I rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill. My first ground of opposition is that the usual course has been departed from in this instance, inasmuch as we have had no opportunity of blocking the progress of the Bill, owing to the manner in which it has been brought before the House. It has not appeared on the Orders of the Day or on the Notices, in the usual form, and hence it was only when the present stage was reached that we were afforded an opportunity of placing our views before the House. The short history of the Bill is this. In 1884, three years ago, a Bill was passed in both Houses of Parliament authorizing the construction of this so-called loop line. It was most strenuously opposed in its several stages by the Corporation of Dublin, on the ground that the promoters of the Bill, instead of taking the most convenient mode of connecting the Westland Row Station with the terminius of the Great Northern Railway, took a different course altogether, which, if carried out, would probably lead to the disfigurement of the city. In fact, an act of perfect vandalism would have been perpetrated if the Bill had been carried into effect. The provisions of the Bill, however, have not been carried into effect, because the money has not been forth- coming for the construction of the line, and the Act of Parliament has consequently become a dead letter. The Act has now remained a dead letter for three years; but, in the meantime, as we in Ireland are anxious to see an extension of the railway system from Westland Bow, we have supported another Bill for connecting that station with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company's line at Kingsbridge. That Company introduced their Bill into this House this year, and now that a practical scheme of connection has been legalized, I think it is somewhat too late for the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company to come in and say—"We will now make our connection; we will try to raise the money, and by that means we may deprive the Great Southern and Western Company of the value of the privileges they have obtained for themselves in securing the authorization of a connection between Kingstown and Cork by railway." Now, Sir, this scheme for the construction of a so-called loop line, which we maintain will lead to the disfigurement of the City of Dublin, is to cost £300,000, and I can assure our Northern friends by whom it is promoted that, in all probability, if the money is raised, they will never receive one penny in the shape of dividends upon this enormous outlay. That, I believe, is one reason why the Act has been allowed to remain a dead letter. The promoters have now, however, secured some influential friends in the North who are coming forward to support them. But it is not so much upon that ground that I oppose the Bill. I oppose this stage most strenuously on account of the manner in which the measure has been rushed through the House, and for the departure the promoters have made from the ordinary usages of the House. I certainly think the House ought to express its opinion upon that matter, and that it should stop the further progress of the Bill. I therefore oppose the Motion, and I believe that a great number of my Friends who are sitting on this side of the House will go into the Lobby with me if the Bill is persisted in.

The hon. Gentleman speaks of this line as if it were one that really affected the North of Ireland only. I, on the other hand, am here to assert that it would be equally advantageous to the whole of Ireland, and especially to the Queens-town route for the American mails. The hon. Gentleman complains that the Forms of the House have not been complied with. To that statement I also take exception. The Forms of the House, in every instance, have been complied with.

Then with what object is this Motion brought forward?

The object of the Bill is to enable the promoters to make certain financial arrangements in order to secure that the scheme of 1884 should be carried out, and I am entirely opposed to any Motion for postponing the consideration of the Bill. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that I should make a short statement. The Bill is promoted by the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company, to enable them to carry out the loop-line they were authorized by Parliament to make three years ago. This delay has been rendered necessary in consequence of the indisposition of two of the Companies who were interested in the Bill, and, notably, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, to carry out the solemn undertaking they entered into under the Act of 1884. As to the merits of the Bill, it is not necessary that I should say much. They were thoroughly investigated by both Houses of Parliament, and the Corporation of Dublin were fully represented there in opposition to the scheme. Nevertheless, it was passed by both Houses. I will only say that this loop-line was supported by the four great Railway Companies in Ireland, and the principal Steamboat Company in the country. It was shown, when the Bill was before Parliament, that it was the only possible way of connecting the different railway termini in Dublin, and of supplying a want that has very long been felt. The Railway Companies invoked the aid of the Postmaster General of that day, Mr. Fawcett, who warmly supported the scheme, and sent an Inspector of Mails to give evidence in its favour, and to express the opinion of the Government that the construction of the line would be a very great advantage to Ireland and to the Queenstown route. So far as passengers are concerned, if this line is made, instead of having to drive through Dublin, as they do at present from one station to another, they will be able to go on without change of carriage; and, as regards the mails, facilities will be afforded for improving the interchange of mails between the whole of Ireland. It will further quicken the communication to Cork and all the provinces by half an hour to an hour, and it will expedite the American mail service to the same extent, both inwards and outwards. There will be a provincial despatch to Dublin of from half-an-hour to an hour later than at present. At this moment, the mails are not delivered in Belfast before noon, and Cork, of course, at a later hour; and the acceleration which will take place under this scheme will confer a great boon upon the town, and, indeed, on the whole of the provinces; while it would give an advantage of from half-an-hour to an. hour in the despatch of the American mails viâ Queenstown. Therefore, upon every ground, there are strong motives for constructing this line, and I think it is hard that an endeavour should be made to stop the promoters at this stage.

Why should the Standing Orders be suspended?

If there were really any possible alternative scheme, or any reason for this opposition, the objection which has been raised to the progress of the Bill would have more claim upon the consideration of the House. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. P. McDonald) says that another Bill, which will give all the public accommodation that is required, has passed this House during the present Session. Now, that Bill has not passed this House at all, although it has passed certain stages, and it is very well known that if the Bill itself passed, it will be impossible for the money ever to be raised for the construction, of the line.

Or for this.

No sane man will ever put his money into such a line.

Nor into this.

I would appeal to hon. Members who represent the City of Dublin to support the Bill. The hon. Member for Sligo has used some hard words about vandalism. This line does, certainly, cross the River Liffey, and passes through Beresford Place. But my own opinion is that if the line be nicely formed and elegant in its structure, instead of being injurious to Beresford Place and the Custom House, will be an improvement to it. Beresford Place is one of the most dreary, deserted looking spots in Europe, and a railway such as I have described crossing there would give animation to it, and show unmistakable signs that Dublin is advancing in material prosperity. I hope, in this matter, to have the support of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) for the construction of this line. It will certainly do Belfast and the Province of Ulster a great deal of good, while, with regard to Dublin, it will at once lead to an expenditure of £300,000, which, I think, is no small matter. Personally, I look upon this as a national question, and I sincerely hope that the House will agree to suspend the Standing Orders and allow the Bill to be passed to-day.

