which the money was expended. Without assenting to the view of the hon. Member—for he was not in a position either to assent to, or dissent from, it with his present imperfect knowledge—he was inclined to agree that in the last 30 years it might be found that a considerable amount of money had very likely been wasted in the direction which the hon. Member had pointed out. Of course, the Government were only too anxious to get rid of the expenditure upon the Ulster Canal, which had really proved to be a white elephant; and he thought he had heard a suggestion that the hon. Member himself was prepared to take that undertaking out of their hands; but it would appear that the negotiations had fallen through. So far as the Ulster Bill was concerned, the Government had hoped to get it through before this. He thought there was a great deal in what the hon. Member had said about taking care that the levels of the water were not interfered with, not only in this particular case, but in other instances where it would be necessary to deal with canals. The whole subject would have to be carefully considered. As regarded the Dundrum Asylum, he hoped the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) would allow the discussion upon the subject to be postponed until they reached the special Vote upon this asylum, He was afraid he could give the hon. Gentleman no information as to the raising of the boundary wall; but if the hon. Member would communicate with him he would cause an inquiry to be made. He thought he had now gone generally through the questions which had been put to him. Of course, he was not prepared to say whether the Irish Constabulary was too large or not; but it was not a question which could arise upon the present Vote. All he had to contend for on the present Vote was that the buildings proposed were not in excess of the number of the Force.

wished to point out to the Committee that the discussion of some of the questions which had been raised was somewhat irregular upon the present Vote. No Member would be deprived of an opportunity of discussing any question; but they would be raised more regularly on succeeding Votes. A question had been put to the hon. Baronet about harbours; and if that question was to be discussed it must be discussed now. It would not be competent for hon. Members to discuss it on any other Vote.

said, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had omitted to reply to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. P. J. Power) in regard to the insurance of Government buildings. The hon. Member had suggested that the insurances in future should be effected in the two Irish Offices—the National or the Patriotic. He hoped the hon. Baronet would reply to that question.

said, he was not at present in the possession of information which would enable him to answer the question.

upon the point of Order, wished to know whether the Board of Works were not responsible for the matters which had been brought before the Committee?

said, the Committee could only discuss the items which appeared in this Vote which was for Public Buildings. The Vote for Harbours came under this Estimate.

presumed that, as a point of Order, any question in connection with Arklow Harbour or prison mismanagement would come under this Vote, and it would be competent for hon. Members to discuss it.

said, the proper time to discuss all these questions was when the Vote to which they related was reached.

upon the point of Order, wished to know if it would be regular to discuss the proceedings of the Board of Works upon a proposal to reduce the salary of the engineer of that Board? If so, be would be prepared to move a reduction of the salary on that ground.

said, that was a hypothetical question which he would be prepared to answer when it arose. In the meantime, he would say that, according to his view, it would not be competent to discuss the proceedings of the Board of Works generally on this Vote.

said, he proposed, in Class II., upon the Vote for Public Works, to call attention to the Drainage and Improvement Acts relating to Ireland. He should be glad to know if that was the proper opportunity, or whether it ought to be brought on now? Personally, he did not care what Vote he raised the discussion upon, so long as he was not ruled out of Order.

said, there was no item for drainage under the present Vote; and, therefore, of course it would be irregular to raise the discussion now.

said, he believed he would be in Order in calling attention to the condition of Arklow Harbour under this Vote.

Yes.

said, the necessity of calling attention to the subject arose from the fact that the Arklow breakwater, for which £5,000 on account was asked, had almost crumbled away. He would state as briefly as he could what the circumstances connected with this matter were. There never had been anything like adequate harbour accommodation at Arklow, although there was a large population there who mainly depended upon the fishing industry. Until quite lately the Government had never done anything to encourage the place; and the local lords of the soil had been too careful of their own interests, and the interests of their own immediate sympathizers, to do anything whatever to promote the welfare of the poor fishermen. But the Mining Company of Ireland—a Company which for a long time had carried on extensive works at Arklow— had expended a good deal of money in improving the place, and especially the quay at the mouth of the river. Owing to the depression of the times, they had been unable to keep the works in repair, or to extend the harbour accommodation in the way that was desired. Accordingly, the present Government, in 1876, entered into negotiation with the Mining Company, and the Company agreed to give up all their rights and interests without compensation on the understanding that a good harbour was constructed. Thereupon a Bill was in troduced into the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the right hon. Gentleman now the Leader of the House of Commons, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Mining Company, thinking that they were making a soft bargain, declined to carry out the arrangement, and the Bill was withdrawn. So matters remained until 1881, when further negotiations were entered into with the Mining Company, principally through the exertions of Father Dunphy, the respected parish priest of Arklow. The Mining Company agreed to take the sum of £5,000, reserving to themselves certain rights and privileges for the purpose of their own trade, and a Bill was introduced into the House, of which the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had charge. That Bill provided that the sum of £15,000 should be given as a free grant by the Treasury towards the work, and a loan of £20,000 in addition, the loan being guaranteed by the barony of Arklow, and the baronies adjacent which were interested in the works. He was bound to say that the Treasury had acted in a fair spirit in this matter, and he wished to express his acknowledgments to the hon. Member for Leeds for the trouble he took in passing the Bill in question through the House in the face of some obstruction from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and others. The Bill became an Act, and everything was as it should be. But when the Board of Works came to formulate their plans, and when the plans came under the notice of the seafaring and fishing population of Arklow, they to a man condemned them in toto. They pointed out the breakwater was being put in the wrong direction; they took the matter up very earnestly, and sent a deputation to the Board of Works, who pointed out the defects in the plans. But the Board of Works would not listen to them. They then made a direct representation to the Lords of the Treasury, submitting to them the objections which they had laid before the Board of Works; but the Lords of the Treasury, of course, stood by the Board of Works, and the latter proceeded upon these defective de- signs. The plan was also carried out on the block system, although the Board of Works had before them the example of what had been done at Wicklow, where works of considerable magnitude had been completed on the plans and under the supervision of the able local engineer, Mr. C. Strype, who was also director of the important and flourishing chemical works in the town of Wicklow. The works having been carried out on these defective designs, and on this wrong method, a storm came on on the 15th of February last. It was not a very severe one; but when it came the breakwater went. About a week afterwards, he believed on the 21st of February, another storm followed. The effect of the latter was to sweep away the sand completely from under the breakwater, and the structure cracked throughout almost its entire length, the whole becoming practically a heap of ruins. He had drawn attention to the matter in that House at the time; but the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), whose personal courtesy he could not too strongly express himself about, said, in reply to his question, that a recent severe storm had caused some subsidence of the concrete blocks, which was not, however, a serious matter, and had been remedied at a trifling cost. How such an answer could be given through the Secretary to the Treasury by the Board of Works he could not for one moment conceive. He should presently refer to the Report of the Engineer of the Board of Works, which, after a great deal of difficulty and pressure in that House, they had succeeded in getting laid on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper. At this time the sum of £17,000 had been expended upon the works, the full amount of the contract being £27,000. Adding to that £27,000 the £5,000 which had already gone to the Mining Company, there was a balance left of £3,000 available for other purposes. He had asked the late Secretary to the Treasury how the damage was to be repaired, and he replied that £3,000 would be enough for the purpose. But the Engineer of the Board of Works had stated in his Re-port that a sum of £1,500 in addition would be required—that was to say £4,500—to make good the blunders of the Board of Works. He (Mr. Corbet) objected to the payment of a single 1s. in excess of the contract. He thought it would be a monstrous thing to call upon the cesspayers of the baronies to make good the outlay that was caused by the defective plans of construction being carried out, especially the defective plan against which they themselves had so strongly protested. He held in his hand a copy of the protest which they made; the document was with the Lords of the Treasury, and it showed how accurately the people of the district had forecast what would occur. It was stated in the protest that the direction of the pier was a direct inducement to the shifting sand to follow it out to its extremity, and then to silt up at the mouth of the harbour. Now, that was exactly what had occurred; and owing to the wrong direction of the pier a current was induced which swept the sand completely away from under its foundations, and caused it to collapse in the way he had described. He had before him the Report of the engineer of the Board of Works. Bearing in mind that the damage was at first stated to be trifling, and that it could be remedied at a very small cost, he said that such a reply could not have been put into the mouth of the Secretary to the Treasury without knowledge. The engineer reported to the effect that over a considerable length the face blocks had moved out from 2 to 20 inches; that the sand had been scoured away from the face of the pier, and that orders had been given to have heavy blocks laid down along its base. He (Mr. Corbet) had visited the harbour, and rowed round it in a boat; and he found that, instead of the heavy blocks referred to, a lot of rubbish—the engineer called it"rubble"—had been pitched into the Channel along the sea face of the pier. The Report wont on to say that for 130 feet the breakwater had been more or less damaged, that the foundations had been scoured out from underneath, and a trench formed 40 or 50 feet wide, and of an average depth of six feet under the previous level of the bed of the sea. It would be seen by this that the engineer distinctly showed by his Report that the forecast of the people of Arklow, whose objections and protests he was too high and mighty an individual to pay attention to when they were made, was perfectly accurate. He should not detain the Committee longer than to say that he expected an assurance from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury that a good, substantial, and permanent harbour should be constructed at Arklow for the amount of the contract which was entered into in November, 1882, and which contract was to have been completed by the 1st of June last.heunderstood that not over half the work had been done; and he thought it right, speaking for the baronies which had to repay the loan, that they at least should not have to pay for the blunders and mistakes which the Board of Works made in the teeth of their representations.

said, he was anxious to put forward two or three arguments in support of the claim made by his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet).hewas anxious to do so for two reasons—because he represented a number of people concerned in this matter, and because ha was intimately acquainted with the locality and its wants. Another reason why he was desirous of supporting his hon. Friend was that, quite apart from the case itself, it was another instance of the fearful mismanagement of these matters by the Board of Works. It was, of course, only competent to him, then, to refer to this particular instance; but, when an opportunity occurred, he should certainly avail himself of that opportunity for discussing the mismanagement of this Department in other parts of Ireland, more especially on the coast of Dundalk, where, according to the Surveyor's Report, their conduct had been of the most disreputable character. Here was a Vote granted by Parliament to carry out very necessary harbour works, and on account of which a large sum of money had been raised on loan upon the security of the people of the neighbourhood; they had had a Government official making certain plans, and the Government insisting upon those plans being carried out in the face of the representations of people living in the locality, which were that the plans were altogether wrong. The Government plans had been carefully considered by a seafaring people, who had pointed out the defects in those plans, and the very predictions they made in this instance had been verified by the event. The faults which they pointed out had been proved to be faults, and the first storm that came had absolutely-destroyed the pier. The Board of Works now proposed to violate the undertaking given to these unfortunate people of the locality by asking them to guarantee a further sum of money. They proposed to do that because, as the hon. Baronet would remember, a contract had been entered into, under the terms of which the contractors were bound to build a sound and useful harbour for £27,000. The extra sum, therefore, ought not to fall upon the people. That sum was only necessitated by the failure of the plans of the Government. Under the circumstances,hesaid that the people should not have to pay for the failure of the plans of the Board of Works; and he thought this argument of his hon. Friend was strengthened by the fact that the plans were objected to by the people themselves. He supported his hon. Friend in protesting against their having to pay another 6d. for this purpose. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would say that the people should not be called on to make any further advance in this matter, and that for this large sum of money obtained by loan on their security a safe harbour would be constructed in the locality, where there was great need of it, and where the people derived their entire subsistence from the labour of fishing.