I cannot see that the hon. Member who has just spoken has removed any of the objections which the hon. Member for Sligo has raised to this Bill. Although the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) has said that no sane man would put his money in a scheme for a connecting line between the Kingstown and Dublin Railway and the Great Southern and Western system, I, for one, in a very small way, have done so. I consider that such a railway is most needed under the existing circumstances, and that it will directly facilitate the transit of the mails from London to Cork. This Bill has been before the House for some time. What the technical points may be on which it has been delayed I am not aware, but that it has been delayed I am aware, and owing to that delay the Great Southern and Western Railway have formed a project which is now before this House for connecting Kingstown with their line to Cork, by means of a link from Rooterstown to Inchicore. Therefore, I think it is hard that we should have it thrown in our face that a Railway Company proposing to carry a line through the streets of Dublin should have power to prevent the Great Southern and Western Railway from going on with their project. The Northern Railways are already connected with the Great Southern and Western line at Kingsbridge; and the Great Southern and Western Railway runs the mails to Cork direct. The proposition of that Company to construct a small loop-line from Rooterstown to Inchicore will connect all the great main lines with Holyhead, Dublin, and Cork. This line will place Kingstown, where the English and American mails arrive, in direct communication with Cork, and that is most important in view of the competing claims of Southampton, Milford, Falmouth, and other towns for carrying the American mails. If Cork is not prepared, as it ought to be, with a complete through transit from Kingstown it will inevitably go to the wall, and my pole object is to endeavour to induce this House, as quickly as possible, to pass such necessary measures as will enable the Great Southern and Western Railway Company at Queenstown to connect their line with the Kingstown boats. It is no fault of ours that the line authorized by the Act passed three years ago has not been made, and, no doubt, the Company had some reason for the delay. On their heads then the consequences must fall if their line is rejected. All that I ask of the House is not to allow our Bill to be crushed, because, for some reason of their own, the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company have chosen to delay the construction of their line.

This is a question which closely affects the transit of the mails, and therefore has a certain amount of public interest, apart from the interest it has in connection with Ireland. Therefore, I desire to say one or two words upon the subject as to the great difficulty at present experienced in regard to the transit of the mails, to which reference has already been made. I am aware that this is one of two Bills which are promoted by rival Companies, both of which measures, I understand, have, among other objects, that of facilitating the transmission of the mails through and from Dublin. I have nothing whatever to say to that part of the present scheme, which proposes a communication between the Westland Row Station and the Northern railway lines. As to the means by which that communication is to be effected that is a matter with which I have nothing to do. I should be glad if I thought there were any reasonable prospect in the course of the present year, or in any short time, of seeing the scheme to which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose-Fitzgerald) has referred carried out. The matter, however, is really urgent, and the carrying out of that scheme must necessarily be delayed for some time. When the question was under consideration before the Committee in 1884, the great point urged was the fact that the mails, on their arrival from England, at Kingstown, had to be conveyed to Westland Row, then transferred to cars, then taken to another railway station, the Great Southern and Western Station at Kingsbridge. A deputation waited upon me on this subject last autumn, and I felt bound to tell them that if that arrangement continued to be carried out in regard to the transport of the American mails the inconvenience it entails is of such an extreme character that it would almost certainly be necessary to send the mails by some other route. No doubt, Plymouth, Southampton, and other places are competing for the conveyance of the American mails, although I draw from that fact a different moral from that which my hon. Friend draws. My hon. friend asks the House to throw out this Bill, which would have the effect of securing the conveyance of the mails through the City of Dublin, because he thinks another scheme might be better if the promoters of a certain Bill now before Parliament were to carry the provisions of that Bill out. Now, although that scheme may be a good one, and I should be happy to support it in respect of the Office I hold as Postmaster General whenever it comes before the House in a practical manner, I do not think the House ought to throw away the opportunity now afforded to it of completing a through communication by passing the present Bill. Something has been stated in regard to an irregularity committed by the promoters in bringing forward the Bill, and reference has been made to some special and exceptional proceedings. Now, let me point out that it is perfectly competent for the promoters to ask the House to dispense with certain Standing Orders, with a view of facilitating any measure which it is seriously intended to pass into law in the course of the present Session. The House, in many instances, has acceded to such an application, and has sent a Bill forward to the House of Lords with greater speed than the ordinary Forms of the House would allow, in order that it might become law before the end of the Session. This Bill is one which was not opposed in its Committee stage, and I do not think it lies very well in the mouth of those who oppose it in its present stage to complain that there has been any irregularity in the proceedings of the promoters. The Bill passed before the Chairman of Ways and Means as an unopposed Bill, and now that it has come down here for consideration, the opponents are trying to raise questions which they were unwilling to raise before the proper tribunal. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members deny that; but this House has always looked with great suspicion upon an opposition got up at the last moment in order to prevent a Bill from being read a third time, when no opposition has been offered to it in its earlier stages. I hope it will be a long time before this House consents to endorse any such course of action, unless some better ground is shown for it than has been shown in this case. I have only one word more to add, and it has reference to the actual character of the Bill itself. This Bill does not propose for the first time to make this railway. It merely proposes to facilitate the completion of an authorized railway, by giving greater financial advantages than are at present possessed. The Corporation of Dublin opposed the original Bill when it was before the House in 1884, and they agreed to the insertion of clauses in the House of Lords—certain saving clauses in regard to their rights—with a view of meeting and obviating the objections which they had urged. Then I do not think that the Corporation of Dublin are justified in opposing the Bill on the present occasion, especially as it relates only to financial arrangements by which it is intended to give effect to what is already the law of the land. I do not think I am called upon to refer to any other scheme which is not at this moment before us. I shall be glad, in my official capacity, to welcome either, or both, of these Bills. I should be tolerably happy with either; but I think that this Bill stands a better chance of being passed than the other, and I hope the House will not throw away the opportunity it now has of making the connection with the Westland Row Station, and I trust that hon. Members from Ireland will scruple to take any course which may make it necessary to reconsider the whole question of the carriage of the American mails viâ Ireland.

I have listened with positive amazement to the statement of the Postmaster General. How, in the name of goodness, does this Bill affect the American mails! If the right hon. Gentleman knows Dublin as well as we do, he must know that this Bill affects the conveyance of the American mails no more than if we were to put another bridge across the river here at Westminster. The American mails go from Westland Row at the present moment down to Queenstown. This is a proposal to build a bridge and to take trains across the Liffey, so as to connect West-land Row with the line to Belfast; and it has no more to do with the American mails than Tenterden Steeple has to do with the Goodwin Sands. The right hon. Gentleman has made what almost amounts to a threat against the Irish Members if they oppose this Bill; and he has suggested that the Corporation of Dublin are, for some purposes of their own, encouraging this opposition. As to the merits of the financial proposal, I know nothing. I do not care a snap of the fingers which Company makes the connection, or which does not; I should be glad to see both succeed, so long as they succeed in a proper manner; but we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the opposition has been got up at the last moment by the Corporation of Dublin, and that, therefore, we ought to be suspicious of it. That is an insinuation which I utterly repel. Three years ago I gave to this Bill the utmost opposition in my power. I looked upon it as a Bill introduced by Goths and Vandals, and I recollect that at that time an unworthy attack was made upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who was then a Member of this House, for the purpose of prejudicing the Committee which was appointed to consider the Bill against the opposition raised to it. What is the Motion now before the House? The Postmaster General says that the House has always been in the habit of assenting to proposals of this kind, and especially in view of the fact that the opposition has been got up at the last moment. Now, what was the first moment at which the opposition could have been got up? The right hon. Gentleman having himself been Chairman of Committees, ought to understand the Forms of the House, and I certainly expect to hear from the present Chairman of Ways and Means some justification of the proposal contained in this Motion to suspend the Standing Orders when I ask how we could have got up an opposition against the Bill. As a matter of fact, the measure has been smuggled through the House at this late period of the Session with the connivance of the authorities—I do not say in any improper way, but the authorities of the House have certainly favoured this proposal in some manner which I do not understand. We have heard from the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) a good deal about the merits of the Bill; but will he tell us what justification there is for suspending the Standing Orders? I presume that the Rules of this House have been laid down for valuable reasons. We hear a great deal nowadays about the Forms of the House. Every Form of the House has been established, I suppose, by the wisdom of our predecessors for a particular and specific purpose, and if those Forms should be adhered to for anything at all, certainly they should not be departed from on questions affecting the raising of capital. We have not heard a single word from the hon. Gentleman who is apparently engineering the Bill as to why the Standing Orders should be suspended. The first proposal contained in this Motion is to suspend Standing Order 84. Let me turn to that Standing Order. The Postmaster General says that the opposition has been got up at the last moment. Standing Order 84 says—

"Three clear days at least before the consideration of any private Bill ordered to lie upon the Table a copy of every such Bill, as amended in Committee, shall be laid by the agent before the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and the counsel to Mr. Speaker, and deposited at the office of the Board of Trade; and in the case of every Bill required by the Standing Orders to be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board on or before the 21st day of December, shall also be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board."

Why, then, was that not done? Why do the promoters not do it? Why should there be this amazing hurry? Certainly I did not know that there was a rival scheme before the House until the hon. Member for Cambridge got up to say that he had put his money in it. I am very glad that he has, because I say that the proposal to spend £300.000 by a Railway Company which is practically bankrupt—namely, the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company—which has only paid 1 per cent for a number of years, and whose chief Director, the moment this Bill was passed, resigned his seat on the board, and said that he would no longer be responsible for the affairs of the Company, is preposterous. This is a Bill which is backed up by persons who have not one penny of interest in the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Line, and who want to spend £300,000 in building a bridge across the Liffey, in order to save 10 minutes in the transit through the City of Dublin. I have pointed out that the Bill has no more to do with the conveyance of the American mails than Westminster Bridge; and what protection are we to have if we are to permit promoters of Bills to violate one of the fundamental provisions of our Standing Orders, requiring Notice and warning to be given to Members of this House and other parties concerned? Yet it is proposed in regard to a Bill for which not a single stiver has yet been subscribed, that this Standing Order should be suspended. Then, what is the next Standing Order, because I observe that there are a quartette of them which this Motion proposes to suspend? The next is Standing Order 214. What does that Standing Order say? It says—

"Every Private Bill, as amended in Committee, shall be printed at the expense of the parties applying for the same; and delivered to the Vote Office for the use of the Members, three clear days at least before the consideration of such Bill."

That is a most important provision, and in this case it does not appear to have been complied with. Standing Order Number 215 provides that—

"In the case of Private Bills ordered to lie upon the Table, three clear days shall intervene between the Report and the consideration of the Bill, and no consideration of any such Bill shall take place, unless the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means shall have informed the House or signified in writing to Mr. Speaker, whether the Bill contain the several provisions required by the Standing Orders,"

This Standing Order provides that the Chairman of Ways and Means shall certify certain things to the Speaker and his counsel. The promoters, in this case, have not done so, and yet, forsooth, we are asked to occupy the time of the House by considering the advisability of suspending our Standing Orders when we have plenty of other work before us, and have certainly no desire to occupy ourselves with the consideration of Private Bill Legislation. The Postmaster General tells us that the opposition to the Bill has been got up in a suspicious manner at the last moment, when absolutely, as far as I can gather, no copy of the Bill has been printed in the ordinary way for the use of Members. But these voracious Gentlemen want to have another Standing Order suspended. Why not abolish the House of Commons altogether, and get rid of all the precautions which have been taken in reference to Private Bill Legislation. Standing Order 239 says—

"One clear day's notice, in writing, shall be given by the agent for the Bill, to the clerks in the Private Bills Office, of the day proposed for the consideration of every Private Bill ordered to lie upon the Table."