said, in cases of this kind, he believed that one of the first things to be done was to endeavour to find out whether there was any particular opinion in the locality with regard to the work to be carried out. He remembered a case in his own district where an engineer drew £8,000 on account of Water Works which were supposed to supply the town with the water of a particular stream; the stream was in connection with some mills which had not been working for many years, and as soon as the Water Works commenced their operations the bottom of the stream was left for weeks without water. There seemed to him to be a parallel between these cases. The engineer had gone to the harbour, but did not take the trouble to inquire what had been the condition of things there for a number of years, and, in point of fact, made a complete mess of the whole business. The engineer never ascertained whether the bottom of the har- bour was secure as a foundation—he built, so to speak, his house upon sand, and that they were told on very old authority was a very injudicious thing to do. That was the whole explanation of the matter. The engineer, instead of using granite, which could be had in the neighbourhood, on the outside of the breakwater as a protection, he simply put down a lot of rubbish from a local quarry, and the result was that it was all washed away in a short time.hethought the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) had made out an extremely strong case. Seeing that the Government asked for a guarantee, and that the work was done entirely under the control of their own engineer and the Department which was in possession of the protest of the people in the neighbourhood, he thought it a hard thing that they should be asked to pay any more money. His opinion was that the system under which these works were generally carried out was a defective one. He suggested that these operations should be carried out by the engineers in the locality subject to the control of the Board of Works. But the Board of Works had simply a consulting engineer, whereas they ought to have one responsible for the work to be done— that was to say, they should not advance any money until they were satisfied that the work had been done properly.

said, he did not think it would be necessary for him to go into the details of this matter after what had been stated by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet). The question had been, as was well known, brought before the Treasury. There was a difference of opinion between the Local Authorities and the Board of Public Works, Ireland. It was very right that the question should be thoroughly examined, and the Treasury had agreed that an examination of the works should be made and a Report sent in by Mr. Stevenson on the difference of opinion which existed with regard to the state of the works between the Local Authorities and the engineer of the Board, and as to what ought to be done. Until that examination was made and the Report presented, it would not be possible for him to give any assurance as to what Her Majesty's Government would do in this matter. Much would depend on the nature of the Eeport— whether it was favourable to the view taken by the Local Authorities, or whether it was favourable to the view taken by the Commissioners. He believed that a great part, at any rate, of the details given by the hon. Member were correct; but whether the storm might have destroyed the pier altogether, if it had been improperly made, or whether the damage was increased by the defective character of the pier, were questions to be considered. He would only make this remark on the subject—that if the Board of Public Works was responsible for the details of the construction of the pier, it must be remembered that they were not responsible for the site; that responsibility rested with the Local Authorities. He did not know whether the site was or was not considered by the Board of Works in this case. [Mr. PARNELL: They were responsible for the direction.] However, the matter would, as he had already said, be fully considered.

said, he was disappointed to hear such bad accounts of the harbour works; but he hoped that when the Report was published it would be found that the state of the harbour works was more satisfactory than was supposed. Personally, he had great confidence in the President of the Board of Works in Ireland, as well as in the chief engineer. The chief engineer had been three or four times under examination by Select Committees, on which he (Sir George Balfour) had sat, and proved himself to be a very able officer. With regard to the expenditure on the Arklow Harbour, he (Sir George Balfour) hoped there would be no mistake as to the responsibility for that expenditure. He held that whatever extra expense was to be incurred by reason of defects in the designs or mode of construction, it ought not to be borne by the locality. The Government were bound to construct the work in an efficient manner, without expecting anything additional from the ratepayers. The people did their duty when they gave the guarantee for £20,000.

said, that in the construction of Arklow Harbour he had taken a good deal of interest, as it was a work with which he was practically acquainted, and which he had had the opportunity of inspecting from time to time. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) had said it was the intention of the Government to send Mr. Stevenson, a Scotch engineer of some eminence, to inspect the work and report upon it. Surely it would have been preferable if a gentleman who was acquainted with the peculiarities of the coast had been sent. It was well known that general principles with regard to harbour construction were not sufficient to apply in every case. When an engineer was about to construct a harbour it was necessary he should go through a long course of study on the spot in order that he might become acquainted with all the local peculiarities, with the nature of the currents, with the action of the tide, with the effect of the wind in moving about the beds of sands which formed such an important factor in the construction of harbours on such a coast as the East Coast of Ireland, where there were very large masses of fine sands in a constant state of movement. He certainly did not consider that the knowledge an engineer such as Mr. Stevenson might have acquired in the designing and construction of harbours on a particular part of the coast of Scotland was necessarily such as to enable him to pronounce an opinion upon a case which presented such peculiar local difficulties as that at Arklow. It was extremely desirable that the Government should associate with Mr. Stevenson an engineer of local knowledge. The coast about Arklow was exceedingly difficult and intricate. It was very doubtful whether a more difficult place to build a harbour than Arklow could have been found on any of the coasts of the Three Kingdoms. The problems —mechanical, engineering, and natural — connected with the construction of a harbour at Arklow were of the most complex character; and therefore he did not think it was possible for a Scotch engineer, accustomed to other conditions, to go to Arklow and say, offhand, what was right and what was wrong. He feared they would only have a repetition of the undoubted blunder which had been made. It would be gathered from what he had already said that he admitted to the fullest extent the difficulty of the Arklow coast; but he felt bound to say that in the designing and construction of the Arklow Harbour all the elementary and initial precautions which should have been observed, and would have been observed in any other case except that of a harbour constructed by and under the auspices of the Irish Board of Works, were omitted by Mr. Manning. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) had carefully avoided going into the merits of the case. As a matter of fact, the case had no merits so far as the Board of Works was concerned—if the hon. Baronet would inspect the harbour he would agree with him (Mr. Parnell) that, so far as the Board of Works was concerned in the construction of the Arklow Harbour, the case had absolutely no merits. What did the Board of Works do, or rather what did they not do? In the first place, they omitted to make any borings in order to ascertain the depth of the fine sand—sand which could be blown off the hand by a puff of breath. It was only by means of borings that the amount of excavation required in order to obtain a foundation upon solid ground could be ascertained. He was told by an eminent engineer, who had been very successful in harbour works on the East Coast of Ireland, that it would not have been necessary to remove any very large amount of sand; but the Board of Works did not make the slightest attempt to ascertain the depth of sand. They set to work to lay large concrete blocks of from five to ten tons weight upon the sand without anything but the most superficial scooping. The result was that when the usual scooping action of the winter currents and storms set in— there were no very excessive storms— the sand was scooped from under the outside blocks, those blocks tumbled in, and the whole work was practically ruined. He feared that very little good could be done without the removal of the whole of the damaged portion of the pier. If the attempts which had been made by the Board of Works to repair the damage by the deposit of outside blocks were persisted in it would be simply a case of throwing good money after bad; the money of the ratepayers and of the Imperial Treasury would be further squandered because the elementary conditions of a good job wore absent. Unless the damaged portion of the pier was removed and the sand was dredged away it would be impossible to make a work which would stand the force of the winter gales and storms. Then, again, the direction of the pier was at fault, and for that the Board of Works was also responsible. The direction of the pier was decided upon in opposition to the advice and remonstrances of the local ship and boat owners, who had studied the sot of the currents and the action of the shifting sands on that coast for a great number of years. Mr. Manning, however, ran the harbour several points of the compass away from the direction suggested by the local people. Now the direction of the harbour was a question which would require consideration, and consideration not only by an engineer of Mr. Stevenson's capabilities, inspecting the place in a hasty visit of three, four, five, six or seven days; but by men who had been educated as engineers in the best School of Engineering, and who had also had experience of the construction of harbour works in the locality. And after all this had been done—-after they had decided upon the steps to be taken for the restoration of the damaged work, and after they had agreed upon the direction in which the harbour was to be made to run in future—came the further consideration as to the source from which the extra expenditure was to be taken. The hon. Baronet the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) had held out to them the hope that if Mr. Stevenson's Report was against the Board of Works the Government would consider the matter with a view to preventing the cost of the blunder falling upon the local ratepayers. That of course was only just, as the local ratepayers had practically no voice in the matter except to give the guarantee, which they did with the greatest cheerfulness. The harbour might have been made at a cost considerably under the amount guaranteed by the ratepayers and granted by Parliament; but in no case would it be possible now to make the harbour without trenching on the reserve fund of £4,000 or £5,000, which was left over and above the Estimate, and which might otherwise have been employed in setting up useful works after the rough works, always necessary in harbour construction, were completed. That sum would be lost, andhefeared it would not be possible to make the harbour a complete work without the expenditure of a considerably further sum. It was manifestly impossible for the local ratepayers to give any larger guarantee. After their experience in this matter they had no confidence that the money would be properly applied, and that further mistakes would not be made. It was, therefore, necessary that the Government should face the matter boldly, and pay for the mistake their Department had undoubtedly made. Now, as regarded the whole matter. Of course, he supposed that Mr. Stevenson was an engineer of considerable experience, and was doubtless very well qualified to report on harbour works in Scotland under the peculiar local conditions belonging to the coast with which he might be acquainted; but he (Mr. Parnell) would suggest to the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) that he should consult an Irish engineer, altogether independent of any Government Department in Ireland, in addition to Mr. Stevenson. He would suggest, for instance, Mr. Strype, who was a practical engineer as well as a theoretical engineer, of great distinction and ability. Mr. Strype designed and constructed the harbour works at Wicklow, which were on a more extensive scale than those at Arklow. Those works had been most successful. Mr. Strype adopted a system of concrete construction which had never been tried before, but which had proved in this case to be practically successful. The Wicklow works were within eight or 10 miles of Arklow, though he did not think the conditions were similar. Indeed,heknow they were not. Yet Mr. Strype had had an opportunity of studying the currents and the other peculiarities of the East Coast of Ireland, and he had shown that in the case of the harbour at Wicklow that his study had been successful. It would be but an acknowledgment of public opinion if the hon. Baronet would add Mr. Strype's name to that of Mr. Stevenson in the approaching Government inspection of Arklow Harbour.

pointed out that Mr. Manning, in the Report which he made on his own work at Arklow, pooh-poohed the suggestion that any portion of the method which was used so suc- cessfully at Wicklow should be used at Arklow. Mr. Manning's words were—

"It is not necessary for me to say more, than whatever the merits of this construction may be—and I do not desire to discuss them—they cannot be used here."

Now, Mr. Stevenson, who had been called upon by the Government to report on the works of Mr. Manning, was a gentleman who had made harbours, some of which had been most successful, and some of which had failed in the same way as the harbour at Arklow had failed. It seemed ridiculous, in the first instance, to go to Scotland to find somebody to report on the proper site of a harbour on the coast of Ireland; and, in the second place, that they should pick out a man from amongst the number of men who had occasionally, at least, failed in the harbours they had constructed. If the work at Arklow was carried out on the original plan of Mr. Manning, what guarantee was there that it would not be swept away in the course of 12 months? He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that as they had in Mr. Strype a most capable man, a man who had most successfully constructed a harbour in the neighbourhood, who had a thorough knowledge of engineering, and who was perfectly acquainted with the coast, with its currents and difficulties and dangers, it would be most unwise in the Government not to associate him with Mr. Stevenson in the inspection of the Arklow works.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) would see his way, before this discussion closed, to give some assurance with regard to the very practical and moderate proposal which had been laid before him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He (Mr. Sexton) did not know precisely what was the reputation of Mr. Stevenson; buthesupposed he was a man of eminence. The Committee were not informed whether Mr. Stevenson was a gentleman officially connected with the Government. Was he?

said, that all his information was the other way; buthedid not wish to pledge himself on the subject.

remarked, that if Mr. Stevenson were connected with the Government little or no confidence would be reposed in him by the people; indeed, it would be very unwise to set him up as a judge of Mr. Manning's series of blunders. He (Mr. Sexton) regarded the engineer of the Board of Works as the champion blunderer of all Ireland— there was nobody like him to be found in the country. There was nothing in the civilized world like the record of the Irish Board of Works with regard to the construction of piers and harbours. What his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) asked was that a local engineer of capacity should be associated with Mr. Stevenson in making the inspection of the Arklow works. His hon. Friend was well entitled, personally as well as publicly, to ask the Government to give attention to the matter. The hon. Gentleman paid a considerable sum of money in wages—something like £150 a-week —to men for preparing the stone for the harbour at Arklow; and so long as the work remained in its present condition the enterprize of the hon. Gentleman, which had given employment to a large number of persons, would be frustrated. It was to the interest of the population of Arklow, and of the enterprize in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork had engaged, that the construction of the harbour should be proceeded with as speedily as possible. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) had been moat polite and courteous in his statement; but unless they were told that Mr. Strype would be associated with Mr. Stevenson in the inspection they would have little confidence in the result. He (Mr. Sexton) had the pleasure to know Mr. Strype. He was not competent to judge of Mr. Strype's engineering capabilities, being himself un-instructed in that science; but he knew Mr. Strype was a man of high intellectual capacity, a man who was well acquainted with the difficulties of the East Coast of Ireland; and, therefore, if such a man were associated with Mr. Stevenson in this matter, the people could look forward with a rational hope to some steps being taken to remedy the grievous errors which had been made. He (Mr. Sexton) was convinced that if the Government were to send an intelligent apprentice round the coast of Ireland to examine the monstrosities put up by the Board of Works, he would make a Report which would astonish the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland). The Board of Works pursued a most objectionable plan with regard to designs. When a design was made they did not submit it to scrutiny, but endeavoured to keep it as sacred as possible. They positively refused to show the plans of the fishery piers to the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission, lest, he supposed, their defects should be found out. Before they got very far, however, with the stone work, the defects discovered themselves, and became apparent to every eye. Another principle of the conduct of the Board was to inflate the Estimates. They put down about twice the cost. The result was, apparently, to exhaust the Parliamentary fund, and, at the same time, to discourage local contributions. Then, when the money had been granted by the Treasury, and the Treasury, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) knew, never displayed anything but great inertness in making these grants— when the Treasury, slowly, and with dignity and precaution, made these grants available for the Public Service, the Board of Works delayed execution for months, and in some cases for years. And when all was over, when the piers were erected, what happened? The coast of Donegal was strewn with records of the blunders of the Board of Works. Some of the piers and harbours there were nothing but traps for the fishermen. The wildest storms of the Atlantic were not so dangerous as some of the places of refuge put up by the Board of Works. At Enniscrone, in County Sligo, a pier was built two years ago. It turned out perfectly useless, and now another was being built at a cost of £6,000. A pier was also built at another place, and then the fishermen thought they would be able to conduct their operations with all safety. Before the pier was built they were able to fish some way or other; but now they were not able to fish at all, because where the pier was there used to be a jetty, at which they could land, but now, when the pier was made, no fisherman dare bring his boat into harbour. Such was the record of the Irish Board of Works; and if the new Government really meant to devote themselves to Irish resources, they could not do better than send some intelligent apprentice from England or Scotland to examine and report upon the present state of things. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) intended to remain in Office long, even if circumstances were such as to enable him to do so; but if he remained in Office until the end of this year he would be able, by intelligent inquiries, to obtain proof of errors, blunders, mismanagement, ignorance, and waste of public money on the part of the Irish Board of Works as would be sufficient to condemn any Public Department.

said, he thought the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) should give them some assurance that a local engineer would be appointed with Mr. Stevenson to inquire into the failure in the construction of the Arklow Harbour. To those who were acquainted with the history of the harbour it was plain that the chief blunder which the Government made was in not giving any power in the construction of the work to any Local Authority. From the beginning to the disastrous end of the construction of the harbour local opinion had been deliberately set at naught. Over and over again very competent authorities in Arklow and the surrounding districts had given to the Board of Works their opinions upon the construction of the works; but their opinions had always been set aside. The consequence was to be found in the utter failure of the work. Some time ago an inquiry was made into the matter by Mr. Manning; but he, of course, was interested in giving as good an account of the affair as possible, because he himself was responsible for the blunder. There was not the slightest doubt that Mr. Stevenson would go to inquire into the subject with a mind somewhat prejudiced in favour of the Board of Works and of their engineer. The inquiry, therefore, would not command the confidence of the people; those who were interested in the harbour would not consider that the Government were thoroughly sincere in the inquiry unless they consented to appoint, either solely or in conjunction with another engineer, an engineer who had the confidence of the Local Authorities. Would the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) say what objection there could be to the appointment of some engineer who would have the confidence of the people? It must be borne in mind that, after all, the people of Arklow were more interested in the successful completion of this work than even the Board of Works or anybody else; and, therefore, it was only reasonable to imagine that they would find it directly to their interest to have appointed a man who would go to the bottom of the affair, and say, once and for all, where the blunders had been, and what it was necessary to do. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland") ought to say that, at least, he would consider the advisability of appointing some engineer who might fairly be regarded as the representative of the people. He was not at all surprised that the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) was not in his place. He fully agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) when he said that the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury was extremely courteous in his dealings in regard to this matter. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) was courteous to every person who approached him upon matters connected with his Department; but it was evident that the hon. Gentleman realized, just as well as any Member coming from Ireland, that the Board of Works had behaved in a thoroughly disgraceful manner in respect to the Arklow Harbour. Now, there would not be any satisfaction here, and he was sure there would not be any in the locality interested, unless the Government gave the assurance that they would cause the inquiry to be made, by Mr. Stevenson if they liked, but also by some authority connected with the district. The hon. Baronet would, perhaps, find it to his convenience, as well as to the convenience of the Government generally, to consider what the Irish Members were now saying. They required two engineers to be employed in this matter— one to represent the people, and the other the Government. That was a perfectly fair proposal, and unless the Government assented to it they would not inspire the people of Arklow with any confidence in their good intentions in making the inquiry.

as one who had sat for two Sessions on the Harbour Committee, reminded the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) that the Committee reported unanimously in favour of the monolithic system of building harbours. It was only duo to say that in the last paragraph of their Report they mentioned, with approval, the work of Mr. Strype at Wicklow.

said, he did not wish to detract from the value of Mr. Strypo's work at Wicklow; but, as had been pointed out, the conditions there were very different to those at Arklow. The question of adding another engineer in the inspection was quite a new one, and it was quite impossible for him to give an answer on the spur of the moment. He felt the force of what hon. Members had said as to studying the wishes of the Local Authorities, and he would consider what they had suggested. Of course, he could not now pledge himself as to any particular course of conduct.

drew attention to the mode in which loans were granted for the erection of teachers' residences. The terms on which the loans were now granted were 5 per cent per annum interest, and the whole sum repayable in 35 years. There had been a very general wish expressed by those concerned, the managers of schools —expressed in a Memorandum drawn up by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland— that the loans should be granted at £3 15s. per cent per annum interest, and that the period of repayment should be extended to 50 years. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) would be able to say he would consider any representation that he (Colonel Colthurst) or others might make to him on the subject.

said, he would certainly give his most careful consideration to any representation which was laid before him on the subject.

asked if the hon. Baronet thought he would be able, by Report, to make a statement with regard to the suggestion that a second engineer should be employed in the inspection of Arklow Harbour?