So that when charged by the Postmaster General with having got up at the last moment a suspicious opposition to the Bill, we find that if the right hon. Gentleman had examined the Standing Orders, and he ought to be acquainted with them, seeing that he occupied for some time, in a useful and dignified manner, the position of Chairman of Ways and Means, he would have known that no opportunity has been given to us to state our opposition to the Bill. I think, under all the circumstances of the case, it would be an act of great folly for capitalists to put their money into this scheme. I know that if we had Home Rule passed for Ireland, one of the first things the Irish Government would be required to do would be to build a bridge over the Liffey in a proper manner. They would not consent to be overruled by three Gentlemen in the House of Commons, who probably never saw Dublin or even Ireland, who care nothing for the country, and who simply support the view originally put forward by the counsel for the promoters of the Bill to the prejudice of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin. If that had not been done, the Bill would never have been passed. The only valid argument offered to the Committee was that gentleman connected with the Mili- tary Service were called, who stated that when soldiers were marched across Dublin from one station to the other, the streets of Dublin were very dirty, and the soldiers found it necessary to have their boots blacked. Can any hon. Member conceive a similar instance in which an attempt could be made to override the opinion of the people whose interests are most at stake, in this extraordinary way? If it had been proposed to build a bridge to the East of the Custom House, we should have been prepared to welcome both the Bill and the bridge. There is no reason why that course should not have been taken, except the opposition of a miserable body—tho Dublin Docks Board—a close corporation representing nobody. It was decided to carry the bridge to the west of the Custom House, simply because if it were constructed on the other side, it might interfere with the berthage of a few ships. That was the only argument in favour of building the bridge in the place it is intended to occupy—namely, that it would interfere, if erected elsewhere, with the berthage of one or two ships. Upon this trivial ground it was decided to shut out the citizens of Dublin from a full view of one of the most beautiful structures in the City, and to destroy Beresford Place as a rendezvous for the people of Dublin. [A laugh.] I see that the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) laughs. I presume he does so because no Orange Lodge has ever been allowed to march in procession there. The Corporation of Dublin gave a vigorous opposition to the Bill; but the opposition was not confined to the Corporation. On the contrary, Baron Dowse, Mr. Justice Harrison, a member of the Conservative Party, and the Provost of Trinity College, whom Lord Carnarvon knighted when he was in Ireland, gave the strongest opposition to the Bill. We do not oppose the Bill itself, but only the proposal to build a bridge in this particular way, and at the present moment the House has not heard a single reason why the bridge should be built east instead of west of the Custom House. I would ask the English Members, in a matter of this kind, to have some regard to the opinion of the citizens of Dublin who, by their Corporation, oppose, in the strongest manner, the erection of this bridge, which violates every canon of decency and taste, and for the building of which no reason exists except that a larger amount of compensation would have to be given if it were erected elsewhere. Certainly, the construction of this line will not benefit the transmission of the American mails by one hair's breadth. In Dublin popular feeling is strongly against the proposal, and I do not think, to use the words of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) that any sane man would put his money into it. If he did, I am satisfied he would never get it back again; and it is quite certain that the Dublin, Wicklow, and Woxford Railway Company, who for years have only been paying 1 per cent, can never afford to find the money. I maintain that no reason has been assigned to justify the suspension of the Standing Orders. No doubt the slumbering energies of the Gentlemen who promote the Bill have been awakened, because some other well-considered project of a practical nature is now before the House. They want now to euchre the supporters of this rival project by running their own scheme, and evading the regulations of this House, which require full and adequate notice to be given of their intention. I am glad the hon. Member for Cambridge is with us in opposing the Bill; and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of Order, whether it is in Order for any hon. Member to make an omnibus Motion of this kind for the suspension of the Standing Orders en bloc?

A Motion for the suspension of more than one Standing Order has frequently been made. The Motion, however, now before the House is not for the suspension of the Standing Orders, that Motion having been rendered unnecessary by the lapse of time. The Motion now is "that the Bill be now considered."

If the Motion that the Bill be now considered is agreed to, will the Standing Orders be suspended?

No; there will be no necessity for suspending them.

I was unwilling to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), although I was quite aware that a greater part of his speech was based on a misconception, seeing that there is no Motion, at the present moment, before the House for the suspension of the Standing Orders. If the consideration of the Bill had been moved last week, such a Motion would have been necessary; but the three days referred to have now lapsed, and therefore the objection which has been taken to the Motion by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford on Parliamentary grounds entirely fails. I did not interrupt the hon. and learned Member, because I am bound to say that, although the present Motion involves no suspension of the Standing Orders, still if the House approves of it, it will be necessary to move the Suspension, afterwards, of the Standing Orders. I may point out that only this Session, Motions of this kind involving the suspension of the Standing Orders have repeatedly been made and agreed to. It has been found necessary, constantly, towards the end of the Session to suspend the Standing Orders in order to facilitate the passing of a Bill to which there has been no opposition; and, up to this time, there has been no opposition to this Bill. In respect of the measure itself, the hon. and learned Member has said that he has really no objection to the Bill except on the ground of the bridge it is proposed to construct over the Liffey. He adds that if the bridge were built somewhere else the Bill might be allowed to pass. Now, this is a Bill which was brought in and passed in the year 1884, when the whole question of the construction of this railway and its effect upon the City of Dublin were argued before a Committee of this House, and again before a Committee of the House of Lords. In order to meet the objections of the Corporation of Dublin, a clause—Clause 11—was put in for the protection of that city in reference to the mode in which the line was to be carried across Beresford Place.

Still leaving the question of the injury to the Custom House.