said, he would make the necessary inquiries at once; but he was afraid he could hardly make a statement by Report.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Sir William Hart Dyke) was, by virtue of his Office, President of the Local Government Board in Ireland; and, therefore, it might be well if he (Mr. Sexton) called the right hon. Gentleman's attention, upon his entry into Office, to the manner in which the Department of which he was the head conducted its Business. The Irish Local Government Board was composed of three gentlemen, and they administered, as was seen from this Vote, a sum amounting to considerably over £100,000 a-year. The course pursued by the Department in several matters had excited great disapprobation in Ireland; indeed, there was a general feeling that it was a Department which was very ready to interfere where its interference was not needed; and that, on the other hand, in a case in which the public interest demanded its interference, a steam crane would not move it. A few evenings ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), who he was sorry was not in his place, agreed to postpone the stage of a Bill which proposed to give Boards of Guardians power to give pensions to certain officers upon the abolition of office. He (Mr. Sexton) believed the Bill had been introduced with a view to certain amalgamations of Unions in the West of Ireland. One of those amalgamations was that of the Union of Newport, in County Mayo, with the Union of Westport in the same county. Up to the year 1848 the Local Government Board would have had to consult the Guardians and the ratepayers, and would have had to obtain the consent of two-thirds of the ratepayers before they could effect such an amalgamation. But a great many shady laws were passed in 1848; and by one of them the Local Government Board was empowered to carry out amalgamations of Unions without asking the opinion, or advice, or consent of the ratepayers or Guardians. That, he thought, was a most objectionable law. He admitted that the Union workhouses were too numerous in Ireland. Many of them were built at a time of enormous depression; and he was of opinion that now the number might, with great advantage to the community, be decreased, because an undue proportion of the Poor Law fund in Ireland was expended in the salaries of officials and the expenses of these establishments. But what he contended was that if the Government wanted to amalgamate Unions they ought to do it upon a national scheme and upon a considerable scale. They ought to take the country as a whole, and, consider what Union workhouses could properly be dispensed with, and how the amalgamations should be effected, having regard to the purses of the ratepayers and to the necessities of the poor. Both political Parties were vieing with each other in their declarations as to the question of Local Government in Ireland; he supposed that whatever Party was in power next year a measure for Local Government would be introduced on a very early day. If that was so, what was the use of proceeding now in a piecemeal and beggarly fashion with the amalgamations of Unions? Let the Lord Lieutenant apply himself to the question as a whole. Let His Excellency take the 163 Unions in Ireland and consider what part of them could be dispensed with, and let there be a large, well-considered, and impartial scheme of amalgamation. What did the Local Government Board do? They found that in the Union of Newport in Mayo the poor rates had for the last three or four years averaged from 6s. to 7s. in the pound; and that in the adjoining Union of Westport the poor rates had averaged only 1s. 8d. in the pound, and the proposal of Mr. Robinson, Mr. George Morris, and the third Commissioner, whose name he forgot for the moment, sitting at their ease in the Custom House in Dublin, was that the ratepayers of Westport, with a poor rate of 1s. 8d., should take on their shoulders the 6s. and 7s. rate of the Newport Union. Was that a reasonable proposal? Let anyone imagine what their feelings would be if they were ratepayers in Westport paying 1s. 8d. in the pound for the maintenance of the poor, and the Local Government Board came down and said—"You must take into your Union the Union of Newport with its 7s. in the pound rate." Besides, this high rate had not been sufficient in Newport, because the Government had given large grants of public money for several years towards the aid of the local rates in Newport. The Westport Guardians were naturally very indignant at the proposal. They wrote him on the 16th of April last a letter, in which they said that they were opposed to the scheme on the ground that the same would be most cruel to the poor people of Newport to have to come long distances in all weathers, in some cases 42 miles, to obtain relief, and also on the ground of the injustice of adding an insolvent Union to the Westport Union, which had, up to the present, been satisfactorily conducted in every way. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) contend that it was reasonable to. single out the Westport Union to be victimized in this way? The Guardians of Westport pointed out that if this amalgamation was carried into effect the poor rate which they had been paying for the maintenance of their poor would be doubled. He (Mr. Sexton) was certainly of opinion that such an amalgamation ought to be devised, that while it had due regard to the necessities of the poor of the one Union, it also had duo regard to the condition of the poor in the other Union, and that in a time like this of great difficulty in Ireland, when ratepayers found it very hard to live and make ends meet, the Local Government Board should be careful in suddenly placing an intolerable burden upon their shoulders. A resolution was passed in the Westport Union to the effect that if the Local Government Board carried out their scheme the rate collectors would fail to collect the rates, and that the ratepayers were so much incensed against amalgamation with the Newport Union that they would have recourse to every legal means to defeat it. He thought that if the puny despots in the Custom House in Dublin persisted in imposing their will the people were morally entitled to put the residents of the Custom House to all the trouble that the full execution of the law would permit. The last letter he had received from the Westport Guardians was dated the 2nd of this month, and in it they stated they had passed a resolution requesting the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the fact that the proposed amalgamation was opposed by every Guardian of the Union except one, who was neutral, and was against the universal feeling of the ratepayers of the Union. It would be impossible, they said, for them to administer the law efficiently. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) mean to say that an arrangement which would oblige the poor people of Newport to travel 50 Irish miles in order to reach the workhouse was one which was in general accord with the necessities of their condition? The Guardians further said that the proposal, if carried out, would make the Westport Union pay the expenses of a poor district which hitherto had been unable to support itself; and the ratepayers in their protest objected in the strongest manner to the proposed amalgamation, and requested the Chief Secretary to stop this most unjust and high-handed proceeding on the part of the Local Government Board. It appeared to him that the Westport people had been very harshly treated in this matter; and unless the Local Government Board took some steps to devise a more workable scheme, and one which would inflict less hardship upon any particular body of ratepayers in Ireland, he could promise them they would not hear the last of it for some time to come. He had said the Local Government Board was very ready to interfere when it was not wanted, and slow to interfere when it was wanted. He might refer to a case occurring three or four years ago, in which they issued an order for the dismissal of a medical officer. Dr. Joseph Kenny had the misfortune to be arrested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Some Members of the Irish Party had no reason to complain of the fact, because in prison they found him a most agreeable friend, as well as a most capable professional man; but public opinion was disgusted by the Local Government Board issuing an order for his dismissal from the office he held. On the other hand, he had heard that a Board of Guardians had sent complaint after complaint against a medical officer, and yet the Local Government Board treated the matter with the greatest indifference. Months had passed and no notice had been taken of the representa- tions. He also knew of a case in the West of Ireland, where a dispensary officer had no great zeal for duty, and during his frequent absence his porter took his place, and was in the habit of dispensing medicine, drawing teeth, and vaccinating children. In this case, too, the representations of the Guardians had been treated with complete indifference. Now, as to the Local Government Board being ready to interfere in cases where their interference was unnecessary. He would like the Government to make some statement with regard to the conduct of the Local Government Board in reference to the Treasurership of the North Dublin Union. Early in the present year the Guardians of the North Dublin Union wanted a large loan for permanent improvements which could not properly be put on the rates of the year. They made a proposal to the Bank of Ireland, but they refused to grant the loans. The Guardians then applied to the Hibernian Bank, and they agreed to give the loan on the condition that the account of the Guardians should be placed with them. The Hibernian Bank further offered to give the overdraft which the Guardians required at 3 per cent, the Bank of Ireland charging them 3 per cent. The Guardians agreed unanimously to change the account from the Bank of Ireland to the Hibernian Bank, and they did so, because not only would they get the loan which they required, and which the Bank of Ireland refused them, but they would also gain £300 a-year in the shape of interest. Was it not extraordinary that the Local Government Board refused to allow the North Dublin Board of Guardians to change their account from the Bank of Ireland? Was it not enough that the Bank of Ireland had extraordinary facilities and advantages over every other bank? Was it not enough that all Government money in Ireland, and all the funds of the Courts of Law—the Chancery and Bankruptcy Courts—passed through the hands of the Governors of the Bank of Ireland? Was it not too bad that all public Boards like the North Dublin Board of Guardians must be obliged to keep their account with the Bank of Ireland, even at a loss of £300 a-year in interest? He called on Her Majesty's Government to say that the Guardians of the North Dublin Union should be allowed to keep their banking account whore they liked, not to treat them as children, and not to impose upon the ratepayers a fine of £300 a-year for the purpose of having their account kept at a bank which was more favourable to the Government than the one they had chosen. He characterized what had taken place in this matter as an unwarrantable interference with the rights of the Guardians and with the interests of the ratepayers; and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would say that the course that had been taken should not receive their sanction. He had also to complain of the action of the Local Government Board in connection with the Sligo Union, where, owing to The Returning Officer allowing six votes to be improperly recorded, the nominee of the landlords was elected by a majority of three. The Returning Officer of the Sligo Union improperly and illegally received the voting papers; the Local Government Board admitted the illegality; but they declined to give the seat to the candidate who, as they admitted, had a right to it. The Local Government Board said that they had no power to declare the Poor Law candidate elected, unless he was declared to be elected by the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer declined to declare the candidate elected. The Local Government Board, having found on inquiry that the votes had been illegally given, should have declared the other candidate elected by a certain number of votes; but instead of doing that they put the people to the trouble of going over the ground again. If that was the law, he said that the sooner it was amended the better; and he hoped the Government would take care that in future the candidates who were proved to have a legal majority should have the seats. Again, in the Donegal Union the Catholic children were in a state of spiritual destitution. The Guardians there, who were a band of narrow-minded and bigoted people, had refused to appoint a single Catholic officer—even a schoolmaster. The priest found it impossible to contend with the opposition he met with, and he was obliged to resign the office of chaplain, because he felt he could not retain his position in the absence of some Catholic official to instruct the children in the doctrines of religion. The result was that the children had been left without religious instruction for two years, without Divine service on Saints' clays and holidays, and without the ministrations of their Church. He asked whether that was not a case in which the Local Government Board ought to interfere? The Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had endeavoured to induce the Guardians to appoint a Catholic schoolmistress, but they refused; and when the place had to be filled up they put aside a Catholic who applied, although the children were Catholics, and they appointed a Protestant young lady, who had no qualifications at all, and who, the moment she was put to the test of examination, was obliged to resign. The Local Government Board, three years ago, were ready enough to supersede the Guardians at Carrick-on-Suir. There the Chairman refused to allow the Guardians to present resolutions in connection with the poor rates; and, the struggle having gone on for some time, the Chairman of the Local Government Board sent down an order and dismissed the Board. He thought the same thing might be done in this case. A still stronger case occurred in the parish of Dunfanaghy. This had been an unfortunate parish for many years, owing to the number and cruelty of the evictions which had taken place there. A gentleman who had with the greatest zeal and energy thrown himself into the cause of the people, and had stood between them and their cruel oppressors, had been selected for special annoyance by the local Guardians. He presented himself for election last March; but, for the reasons referred to, he was excluded from the room, while others were allowed to remain; he wrote a letter of complaint to the Local Government Board last March; the Board had received the complaint, but up to the present time they had made no reply. He regarded the Chief Secretary (Sir William Hart Dyke), who was Chairman of the Local Government Board, as too frank a man, and as too straightforward a Parliamentarian, to give countenance to action of this kind; and be believed he would now be as frank in his answer upon these points as he would have been before the assumption of his present Office. He knew, himself, of a case in which two young women died for want of medical assistance, and whose deaths lay at the door of the Board of Guardians and the Local Government Board. And there was the cruel and cowardly attack made upon Father M'Fadden, whom the Guardians dismissed from the office of warden. This reverend gentleman had stood between the unfortunate people of the district, who were endeavouring to earn a miserable living from a sterile soil, and who had to pay rent to landlords as cruel and grasping as any to be found in Ireland. At a meeting of the Board of Guardians, composed of seven landlords, three agents, and one or two hangers-on, Father M'Fadden had the insult sprung upon him of being dismissed from the office of warden—the duty of warden being to issue tickets for relief. Since then the poor people of the district had continued to go to his house, and he had been unable to relieve them. He said that this state of things was a scandal and an outrage. In a district containing 5,000 Catholics, the office of warden was now held by a Protestant clergyman; and they all knew how unwilling the Catholic people of Ireland were to approach a person of a different creed for the purpose of obtaining relief. It was a scandal that an eminent ecclesiastic, a man of apostolic energy and charity, should be cast out of the honorary office of warden to please the local landlords, and that the Local Government Board should stand by and allow that insult to be inflicted upon him—and that, too, in the midst of a wretched, poor, and suffering population. He (Mr. Sexton) would have wrongly estimated the character of the right hon. Gentleman if he found hereafter that his influence had not been used to prevent the continuance of this state of things; and he ventured to think he would make some strong representations to the Board of Guardians in the matter of Father M'Fadden and with regard to the Catholic children in Donegal Union, who were, as he had said, in a state of spiritual destitution.

said, he was well acquainted with the district which his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had spoken of; and he was bound to say that he concurred in thinking that Newport Union should be spread, as a matter of principle, over a larger area than was proposed, and, at the same time, he hoped that a measure would be passed next year which would render absurd arrangements of the kind they were now speaking impossible. It seemed to him, however, very unfair that the inhabitants of Newport should have to pay rates in connection with such a large district, while the inhabitants of the Westport district had hitherto escaped scot free. So that, although in principle he was absolutely in accord with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo, he thought, if they could not get any better arrangement, it was not a very great injustice to Westport that the Newport Union should be amalgamated with it. In connection with this matter a case of great hardship might arise, and to that subject he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention. He know that a Bill had been introduced to the House dealing with the subject of Union officers. Unless that Bill were passed, or some measures taken for giving retiring pensions to the officers of Newport Union, with whom he happened to be personally acquainted, he said it would be a hard case indeed. He hoped his hon. Friend understood that he was in accord with him in principle.

said, the question of the amalgamation of Unions was gone into carefully by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the timehewas Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. A Commission was appointed consisting of very able men, who took a great deal of trouble in carrying out their investigation, and who reported most strongly against the amalgamation of Unions. They said that no Union in Ireland could be closed without inflicting great hardship on the poor in the district. Therefore, he thought the Local Government Board had acted wrongly in closing the Newport Union. If the boundaries of the Union were not right they ought to have been rectified.hehoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give his sanction to the closing of any Union in Ireland, because he was satisfied that by so doing he would cause grievous hardship on many of the poor. With respect to Donegal Union, to which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had alluded,hehad himself taken some pains to bring the matter under the notice of the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he was not authorized to exercise the power of appointing Vice Guardians. Injustice to the Local Government Board,hemust say with regard to many of the complaints made against them they had not power to act. Whereas in England the Board had very extensive powers, the powers of the Irish Local Government Board were extremely limited by statute. Of course, it required an extreme case to be shown before they could exercise their power of dismissal and appointment of Vice Guardians; but he maintained that the persistent refusal to appoint a Roman Catholic teacher under the circumstances that had been described was a case of such urgency as would justify the Local Government Board in interfering. He believed that if the Guardians were to receive a letter to the effect that if they did not appoint a Roman Catholic teacher Vice Guardians would be appointed, they would at once do what was required of them. He believed he should be in Order in referring upon this Vote, which involved a large increase for salaries of the officers of the Local Government Board, Dublin, and various other Unions, to the question of Union rating: which had been brought before the House. He would not go into the subject in detail, but would point out that Union rating had existed for the last 20 years in England, and that no dissatisfaction had been caused by it. When the Poor Law was first introduced into Ireland, it was intended to make the Union the area of rating; but parochial rating prevailed then in England and the area was altered in the House of Lords. A Committee sat to inquire into the subject in 1871; it took an enormous amount of evidence, and unanimously reported in favour of Union rating. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to express any opinion on the subject that evening; hut he asked him to take it into consideration during the Recess, in order to see if effect could not be given to the recommendation of the Committee of 1871.

said, there was in some parts of Ireland a great disinclination for anything in the nature of a Union Bating Bill. The Union of Kilkenny had protested against it. The question might be described as a ques- tion of town against country. There was nothing like unanimity on the subject, and he assured the Committee that the whole of the South of Ireland was opposed to Union rating.

said, his experience of the Local Government Board, Ireland, was that if they were asked to do anything to aid the population in the matter of rates they always said they had no power to do so. The truth was that the powers of the Local Government Board were so general and so vaguely defined that they could do what they liked. With regard to the case of the Catholic clergyman to which his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had referred, he ventured to say that many Members of that House did not know exactly where Dunfanaghy was, or what constituted the office of warden. He would, therefore, inform the Committee that the office from which Bather M'Fadden had been dismissed by the Board of Guardians was one which, although it involved a great deal of trouble and hard work, carried with it no pay. It was the duty of the warden to distribute tickets for relief to the poor people in the locality, and it had been an almost invariable rule in nearly all the Unions in Ireland that a clergyman of every denomination should be appointed to the office, so that relief might be provided for all.hewas aware that in most of the Catholic parts of Ireland Protestant clergymen had always been appointed; and, that being so, it seemed to him extraordinary that in the district of Donegal, to which his hon. Friend had referred, the only person to whom the poor people could go for relief was the man whom the Guardians had thought proper to deprive of the office of warden. He wished to address a few words to the right hon. Gentleman as to the improvement which he might effect in the procedure of the Local Government Board with reference to the election of Guardians. He had taken part in several elections of Guardians, both as Guardian and candidate; and he was obliged to say that the course pursued by the officials of the Local Government Board was very unsatisfactory. They could not expect Guardians to be placed in as good a position with regard to elections as persons were placed in in respect of Parliamentary and municipal elections, because in the latter cases clear rules of procedure had been laid down. That, however, he always considered to be a great misfortune, because, in his opinion, the election of Guardians was of more importance to the poor than the election of Members of Parliament or of municipalities. However, when questions arose with regard to Boards of Guardians, they were referred to the Local Government Board in Dublin; and the question be had to ask was—by what persons were they received, and by whom were they adjudicated upon? Within his knowledge, letters had been sent to the Board setting out at great length causes of complaint; and it was his invariable experience that the answers returned to them were of the most unsatisfactory kind. It always seemed that the person who received and answered the letters of complaint must be entirely unfitted to have anything to do with them. The questions which arose were always of a legal and technical character; and, that being so, he thought they should be submitted to a person of legal authority for consideration. He knew there was an officer connected with the Dublin Local Government Board who acted as Legal Adviser; but he did not believe that a hundredth part of the questions laid before the Board were ever submitted to him. It seemed to him likely that, instead of the questions being submitted to this gentleman, who bad been very attentive in some cases that he was acquainted with, they went before some clerks or underlings in the Office in Dublin, who took upon themselves to answer them. If that were so, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it was a very improper course, and one which ought to be at once abandoned. He thought it would be well that every case of complaint relating to the election of Guardians should be submitted to the gentleman acting as Law Adviser to the Local Government Board before any reply was given. He could give many instances of complaints which had been sent to the Local Government Board, and to which the most unsatisfactory answers had been returned. In his own Union he had known several controverted elections, and in connection with them many fine points had been raised; but the most unsatis- factory replies had been sent from the Local Government Board. In the case of the Donegal election, to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) had referred, they said that they had no power to interfere. It was very necessary, too, that attention should be drawn to the system of appointing Returning Officers in Ireland. The conduct of a very notorious partizan—Mr. Bell—in the North of Ireland, was the subject of a debate in the House last year, and very properly so. It was absurd that the very gentleman above all others who had the strongest interest in the personnel of the Board of Guardians should be appointed Returning Officer. The Clerk of a Union was the very last person who ought to be Returning Officer; and yet, under the general law, Clerks of Unions, except in the case of the Dublin Unions, were the Returning Officers. Mr. Bell had shown himself in the highest degree partial and prejudiced. His conduct for several years past had been of such a character as to render him completely unworthy of the confidence of any portion of the public; and yet the complaints which had been forwarded to the Local Government Board had been treated with the greatest indifference. Mr. Bell received votes for convicts and for officers on military service, and counted them, because he discovered that by doing so he could keep the Nationalist candidate out of office. He (Mr. Small) only desired, in conclusion, to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Sir William Hart Dyke)—namely, who was it in the Office of the Local Government Board in Dublin who supplied the answers to complaints—was it any competent person, or an under clerk? And, secondly, would he direct an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Bell, and appoint someone else to act as Returning Officer, in case it was found Mr. Bell had acted improperly?

fully recognized the fact that the present Government were not in a position to make anything like radical reforms in the Poor Law during the present Session. Last year several questions were entered into in great detail by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and pledges were given by the Government, and particularly by the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but they had not been fulfilled. He had, however, somewhat more faith in the present occupants of the Treasury Bench than he had in their Predecessors. Be that as it might, there were one or two points of comparatively small importance to which he desired to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Sir William Hart Dyke). The first of them was the ill-treatment of pauper lunatics. It was a question which had been debated already that Session; but nothing had been done towards remedying the deplorable condition in which those unfortunate persons were placed in the Irish workhouses. By a Return presented to Parliament this year he found that the total number of pauper lunatics in workhouses in Ireland was 1,873, and that the total number of idiots was 1,826. He did not propose to say anything about the idiots, because he believed that if proper provision were made in suitable buildings for pauper lunatics there would be plenty of accommodation in the workhouses for the idiots. Those unfortunate people were huddled together in some out-of-the-way corner of the workhouses. They were under the control of nurses, who were utterly unskilled, and who, for the most part, were paupers themselves. There were very few paid nurses in charge of the lunatics, and the medical men, under whose care they were, had to attend to 500 or 600 other patients, and rarely were in a position to inquire into the condition of the lunatics. It was quite impossible for men, most of whose time was devoted to the treatment of various diseases, to prescribe for the people who were suffering mentally. In a Report which was made by a Royal Commission, appointed by the last Conservative Government, and presented to the House in 1879, it was recommended that certain workhouses in different localities of the country, and in which there were very few paupers, should be set apart for the treatment of pauper lunatics. There were several workhouses in County Cork which were not filled to a third or a quarter of their capacity; and there was no reason why the Local Government Board should not make an Order compelling the Guardians to set one of the buildings apart for pauper lunatics, sending the paupers there into the workhouses in the surrounding districts. At the present time there was some room in the district lunatic asylums; but the Governors of those institutions objected to receiving the pauper lunatics on the ground that the asylums would become over-crowded, and they would be unable to treat properly the patients who were committed by the magistrates' orders. He admitted that, in some cases, that was a reasonable excuse; but in the case of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, and one or two other district asylums he could name, there was room for the accommodation of a considerably larger number of lunatics. He was glad to see that, as far as the Cork District Lunatic Asylum was concerned, a good example in this respect had been set. The Cork Asylum was the only asylum in Ireland to which pauper lunatics from workhouses were transferred; and the Governors of that establishment had, he admitted, done all in their power, since the matter was brought before Parliament, to meet the views of the Guardians, and to lessen the over-crowding of pauper lunatics in the workhouse. But there was no reason why the same state of things should not prevail all over the country. No change in the law was required; all that was wanted was the approval of the Local Government Board and of the Governors. It was absolutely necessary that something be done before long for these people. They had nothing but the dullest surroundings as a general rule. They had no playground; they had no proper treatment, and it was impossible, as statistics proved, that any large progress in the recovery of their mental faculties could be made. He hoped the present Government, as the previous Tory Administration did, would take a deep interest in this question, and would apply themselves to it during the next couple of months. They had only to act upon the Report presented in 1879, and then they would have very little difficulty in carrying out this much needed reform. Now, with regard to the industrial training of boys in workhouses. This was another matter which should be dealt with immediately. Most of the boys who were brought up by the Unions spent most of their lives within the walls of the workhouses, owing to the idleness in which they were reared, and owing to the impossibility of training them in industrial pursuits. They might go out for a week or two; but they had been so accustomed to idleness within the workhouse that they did not care to remain in a situation in which they might have been placed. They invariably returned to the places where they had been reared. He might be told that it was in the power of Boards of Guardians to remedy this unhappy state of things. Several attempts had been made by Boards of Guardians; but they had never succeeded, simply because, under the present system, young people in the workhouses must necessarily mix with the older people. The result was that they contracted the vices of the older inmates. If the 15,000 children under 15 years of age, who were in the Irish workhouses at the present time, were to be brought up so as to become useful members of society, and earn their own bread, the Government must make up their mind that they should be trained outside the workhouses; that they should be sent to industrial schools, and taken away altogether from their present associations. It was really very hard that if a child was to obtain a real industrial training he must first of all pass through a prison, or be committed before two magistrates in a Court of Law. He was quite sure that if such schools as he had indicated were established throughout the country the ratepayers would not make any extravagant demands on the Government in the shape of capitation grants, even if they asked for them at all. The people would be willing to pay additional rates if they thought that in a short time a large number of the class of persons who now drifted into the workhouses would be brought up in such a way as to enable them to earn their own living, and not to eventually become a burden upon the country. There was a fine establishment in Youghal untenanted. There was no reason why it should not be bought for the accommodation of pauper lunatics, or for the training of children. It was a building which could be had for a trifle, the Youghal Board of Guardians having offered it to any public body for a mere nominal sum. There were throughout the country a large number of such establishments; and if the Government would set themselves in earnest to the settlement of the question of relieving the condition of the pauper chil- dren and pauper lunatics they would experience very little difficulty. The only other point to which he desired to direct attention was one which the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) promised 12 months ago to redress. It was pointed out during the discussion last year on the Local Government Board Estimates that the magistrates at Petty Sessions had the power of appointing Inspectors under the Explosives Act. Those Inspectors did not receive very large salaries—from £20 to £40 a-year each. They had very little to do; but whatever they had to do they did not do, though they took good care to draw their salaries. The Boards of Guardians in several parts of the country made up their minds that the salaries should not be paid; because they felt that if they had to appoint the Inspectors, and yet have no control over them, it was unjust to ask the ratepayers to pay any portion of their salaries. It transpired that the Inspectors had the first claim on the rates; that if the Board of Guardians refused to honour the cheque of the magistrates in Petty Sessions the Inspectors had only to present the cheques at the bankers of the Guardians and they must be cashed out of the first money lodged by the Board; the salaries must be paid even if the paupers starved. He considered that a great hardship. When the question was raised last year the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) promised that he would give the magistrates the option of appointing as Inspectors under the Explosives Act members of the Royal Irish Constabulary instead of the clerks of the Petty Sessions and others who up to that time had been appointed. The magistrates at Petty Sessions, however, almost invariably refused to dismiss the men who occupied the position of Inspectors, and to appoint policemen in their stead. Of course, it was unnecessary to say that the Government did not pay the salaries, but that that burden was still placed on the ratepayers. Now, what he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Sir William Hart Dyke) to do was to compel the magistrates to dismiss their own friends and appoint policemen as Inspectors, who, on account of their training, and for several other reasons, were bettor able to carry out the provisions of the Act than the present Inspectors. It was generally conceded by the magistrates that policemen would make the best Inspectors, but that they did not like to dismiss the present holders of the offices. He did not think that a consideration of that kind should weigh at all, particularly when it was acknowledged that the present Inspectors could not do the duties cast upon them with the same efficiency as members of the Constabulary Force could. This was a grievance which had given a great deal of annoyance in Ireland, and yet it was one which could be redressed by a stroke of the pen. The Local Government Board had only to issue an Order compelling the magistrates to dismiss the present Inspectors and to appoint policemen in their places. He trusted that the different matters to which he had drawn attention would receive the serious consideration of the Government.