Quite true; but that question was fully considered in 1884, and this clause was put in for the protection of the City of Dublin, as far as the Committee thought it ought to be protected. The present Bill proceeds on the basis of that Act. That Act contains certain financial arrangements for carrying on the works, and the Bill now introduced is simply a modification of the financial arrangements contained in the Act of 1884. It is, then, on all fours with the Manchester Ship Canal Bill of the present year, which simply qualified the financial arrangements which were considered and authorized in a former Bill. It was held upon that Bill that it would be quite irrelevant and improper to re-open the question of the Manchester Ship Canal except in relation to the financial arrangements. In the case of the present Bill, the whole question re-opened is the reconstruction of the financial arrangements sanctioned by Parliament in the Act of 1884. By Clause 3 it is provided that—

"The guarantees authorised to he granted under the Act of 1884 as amended by this Act and by this Act by the throe Companies respectively or any of them may by the said Companies or any of them from time to time granting such guarantee attached to any portion of the share or stock capital specified in such guarantee or guaranteees to the exclusion of any mortgages or of the debenture stock or of any other portion or portions of the said share or stock capital. And the guarantees granted by the said Companies or any of them in respect of any shares or stock shall attach to such specific shares or stock, and the holders thereof shall be entitled to all the benefits of such guarantees to the exclusion of all persons or Corporations whether proprietors in or creditors of the Company or of the separate undertaking of the City of Dublin Junction Railways or otherwise howsoever."

The present Bill is to give the promoters an opportunity of carrying out this new financial scheme, to which no objection is raised by anybody. It is quite true that the Bill has been proceeded with hurriedly. I understand that the Corporation of Dublin applied for copies of the Bill, and that they were supplied with them on the 29th of June, so that they had an ample opportunity for framing their opposition. The Bill itself came before me, and it was after it was disposed of in Committee that this opposition was got up. It has over and over again been permitted by promoters, by the favour of the House, towards the end of the Session, to suspend the Standing Orders, and the whole point which the House can now consider is this, not whether the Act of 1884 was or was not a perfect Bill, nor whether the rival scheme—which I now hear of for the first time—should or should not be sanc- tioned. It is not a rival scheme, as a matter of fact, because, as I understand, it is a scheme for connecting the Great Southern and Western Railway with Westland Row, whereas the present scheme is to connect the Great Northern Railway with Westland Row. The whole matter is whether the House will alter the financial arrangements which actually concern the right of the guarantors in a way that will not affect the character of the former undertaking. I think the House will be acting strictly in accordance with every precedent if it consents to consider the Bill, and orders it to be read a third time.

In reply to some of the observations which have been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has just sat down, I wish to say that the view which we take of the matter is this, that although this Bill is not a Bill for the construction of a railway line, it is a Bill to enable the promoters to construct a line. Now the Corporation of Dublin and a large number of the influential and the respectable citizens of that city have given from the outset a steady and persistent opposition to this scheme. When this loop-line was before Parliament some years ago it was advocated mainly on the allegation that it would greatly facilitate the transfer of the mails between Holyhead and Queenstown. That argument seems now to be dropped by the promoters of the scheme, and, as a matter of fact, this loop-line would not expedite the transmission of the mails by more than a very few minutes, because the route is most circuitous and complicated. Between that time and this, however, another scheme has been proposed, which, although it has not as yet been passed into law, would really facilitate the transmission of the mails between England and Ireland, by way of Holyhead and Queenstown. That is the junction line between Kingsbridge and a point a little below Westland Row. The adoption of that scheme would entirely supersede all necessity for this loop-line so far as the transfer of the mails is concerned, or, as we heard on a former occasion, the transmission of troops from England to Ireland. That junction line has already passed through Committee, and if we are asked whether any delay is likely to take place in passing it into law, I do not thick it lies in the mouth of the supporters of this Bill to complain, seeing that they have delayed the construction of the loop-line they have been authorized to make for at least three or four years. And let me point out that the line of the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Company will cross on the level no less than 16 streets in the City of Dublin, and will sweep around the finest building in that city on arches or on iron tressels, forming one of the most hideous objects it is possible to conceive. It has been stated that we must put up with this vandalism on account of the facilities the line will afford for the transmission of the American mails. That consideration is now removed, because another and a better means of facilitating the transit of the mails is now being passed into law. It has, I believe, passed Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and what I would say to English Members in reference to the matter is that as it is the English Parliament which has made Dublin poor, let this Parliament leave the citizens of Dublin, at any rate, what little remains of the beauty of our city. Some day or other we believe that Dublin may be made a great and prosperous city; in the meantime, in this stage of the relations between England and Ireland, I ask the House not to destroy the finest prospect we have in Dublin. In every civilized city in the world respect has been paid and value attached to objects of architectural beauty. The Corporation of Dublin have opposed this Bill from the beginning. A meeting was recently held in the Mansion House by the citizens of Dublin in opposition to the measure, and at that meeting speeches were delivered of a strong and highly persuasive character by some of the leading and most eminent men in Dublin. What has been represented to be the great reason for making this line is now removed, and I venture to say that the scheme should not be pushed forward against the will of the Representatives of the people of Dublin. A vast majority of the people of that city are opposed to the scheme, and I appeal to the House of Commons not to endorse it. The difficulty, in regard to the conveyance of the mails, which has been referred to by the Postmaster General, will be otherwise provided for, and the Bill, which has already passed through most of its stages, in both Houses of Parliament can be passed into law in a very brief interval. I think it would be a most unnecessary act of vandalism and barbarism to do anything to sanction the construction of this most objectionable line.

I do not know whether the House fully understands what the question is that is now before it. A number of hon. Gentlemen have addressed the House in favour of the Bill, but not one of them has made any reference, in detail, to the provisions of the measure. Therefore, I will tell the House, shortly, what that Bill is. As far as I can gather from the Act which was passed in 1884, the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company obtained power to make this wretched loop-line which passes over 16 streets in Dublin, and disfigures the Custom House, not only did the House give that power, but although this loop-line will naturally form part of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway system, it will give power to the Company to treat the undertaking as a separate undertaking, with a separate capital. That is to say, that the Company was so doubtful of the success of the undertaking that they induced the House to make it a separate undertaking, so as not to inflict upon the general system the consequences of any failure of the project. I believe it is a fact that the shareholders of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Line only get a dividend of 1 per cent. It is now complained that in spite of all the exceptional facilities which Parliament gave, no fraction of the capital has been raised—not a single individual has been found who has been foolish enough to put one penny into the undertaking. In addition, certain guarantees are given by the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company, the Great Northern of Ireland Railway Company, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and power was given to pay interest preferentially, and to grant guarantees and enter into agreements. It may be asked what this Company will do if the Bill passes? The Company will proceed to cross the City of Dublin in order to bring the American mails, not only to Dublin, but through Dublin to the north of the city, and then along the north side of Dublin by a circuit of nine or ten miles, to the Kingsbridge terminus; the line extending along nearly three sides of a triangle. Now the city of Belfast is alone interested in this question, and I ask the House to consider this point; that so far as Belfast is concerned she does not at the present moment send her North of England and Scotch mail traffic to Dublin at all; she sends it in another direction; but, nevertheless, the people of Belfast ask for these exceptional powers for their own benefit. It is from the South of Ireland that the American mails are most satisfactorily carried, and this Bill will prevent the American mails from being carried direct to Queenstown. The Bill is altogether for the benefit of Belfast; and those who send the Scotch mails through Belfast send them without their touching Dublin at all. A very few passengers indeed will be sent over this route, and it is for the benefit of those few passengers that this new route is to be devised to the absolute disfigurement of Dublin, and the injury of the city of Cork. I trust the House will pause before it assents to the Bill. It is a Bill which gives extraordinary and exceptional powers to a Railway Company to create a new Company in which they have no actual interest themselves. I hope that the House will decline to deal with the matter in its present shape.

I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, a point of Order in regard to this matter. You will observe, Sir, that the Motion stands on the Paper as an adjourned debate, and as an adjourned debate on a proposal to suspend certain Standing Orders, after which it is proposed to move "that the Bill be now taken into consideration." The Motion on the Paper was that which hon. Members have come down to this House to discuss; but, subsequently, I understood you to rule from the Chair that that Motion had been withdrawn—that is to say, that the debate on the Question upon which the debate was adjourned last week would not be taken, and that the Motion for resuming the adjourned debate was withdrawn. That being so, a new question has been started, and started, as I submit, without Notice. What I wish to put to you, Sir, is this—Whether, in regard to a Bill which hon. Gentlemen could have had no previous opportunity of discussing a new question without Notice, ought to be raised by an hon. Member simply taking off his hat at the Table when the Motion is one of which we have had no Notice whatever? What I submit is that the greatest inconvenience will arise if promoters are allowed to start in this House fresh questions without Notice, and to withdraw without Notice a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, thus taking the original question out of the purview of Members of this House. Having regard to the period of the Session at which this Motion is made, I respectfully submit that the Rules of the House, instead of being relaxed, ought to be maintained with the greatest stringency; and, therefore, I think the Motion ought now to drop as if it had never been made, and that the promoters should be left to their own devices hereafter. I maintain that a new precedent is now being made with regard to Private Bills, which will be keenly watched by learned counsel and by promoters generally with regard to the pushing forward, at late periods of the Session, Bills against which objection may be taken. I think, Sir, that your ruling, in a case of this kind, will be of great importance, and that some result in one way or another will necessarily follow your decision.

In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I may say that I do not think there has been any deviation from the ordinary practice. I hold in my hand the Notice deposited in the Private Bill Office, which states that the Bill would be taken into consideration on Friday July 22nd, and a Motion was accordingly placed on the Paper for the suspension of certain Standing Orders. But when the Motion was called on in the usual course, objection was taken to it, and the debate was adjourned. Part of the Notice given was that the Bill be now taken into consideration, which means "that the Bill be now considered." That was sufficient Notice. The reason why the suspension of the Standing Orders is not pressed was that the suspension of the Standing Orders has been rendered unnecessary by the mere lapse of time. If the Motion had been taken before the three days had expired, the Standing Orders would necessarily have been applicable, but i owing to the lapse of time the necessity of suspension no longer exists. I think there has been ample Notice of the Question "that the Bill be now taken into consideration."

I speak both as a Northern Representative and as a citizen of Dublin. I quite agree that the construction of this bridge may cause some disfigurement to the city; but, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that the North of Ireland would benefit very greatly, inasmuch as it would mean the continuance of the American Mail Service viâ Dublin and Queenstown. There ought to have been a central station in Dublin years ago, and it cannot be denied that in consequence of the absence of proper facilities for through communication, a great fear now exists lest the American Mail Service may be lost. I waited, as one of the deputation, upon the Postmaster General last year upon that subject, and we were distinctly warned that unless a connection were made between Kingsbridge and Westland Row, it would be impossible to continue the existing service of the American mails. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford says that this Bill has nothing to do with the American mails, but the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that when the mails are now run to Westland Row, they have to be transferred and driven across the city to Kingsbridge, whereas if this line were constructed, they would be taken by rail to Kingsbridge, and time would be saved.

How many miles would they have to be taken round the city?

I know that there is a danger of disfiguring the city if the line is constructed as proposed; and if hon. Members could assure me that the rival line has any chance of being made, and that the capital for its construction is guaranteed, I might be induced to alter my vote; but, seeing the absolute certainty of the American Mail Service being lost to Ireland, unless something is done speedily, I prefer to pay regard to the prosperity of the country, and I shall vote for the Motion.