said, he was sure hon. Members would not expect him to go at any length into the various matters which had been referred to in the course of this discussion. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had referred to the question of the amalgamation of the West-port and Newport Unions. As far as he (Sir William Hart Dyke) could understand, the question was practically settled before he took Office. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) had referred to a Bill now before Parliament to provide for the compensation of the men whose offices were abolished. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was nothing but just that men in such a position should receive some compensation. The Bill was not introduced to meet any one special case, but to meet any cases which might arise in the future. He was not prepared, however, to admit that the facts with regard to the amalgamation of the Westport and Newport Unions were quite as indicated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Member referred to two or three other matters connected with Ireland — to the Treasurership of the North Dublin Union and to the keeping of the Union's banking account. He also referred to the affairs of the Sligo and Donegal Unions, and another Union, the name of which ha (Sir William Hart Dyke) found a difficulty in pronouncing. Now, if there had been any misdirection of affairs in any of those Unions, and he could discover it, it would be his duty to remedy matters. He must say at once that the facts had not come under his knowledge; and, therefore, he was not prepared to deal with them at any length now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) referred to the question of Union rating. He (Sir William Hart Dyke) did not suppose there was a more difficult question that a man could undertake than that of Union or electoral rating; but it should receive his earnest and early attention. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, a Committee which sat in 1871 recommended most strongly that the Union rating area should be at once adopted. That had not been adopted; but there had been some change in the law. By an Act passed in 1876 some alteration was made with respect to the number of years' residence and the chargeability; andhebelieved that in some districts the alteration had afforded something like relief. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) had gone into questions of great interest; but he (Sir William Hart Dyke) feared that his answers to them would not be considered satisfactory. The hon. Member complained of the scant justice which had been done to Local Authorities by the Local Government Board in cases where complaint had been made in regard to certain election proceedings. The hon. Gentleman seemed to infer that, although there were very clever Legal Authorities responsible for these matters, certain improper election proceedings were not brought before those Authorities and decided in a proper manner. Of course, if he (Sir William Hart Dyke) found that such things occurred, he would know how to deal with them. The hon. Member also referred to the case of Mr. Bell. He (Sir William Hart Dyke) was sorry to say that he knew nothing about the case, and, therefore, could not give the hon. Gentleman any satisfaction. The very important question of the treatment of pauper lunatics had been brought up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork City (Mr. Deasy). It was a question which, perhaps, might more properly have been raised under the Asylums vote; but, of course, the hon. Gentleman was within his right in mentioning it on this Vote as coming under the head of pauper lunatics. As the hon. Member was, no doubt, aware, before he (Sir William Hart Dyke) came into Office, Dr. Mitchell, a gentleman of authority on lunacy, was appointed, at the instigation of the late Viceroy, to deal with many of these questions. The Government was carefully pursuing the question, and they hoped to be able to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. He assured the hon. Gentleman that the question of the treatment of pauper lunatics was one in which he took some personal interest; and it should have every attention, so far as he was personally concerned. There was one other point the hon. Member raised, and that had reference to the industrial training of pauper children. He thought the hon. Member was slightly in error when he said that a boy had to commit a crime before he could enter an industrial school. As a matter of fact, a boy who was convicted of crime was sent to a reformatory, and not to an industrial school. He could only say, in conclusion, that all the questions which had been raised by hon. Gentlemen should receive his earliest attention.