The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has said that he will vote for this Bill because there is a danger that, if it does not pass, Dublin may lose the American mails. He further believes that if the Bill were passed to enable the American mails to be conveyed direct to Kingsbridge, and then on to Queenstown, he should prefer that route; but he thinks there is no probabilty of that line being made now. Although we must remember that that Bill has not yet been passed into law, and will not come into operation for, perhaps, a month or two, the line which the present Bill relates to was passed some years ago. I therefore cannot agree that the House has anything before it to induce it to arrive at the conclusion that the line in connection with which the present Bill has been introduced has had a better chance of being more speedily made than the line which is dealt with by the Bill now before the House. One great objection we take to the Motion has reference to the question of Notice. We say that it comes before the House by surprise. We say that hon. Members generally have not had a full and adequate opportunity of considering the important questions which are dealt with by the Bill. We say that the Bill has been sprung upon this House, and sprung upon the public of Ireland, in a manner for which we were altogether unprepared. I do not allege that there has been any wilful attempt to mislead the House and the public; but I say that the proceedings of the promoters of the Bill have been of a character to produce that impression. Therefore, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Seeing that the question has been discussed now for an hour and a half, I think a decision may be taken without a further adjournment.

I rise to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and I do so for this reason—because I think some further time should be given to Members of this House to consider the question, and look more fully into it. In my opinion, it is a question which ought really to be left to the decision of the Irish people. Probably there may be a few Irish Members who are in favour of the scheme; but there is not the slightest doubt that the majority of the Irish Members against the scheme is at least five to one. There is no division among the Irish Party as to the merits of the Bill; and their opinion is not shared by one Party alone, for one of the first hon. Members to speak against the Bill was a Member of the Conservative Party opposite—the hon. Member for Cambridge. The chief ground on which I oppose the Bill is that not a single reason has yet been given in favour of the scheme.

I must remind the hon. Member that the question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.

I do not propose to go into the merits of the Bill; but I rose to support the Motion for Adjournment, in order to afford the English Members an opportunity of considering the question, and talking it over privately with the Irish Members before they come to a final decision. The question to us who live in the City of Dublin, and who take an interest in everything which concerns the welfare of that city, is a very important question. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the construction of this line will disfigure the City of Dublin; and as that is a matter of the highest importance to Dublin, I think it is a desirable thing that the debate should be adjourned, in order that the English Members should have an opportunity of considering the matter, instead of prolonging the discussion, as it must be prolonged if a final decision is to be taken now.

I hope the Government will consent to the adjournment of the debate. The Motion has now assumed an entirely different aspect from that which it had upon the Notice Paper, in which it is stated that it was a Motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. A very strong feeling has been expressed upon the question by three of the Irish Judges—including Mr. Justice Harrison and Baron Dowse. I therefore submit that the Government ought to accept the proposal now made, taking into consideration the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with, and attempted to be smuggled through the House. I should certainly like to hear what the Parlia- mentary Under Secretary for Ireland has to say in regard to the matter.

In the first place, I would ask the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy), who has moved the adjournment of the debate, to withdraw the Motion. The question has been very fully discussed already, and I believe that if the House goes to a Division on the Main Question the measure will in all probability be thrown out. It has been opposed strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and objections have been urged against the disfigurement of the city. I may say that although. I supported the Motion on a previous occasion, I only did so because I was of opinion that some communication should be made between Westland Row and Kings-bridge. If any other scheme could be proposed by which the same object could be carried out in a less objectionable manner, I should have been prepared to support it.

Upon the question which ha3 been raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, that this is a new Motion, I must point out that I have already explained that the Motion, as it stands on the Paper, consists of three things—First, that certain Standing Orders should be suspended; secondly, that the Bill be now taken into consideration; and, thirdly, there is a provision that amended prints should have been previously deposited. The time has now elapsed for the suspension of the Standing Orders, and copies of the Bill have been actually deposited, so that the only remaining Motion is, "That the Bill be now considered." The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) says that further time is required for the discussion of the matter; but I may remind him that the real point under discussion now is not the construction of the bridge across the Liffey, or the making of this railway. Those points were settled by the Act of 1834, and the question now before the House is simply the propriety of altering the financial arrangements as they were originally made. The only question to be considered is the financial question, and I submit that no sufficient reason has been given why the Bill should not be considered.

I trust the House will pause before they allow the Bill to be considered now. I do not believe there are a dozen English Members in the House who have taken the trouble to look at the Bill, and I think that if there was an adjournment, and they did look at the Bill, they would assuredly vote against it. I think it is a monstrous thing that English Members, who are very imperfectly acquainted with the nature of the question raised by the measure, should be prepared to go into the Lobby against the unanimous wish of the Irish Members, without taking the trouble of studying the provisions of the Bill.

Under the circumstances I will not press the Motion for Ajournment.