said, he never asked a question of the Chief Secretary for Ireland without a certain feeling of disrelish. There was such an enormous number of Departments for which the right hon. Gentleman was either directly or indirectly responsible, and many of the Departments covered such a large amount of ground, that it was perfectly impossible for the right hon. Gentleman adequately to represent the multifarious interests which claimed his official attention. But he wished to draw the Chief Secretary's attention to one matter, which was very simple and easily comprehended, which he had several times brought before the notice of the Committee, and with regard to which successive Chief Secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant had promised their attention should be given, but with regard to which, he was sorry to say, nothing had been done—it was the question of feeding the paupers in the workhouses in Ireland. Three years ago he brought the matter before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); he brought it before the right hon. Gentleman's Successor the right hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan); and before the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), and they one and all expressed their readiness to do what they could in regard to it; but, so far ashecould see, nothing had been attempted. Some of the paupers in Ireland were being slowly starved to death. He was firmly convinced that in the workhouses in the Western part of the country a largo number of men, women, and children died from insufficient nourishment. Some time ago he moved for a Return showing the different scales of dietary in force in the two Western Provinces— Munster and Connaught—and he was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Sir William Hart Dyke) for the promptitude with which he had rendered the Return. The Return was so voluminous that he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had hesitated to ask to have it printed; but he believed that if it were printed a great deal of good might be done in the way of enabling different Boards of Guardians to compare the different scales of dietary in force. For the moment he would direct attention to one case only—it was the one in reference to which he had invited the attention of previous Chief Secretaries. It was the scale of dietary in force in the Dingle Union, County Kerry. He instanced this, not because he believed it was the worst case in Ireland—he did not think it was by any means the worst—but because it was the one that he had particular occasion to examine when he inspected the workhouses some two or three years ago. Well, the scale of dietary in the Dingle Union was divided into two portions, one was for the healthy inmates and the other for the sick inmates. The inmates were classed as able-bodied men, able-bodied females, aged and infirm, boys and girls of three different classes or ages, and infants. Now, all the food given to an able-bodied inmate in this workhouse was eight ounces of Indian meal and one half-pint of milk for breakfast, and 1 lb. of bread for dinner. He got no other meat. [Colonel KING-HAR-MAN: Every day?] Every day; that was all he got. From the marginal column he noticed that pork was given twice a-week in soup to the classes receiving it—the aged and infirm—in the proportion of 6 lbs. of pork to 100 rations—that was to say, the pork given twice a-week was equal to something less than one ounce of pork, which was of the fattest description, for a ration. But the aged and infirm were treated to a luxury in the shape of tea. He should say, first of all, that aged and infirm women were allowed 10 ounces of white bread for breakfast, 10 ounces of white bread for dinner, and four ounces of white bread for supper, and they were also allowed half-a-pint of milk. Tea was served in the proportion of one-eighth of an ounce to a pint. Infants under two years were allowed— that was to say, the mothers were allowed, four ounces of white bread and half-a-pint of milk for breakfast, four ounces of white bread and half-a-pint of milk for dinner. He supposed the mothers could make some kind of arrangement by which the milk was kept for the night, though nothing was allowed for supper for infants. The meal in this case took place at 12 o'clock, and after the issue of half-a-pint of milk to the infants at noon there was absolutely nothing at all served out to them until 8 o'clock the following morning. So much for the dietary of the healthy inmates. With regard to the dietary for the sick, as to which he did not intend to analyze all the details of the classification, he desired to draw the attention of the Committee to one item only—an item which was thus noted in the marginal column—"No. 3 diet, of soup, is made in the proportion of two ounces of oatmeal to a pint of water." It was undoubtedly their lot to hear at different times of odd things in the shape of food supplies in different countries; but he thought it would be admitted that a diet of soup, composed of two ounces of oatmeal to a pint of water, was very extraordinary. This, however, was what was issued to the sick inmates of the Dingle Workhouse, and it was all the more remarkable because, if they merely crossed over the border and went into the adjoining district of Killarney, they found that the dietary at the workhouse there was of a totally different character. In the Killarney Workhouse they got something like an approximation to the ordinary English dietary, meat being given on Sundays and Thursdays to certain classes of the inmates—namely, the aged and infirm males and the aged and infirm females, while a meat soup was also issued to all classes on Sundays and Thursdays, and the tea was of a strength, as gauged by the quantity of tea put into the water, which was exactly double that of the Dingle Workhouse. In fact, throughout the entire scale the dietary for the inmates of the Killarney Union Workhouse was fixed at a very much higher standard than that of the Dingle Workhouse. If the Chief Secretary could only find the time to pay a visit to the West of Ireland, where the scenery was certainly of a character that would attract anyone fond of the picturesque, and if he should then take the trouble to visit the Dingle Work-house, he would find the inmates so emaciated and poorly nourished that they were hardly like human beings. There was a total want of physical power about them, and an evident lassitude and helplessness and air of depression, that were unnatural and horrible. As to the children they had a languid and lifeless appearance, while the class of persons classified as able-bodied males were not able-bodied, because they did not get a sufficient amount of nourishment to enable them to go through the ordinary daily exertions incidental to workhouse life, or to give them the appearance of properly developed human beings. With regard to the women who had children to nourish, they presented an appearance of attenuation and exhaustion that was truly pitiable. His own experience as a Guardian of the Poor in England had enabled him to observe the very great difference that existed between the dietary scales adopted in the workhouses of the two countries. He had been led some time ago to institute a comparison between the dietaries that were enforced in the prisons, not only of this country, but also of Ireland, and the dietary scales established in the Irish workhouses; and although he had not the figures with him at the present moment, he might state generally that he had arrived at the conclusion that if any person wished to be maintained and nourished at the public cost it was far better to commit a crime and go to an Irish gaol than remain a decent citizen in the condition of a pauper. Anyone who was guilty of crime in Ireland and sent to gaol was comparatively well-fed and in a position of luxury, as compared with the condition of an indoor pauper in the same country. At the time he had the figures before him be had sub- mitted them to a medical gentleman of considerable eminence in London, and that gentleman analyzed the quantities set forth in the different dietary scales and drew out in figures for his (Mr. O'Connor's) information the chemical equivalents embodied in a Report which he was afraid he was not able at the present moment to put his hand upon; but the result had led him to the conclusion that the dietary scales in force in the Irish workhouses were not sufficient to maintain an ordinary human being in a state of normal health even when not called upon for any physical exertion, the quantities of carbon and hydrogen not being anything near those low figures which had been recognized as indispensable where a human being had to be maintained in a normal state of health. That being so, he desired to ask the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary if he would cause an inquiry to be made into the dietary scales in force in the workhouses in different parts of Ireland, and if he found that, in the opinion of competent medical authorities, those scales of food allowance were insufficient, he would cause representations to be made to the Boards of Guardians responsible for them in order that some remedy might be introduced? There was one other point on which he wished to offer a remark. In the case of the Dingle Workhouse, to which he had already alluded, there was a considerable outlay, and the rates of the Union were drawn upon to a very high figure; but when they endeavoured to ascertain what became of all the money they found that the incredible proportion of between one-third and one-half was spent in staff salaries and expenditure, the amount of money so expended being out of all proper proportion to the amount expended on the actual relief of the poor. And that, he wished it to be understood, was not by any means a solitary instance. He might refer the Committee to many cases in the North of Ireland, and to some in Galway, where it would be found that the proportions of expenditure were almost equally scandalous. He could state, also, that in Leinster the same sort of thing prevailed, though not quite to the same degree; but this, he would unhesitatingly assert—that if in this country it were shown that anything like the same proportion were found to exist between the staff expenditure and the expenditure required for the relief of the poor which prevailed in any of the different Unions there would be an immediate local outcry. In Ireland, however, they had unfortunately to deal with a totally different state of things. They had there no healthy state of public opinion which was capable of affecting the action of the local bodies; and while in England there would be an immediate local agitation in case of anything of a scandalous or inhuman nature being observed, in Ireland, so great was the feeling of depression, and so languid was the condition of the public mind, that the people were content to witness these things going on from year to year, and were afraid to agitate, because if they were to take such a course they would be exposed to the action of that power which had in the past enforced so many miseries upon them. The ex officio Guardians dominated the Boards in those Unions, so that the farmers, who were, for the most part, the elected members, and who were generally inclined to feel for the poor, were deterred from making any representations on this subject. No doubt there were cases in which the elected Guardians in the Dingle Union were very much to blame for the unfeeling way in which they begrudged anything like the assistance that was really needed by the poor; but in the western part of Kerry he did not think that that was the case. He believed there could be no doubt it was the ex officio Guardians who were prepared to give large salaries to their own nominees, and very unwilling to give reasonable assistance to those poor creatures who were constantly on the verge of starvation. If the Chief Secretary would undertake to look into the details he (Mr. O'Connor) had thus brought under the attention of the Committee, with a view of enforcing the adoption of something like a reasonable dietary scale in all the Unions of Ireland, he would render a very great service to that country.

said, they must all be indebted to the hon. Member for the facts he had brought forward with regard to the Irish Unions. He should certainly make full inquiry into the matters to which the hon. Member had referred, and, at the same time, the hon. Member must leave it to him to decide the form the inquiry should take. He would go further, and say that he would make a personal inquiry into the subject.

said, he desired to state that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had his entire sympathy in the statement he had made with reference to the insufficient scale of diet which he had shown to prevail in the Irish workhouses; but the hon. Member had, unfortunately, wound up that statement by a reference to the ex officio Guardians, whom he had accused of being responsible for the starved condition of the poor in the Unions he had spoken of; whereas he had stated that it was the elected Guardians who were in favour of providing a proper amount of sustenance. Now, his (Colonel King-Harman's) experience was exactly contrary to that of the hon. Member for Queen's County, as he had found that, as a rule, on Boards where the ex officio Guardians predominated, the poor were much better taken care of than in those cases where the elected Guardians had their way; and in saying that he referred not only to the workhouse diet, but to the relief given to the outdoor paupers. He had the honour of being Chairman of two Unions, and he found there that the elected Guardians adopted the lowest possible scale of outdoor relief, and expected the poor to live on 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week. The ex officio Guardians wore, he believed, as a rule, more ready to adopt a liberal scale; but in many cases, through the influence of the elected Guardians, he was sorry to say people had died from starvation, long drawn out. It was certainly not to be put to the discredit of the ex officio Guardians that they were in favour of a system of starvation. With regard to the Returns that had been quoted by the hon. Member for Queen's County, he was not aware, until it had been referred to in that debate, that such a Return had been sent in. The hon. Member had stated that in consequence of the voluminous nature of that Returnhehad hesitated to propose that it should be printed; but he (Colonel King-Harman) thought it would only be an act of justice to have it printed, and he therefore hoped that not only would the hon. Member move to have it printed, so that it could be circulated among hon. Members, but that the Treasury would accede to that Motion when made. He had some knowledge of workhouse management in Ireland, and he must say he had been greatly shocked at the wretched scale of dietary the hon. Member had quoted as being in force in the Dingle Workhouse. He would not say that in any poor house he was acquainted with did he consider the dietary scale sufficient; but he had certainly been astonished to hear what was going on in the Dingle Union. The matter was, in his opinion, one of most vital importance, and he was glad the Chief Secretary had expressed his willingness to inquire into it.hehoped the Committee would allow him to call attention to a point put forward by the hon. Member for Queen's County, in which he most entirely concurred— namely, that the unfortunate creatures who were condemned to end their days in an Irish workhouse were not fed, nor housed, nor treated in other respects with the same amount of consideration as was shown to the criminal portion of the population, who, in the prisons where they were confined, certainly had much more luxurious hotels provided for their accommodation. In reference to the inquiry promised by the Chief Secretary, he would suggest that it should be extended to a consideration of the diet accorded to the enormous number of children reared in the Irish workhouses, as he believed it would be found that the milk supplied to them, was of improper quality.

disclaimed any intention to attack the ex officio Guardians or anybody else. If he had appeared to have attacked the ex officio Guardians,hehad not done so by deliberate intention. He had certainly had no desire to attack anyone, his only wish having been to put before the Committee a plain statement of facts. He was aware that in Roscommon, in the Union of Boyle, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dublin County was Chairman, the dietary scale was 50 per cent higher than that of the Dingle Union.

said, the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) for having brought forward a very important social question. The hon. Gen- tleman had been, he believed be was correct in saying, a Poor Law Guardian in London for some time; while the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), who had also taken part in the debate, was Chairman of two Unions in Ireland, an honour which be (Colonel Nolan) also enjoyed. Under these circumstances, be should like to say a few words on the question before the Committee; and he wished, in the first place, to say that he could not accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Queen's County as applying to the Poor Law Unions of Ireland generally, except on one point. It might be the case that the dietary scale of the whole of the Unions throughout Ireland was not sufficient; but he was not aware that the Unions in the West of Ireland were sensibly below the average of the working population in this respect. If they were to endeavour to raise the dietary scale for the whole of the class maintained in the different workhouses, they would be creating all sorts of dangers, especially if in so doing they made the diet of the paupers better than that of the working population outside. To pursue such a course would probably beget great trouble, and the consequences might be extremely serious, for a policy of that kind might have a tendency to coax people away from the work by which they maintained themselves into the workhouses, where they would be maintained by the ratepayers. It was, therefore, to the interests of the ratepayers and society in general that they should be very careful in the way in which they dealt with this question of workhouse dietary, which certainly ought not to be above that of the working population; while, on the other hand, if they were to reduce the elements of carbon and hydrogen below what was necessary for healthy existence, they would be perpetrating an absolute cruelty. But, without attempting to go into the scientific part of the question, he was really of opinion that the workhouse dietary scale could not be sensibly below that of the normal population. With regard to the way in which the poor's rate was expended, it was well known that only a portion of the money so raised went in actual relief, a very large amount being absorbed in the salaries and office expenses which that House had been the means of imposing upon the people. There were, at least, half-a-dozen different charges that ought to fall upon the Public Exchequer which were now borne by the rates of the Union. It would be much more satisfactory if the Guardians found that the whole of the poor's rate was spent in the shape of relief. With regard to the question that had been raised as between the ex officio Guardians and the elected Guardians, there could be no doubt that there were some of the ex officio Guardians who wished to see the paupers fed as well as need be; while, on the other hand, there were elected Guardians who had very laudable and proper ideas of economy, without which he hardly knew where they would be carried. He was glad to hear the Chief Secretary promise to inquire into the question; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman should be very careful in seeing that he did not do as much mischief in one direction as he might do good in another. If the Chief Secretary would do anything to show how they could reduce the poor's rate by getting rid of the charges which did not go for the relief of the poor, and putting them on the Public Exchequer, he would confer an enormous amount of good upon the Poor Law Unions, and materially save the pockets of the ratepayers. If he (Colonel Nolan) were to say what he thought was one of the principal evils of the present system, he should say it was not the question of relief or medical attendance, but the difficulty of getting the paupers off the Union rates by teaching them trades or otherwise enabling them to earn their own livelihood, so that they might bring up their children without being thrown on the public rates. One point on which a remedy was needed was in respect of the English Poor Law system, under which people who became paupers after long residence in this country were sent back to the Irish Unions. He could mention a case in which a man who had not been in Ireland for 20 years had been so sent back from London. That man had served in the Army in Egypt, and, being rendered unserviceable, was sent home to London and thence back to Ireland. That sort of thing, which was of constant occurrence, was a great grievance in Ireland. There was one matter on which be desired to put a question to the Chief Secretary. There was a Poor Law Union among his constituency, the Union of Oughterard, which it had been proposed to break up, and that proposal was carried at a meeting held some four or five months ago, which was called for the purpose of electing a Chairman. Most of the elected Guardians voted one way and the ex officio Guardians the other. Now, the popular opinion out-of-doors was against the breaking up of the Union; and he asked the Chief Secretary not to allow that Union to be broken up until there was at least the opportunity of a fresh election of Guardians, so that the sense of the ratepayers of the whole Union might be taken upon the question. He did not think the Union should be broken up simply on the action of a bare majority, unless the electors of the Union were distinctly consulted upon the matter. There was some fear that the Local Government Board might interpose and sanction the breaking up of that Union. If they did so, their action would have a bad effect. As far as he was concerned, he had no objection to the breaking up of the Union; but he thought the people ought first to be consulted. If it wore broken up, there was no Union within 20 or 30 miles, and the matter was consequently one that required a good deal of consideration.

said, he thought the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had well deserved the sympathy and admiration of the Committee for the gallant struggle he had made during the evening to deal with the numerous matters that had been discussed under the head of the Vote for the Local Government Board in Ireland, especially as he could not be expected to have made himself acquainted, during his brief occupancy of Office, with all the details of the Vote, while the Vote itself was one for which he was not responsible. It was not quite creditable to those who were responsible for the Vote, and who were acquainted with its details, that they should have absented themselves from the discussion. Since he (Mr. Gray) had been a Member of that House he had been present on every occasion when that Vote had been discussed, and he sincerely trusted that this might be the last occasion on which he should hear it debated—by which he did not mean to express a hope that he should not be present when the Estimates were discussed, but that a reform would be effected next year that would remove this Vote from the ken of the House of Commons, and enable it and other matters of a similar kind to be dealt with more efficiently by those who had a real interest in them, and were possessed of all the requisite knowledge concerning them. He did not intend to go over all the ground which, in the course of that debate, had been traversed by previous speakers; but there was one question—not a very important one—which he thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) ought to be able to deal with without any great knowledge of the administration of the Department of which he was the nominal head. He referred to the question to which attention had already been called by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had complained of the conduct of the Local Government Board in regard to what they probably considered the outrageous proposal that Boards of Guardians should keep their banking accounts at such banks as they considered would be most advantageous to those whom they represented. Now, the right hon. Baronet was probably aware that financial proposals in Ireland were at that moment in a somewhat critical position. It was a very serious thing to find that the official Boards in the country, controlled as they were by a Minister of the Crown in Parliament here, should coerce the local representative bodies in Ireland to keep their accounts in the Government bank, boycotting the local banks. It was a serious thing that the local bodies should be compelled to keep all their accounts at the State Bank, seeing the attitude of the State Bank towards the other banks of the country. In view of the fact that the Lord Lieutenant had considered it so important that on two or three occasions since his accession to Office he had referred to the condition of Irish finance, he thought the Government should express some opinion on the point he was now raising. They should tell them whether they intended to continue this system of boycotting. The Bank of Ireland had at that moment enormous advantages over all the other Irish banks. They had, in the first place, an enormous Government issue of notes—so large an issue that they were unable to utilize it, having over notes to the extent of £1,250,000 which they were unable to get into circulation. They possessed, by law, the accounts of all the great Government institutions. The Court of Bankruptcy kept its account with them, also the Court of Chancery, to the extent of £250,000. Besides this they had other enormous financial resources. In consequence of the monopoly they enjoyed they, like all other monopolists, were not at all generous in the utilization of their resources. It was charged against them that they used their resources for political purposes. He did not propose to go into that question; but they did not occupy towards the other banks the position the Bank of England occupied towards London and English banks. They did not utilize their resources in aiding other banks, though the securities of those banks might be ample. There were some local bodies in Ireland, as, for instance, Boards of Guardians, who were not, by law, allied to the State Bank of Ireland by business; but the Local Government Board, by exercising its power of veto, compelled those Boards of Guardians, or some of them, to keep their banking accounts in the Bank of Ireland. In the case of the North Dublin Union they had done so directly and palpably to the prejudice of the ratepayers of the Union. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had shown, that state of things inflicted a fine of £300 a-year on the ratepayers of the North Dublin Union; and not only did it do that, but it did something which, perhaps, from a general point of view, was much more serious. The decision of the Local Government Board to refuse permission to this Board of Guardians to keep its account at the bank which suited its convenience best threw a slur on that bank, and suggested to the mind of the public that there must be something wrong about it when a Government official—no less a personage than the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, for he was responsible, and could not divest himself of his responsibility—refused to allow a Board of Guardians to do business with it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not aware that he was responsible; but, as a matter of fact, he was President of the Irish Local Government Board, and was practically responsible to the House for the action of that Board—far more than he was responsible for the action of the Board of Works or of any other Department save that which was peculiarly his own—namely, the Chief Secretaryship. When the Irish public knew that the Government threw a slur upon one bank by refusing to allow a Board of Guardians to keep an account in it, although the balance would never be more than £3,000 or £4,000, they naturally enough imagined that something was wrong with that bank. In that way great injustice had been done to the bank in question. This was a matter on which he (Mr. Gray) did not think the right hon. Baronet would require to consult the officials in Dublin. He could make up his mind on a point of this kind at once, and could tell them whether or not he intended to join in the system practised by late Chief Secretaries of boycotting certain Irish banks by refusing to allow Boards of Guardians to keep their accounts wherever they thought they could do so with most advantage to the ratepayers. He would urge this question on the consideration of the right hon. Baronet, not for the mere purpose of cavilling, but because, in the present financial condition of Ireland, it really was a matter of urgency. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, ought to tell them that, unless he saw some reason to the contrary, he would compel the officials of his Department to give more discretion to the Guardians in this matter of keeping banking accounts. The right hon. Gentleman should not permit those officials to throw an unmerited slur on any Irish financial institution by refusing the permission he had referred to, and treating it in the way he had described.

said, it seemed to him that his responsibilities were rapidly developing; but however they might increase he did not think hon. Gentlemen would find him disposed to evade or shirk them. The question which had just been addressed to him was a very important one, and he trusted the hon. Member would not consider him discourteous if he refrained from answering it off hand. If the hon. Member would put a question to him on the subject to-morrow or Friday, to bring the matter back to his recollection, he might be in a position to give the result of his inquiries.

said, he should be quite satisfied if the right hon. Baronet would toll him that he would consider the matter. It was natural that, considering the multitude of questions the right hon. Gentleman had to answer, he should have merely alluded to this subject in his general reply. All he (Mr. Gray) wished to do was to press this particular matter on the attention of the right hon. Baronet as being somewhat urgent, and, perhaps, not so well permitting of delay as the consideration of some other matters. Of course, he had not expected to elicit an answer that night.

asked for some information with regard to the expenses of the staff in connection with extraordinary services. Many of the clerks to the Unions, for instance, prepared the Jurors' and Voters' Lists; and the expenses of that work, he considered, should be thrown as an incidence of local taxation. He should not allow the matter to pass without remark— namely, that a great deal of work was done by the officials in workhouses which ought not to be thrown on them, and should be transferred to others.

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the matters affecting the conduct of Poor Law clerks in County Cavan. In one case he had to complain of the zeal for Orange institutions exhibited by a certain clerk in an official capacity; but he (Mr. Biggar) was unwilling to go very deeply into the matter, because he was convinced that by those exhibitions of zeal those Orangemen showed themselves the worst enemies of, and likely to do most injury to, the Conservative Party in Ireland. They made all the Catholics more anxious to oppose that Party—they, in fact, stimulated others to operate against them. All he would ask was that this clerk should not publicly ex-press his great zeal for Orange institutions. The other case was a more serious one. It was in connection with the conduct of Mr. Graham, who was connected with the Cootehill Union—his conduct in reference to elections of Guardians in that Union. Mr. Graham had been connected with the Cootehill Union as clerk of the Union for a great many years. He had been kept in his position by a small majority of the Board, but had conducted himself in so outrageous a manner that not only might he have been dismissed from his office some years ago, but might have been criminally prosecuted for his conduct. He had been detected years ago in allowing a coal merchant to supply coals to the Union of a quality much inferior to that for which the Guardians paid. An inquiry was made into the matter, and this person acknowledged having taken a bribe from the contractor. If the Local Government Board had done their duty on that occasion this man would have been dismissed from his position; but, instead of dismissing him, they asked the opinion of the Guardians of the Union as to what they ought to do. The result was that a whip was sent round for the attendance of this officer's friends at the meeting of Guardians, at which his conduct was to be taken into consideration; and in the end a resolution was passed by a small majority declaring that another chance would be given him. The final result, therefore, was that he retained his position in connection with the Union. In his subsequent employment this person had been connected with many objectionable transactions in his position as Returning Officer for the elections of Poor Law Guardians. Mr. Graham had been instrumental, in connection with Mr. Boyd Montgomery, a magistrate for County Tyrone, in the falsification of returns; and the consequence was that Mr. Montgomery was struck off the Commission of the Peace, whilst the clerk of the Union got off scot free. Again, the Local Government Board should have insisted upon the man being dismissed from his office. Prom time to time he had put on the list of voters the names of persons who were not entitled to vote; and in a Poor Law election which took place at the beginning of the present year he actually suppressed 17 voters' papers from a particular district declaring that they had never been given in. An inquiry, however, was instituted, the voters swore that they had handed in the papers, the police gave corroborative testimony, and it was found that the clerk of the Union had suppressed these papers for the purpose of getting his friend elected. When the case was proved against Mr. Graham the Local Government Board acted precisely as they had done in the case of the coal contract—that was to say, they asked the opinion of the Poor Law Guardians. The Guardians passed a resolution stating that they would allow the man to continue in his office. Now he (Mr. Biggar) did not think that was at all a satisfactory state of things. He thought that when an inquiry was instituted by the Local Government Board, and when a man was convicted of misconduct, he should be turned out of office. At an inquiry held by an Inspector of the Local Government Board Mr. Graham had sworn that he had never been censured on any other occasion. That was untrue. He had been censured with regard to the coal contract, and he had been dismissed from his position as clerk to the Dispensary Committee of one of the districts of the Cootehill Union. The man did not speak the truth, notwithstanding that he was on his oath. For all those considerations he (Mr. Biggar) thought the President of the Irish Local Government Board would do well to look over the evidence given on those two matters—namely, in connection with the coal contract, and also in connection with the inquiry which recently took place into his con-duct in suppressing voting papers which were sworn to by the police as having been given into his hands. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hart Dyke) would undertake, before the Report, to make some inquiry into the case, he (Mr. Biggar) would be perfectly satisfied. The matter was one which ought to be properly inquired into; and if the man was proved to be unfit for the position he held, he should be dismissed without hesitation. It was of the greatest importance that men in the position of Mr. Graham should be above suspicion. At any rate, the Unions in Ireland should not be served by dishonest officials.