I now rise for the purpose of asking hon. Members on the other side of the House to declare themselves on this question. The reason why I supported the adjournment of the debate was that, while we had had an overwhelming declaration from the Members who represent Ireland, we had heard no declaration from hon. Members opposite as to what their view is. We are, therefore, in darkness as to the course about to be adopted by the Government or by hon. Members opposite. The only person who gave us any indication of the views of the Government was the Postmaster General, and his statement, as far as we could understand it, was that the Government were strongly in favour of the Bill. So far as he was concerned, he was in favour of it for one reason, and one reason only—namely, that it would facilitate the transmission of the American mails. But that argument has been shown to be altogether erroneous, because there is a better scheme already before the House. The present scheme, in relation to the transmission of the American mails, is an extremely bad one, and makes a most ineffectual provision for the conveyance of the mails. It is not questioned that if this line were constructed it would only accelerate the transmission of the mails by about 10 minutes. The point really before the House is whether this line should be constructed or not, because, as I understand, the promoters cannot construct it without the passing of this Bill. That is the reason they have brought the Bill forward. We all know that it is an expensive matter to bring in a Private Bill, and I want to know why the line has not been constructed long ago? I think we ought to have some slight indication of what the opinion of the Government is before we consent to go to a Division. I was stopped just now by you, Sir, in discussing the merits of the Bill, because the question before the House was simply a Motion for the adjournment of the debate. I do not profess to understand the whole merits of the question; but what I do say is this—it is a proposal which is intensely obnoxious to the citizens of Dublin, a proposal deliberately to destroy one of the finest views in the whole City of Dublin, and utterly to destroy the appearance of the most beautiful building in it. Anybody who will cross the O'Connell Bridge, and look down towards the Custom House, will agree with what I say. It must further be borne in mind that no single reason has been given to the House in favour of the Bill. I am at a loss to know on what grounds the persons who are interested in the measure propose to invest their money in it, because I am convinced that they will never see a single shilling of it back. Not a single ton of goods will pass over the line in the course of a day, and there will be very few passengers, except those who prefer to rush through Dublin without putting up at some hotel for a single half-hour. The line, when constructed, may pay its expenses; but I am satisfied it can never pay interest on the capital invested in it. I am, therefore, at a loss to know what reason has actuated the persons who propose to find the money, I think I am entitled to ask, before such a Bill is passed, that the promoters and others who are interested in it should stand up and give us some special reason in favour of the scheme. No reason whatever has, as yet, been given, and until I hear some satisfactory reason I shall strongly oppose the Bill. In point of fact, what will this Bill do if the line is constructed? It will simply relieve some 20 or 30 passengers in the City of Dublin, for it will enable them to dispense with the necessity of hiring a cab. Surely it cannot be contended seriously that it is worth while to disfigure the City of Dublin, and spend £300,000, in order to relieve some 20 people daily from the expense of hiring a cab. No goods will go by the line, and no passengers, except those who are in a violent hurry, and the only saving of time will be about 10 minutes. It certainly seems, on the face of it, preposterous that such a Bill should be thrust down the throats of the House of Commons. Therefore, I challenge the promoters of the Bill to stand up and declare what their ideas are in making this proposal.

As a Member of the Committee which sat on the Bill promoted by the Great Western and Southern Railway Company I may say that we were strongly impressed by the fact that although the promoters of the present Bill had had three or four years for making their line they had neglected to do so; and there was a great risk of the American mail traffic being lost to Ireland altogether if something was not done without further delay. I believe that in making this statement I am expressing the opinion of the Members of the Committee.

The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has asked me to express my opinion on the matter. All I have to say is that four years ago I was examined before the Committee which passed the present Bill, and, to the best of my recollection, the evidence I gave was to the effect that the bridge proposed to be constructed would certainly disfigure the city, and I think I was supported in that view by almost every gentleman whose opinion was worth having. At the same time, there was a certain extent of feeling in favour of the line being made, because there appeared to be no prospect of any alternative scheme being carried out. There seems now to be every chance of an alternative line being made, by means of which not only will the financial difficulty be got over, but a shorter line will be constructed. I think that will get rid of the difficulties which have hitherto stood in the way of effecting a satisfactory communication between Westland Row and Kingsbridge.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the present difficulties of Irish landlords, the Government can do anything to relieve them from the hardship of being compelled to serve as high sheriffs against their will, at a largo expense; whether, as a matter of fact, owing to general unwillingness to servo, the duty falls very hard on those loyal men who resist less than others; why Mr. H. C. Levinge, of Knockdrin Castle, County Westmeath, within a few months of two successive devolutions of the property, was, against his will, compelled to serve as high sheriff; why that gentleman was, in spite of his many protests, retained in office beyond the year, and obliged to pay the expenses for a year and a-half; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant will consider the equity and propriety of reimbursing him for at least the extra half-year?

(who replied) said: I quite agree, and the Government are also aware of the great hardship which exists in compelling persons to serve in the office of High Sheriff, which, though now practically an honorary one, entails considerable personal expense upon them personally. It is, however, probable that legislation dealing with the subject generally will be introduced at an early date. The duty does, at the present time, fall very hard on those who finally undertake to serve, and who do not press their refusal. I am not aware as to the devolution of property in Mr. Levinge's case, which, however, is, I understand, of considerable value; but he was, against his will, compelled to serve, and, owing to a difficulty in obtaining a successor to him, it was necessary for him to remain in office beyond the year. The Government, while fully sympathizing with Mr. Levinge in regard to the extra expense involved thereby, regret that there are no funds at their disposal oat of which he could be reimbursed.

Is it not contrary to custom to require any gentleman to serve more than one year?

Fortunately, such a case very seldom occurs; but, within my own knowledge, cases have occurred two or three times within the last two years.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of a memorial to the Board of Trade from the principal inhabitants and tradesmen of Dartmouth and the neighbourhood, complaining, amongst other things, that the only railway station accommodation, being a small pontoon, "was wholly insufficient for the traffic, and extremely dangerous in use, especially upon public occasions, such as regattas, &c," Colonel Rich, having inspected the said station or pontoon as instructed by the Board of Trade, reported on the 20th of November 1884 "that the complaints enumerated in the memorial are substantially correct," and recommended "that the Great Western Railway Company be urged to build proper and safe station accommodation at Dartmouth;" whether, in accordance with this Report, the Board of Trade has urged that Company to provide the accommodation necessary for the safety and convenience of the public; whether the said Company has been for many years in possession of a site acquired for the purpose of such station; whether, although two years and eight months have elapsed since the date of Colonel Rich's Report, the said station or pontoon remains without alteration or improvement in the same dangerous state at the present time; and, whether, as the said station or pontoon was not inspected previously to the opening of the railway for public traffic, and no mention is made thereof in the Board of Trade Report of August 1864 authorising such opening, the Board of Trade will now take steps for the purpose of securing the safety and accommodation of the public during the present excursion season and approaching regatta, in accordance with the recommendation of their inspector, Colonel Rich?

The facts are correctly set out in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question. The Board of Trade have no authority to give any directions to the Company with reference to the accommodation to be provided. They have, however, communicated again with the Company, who are anxious to arrive at a settlement of the matter, and who state that it is hoped that at a meeting of all parties interested, which is arranged for the 9th or 12th August, all questions at issue may be disposed of.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the sum spent in extra pay and travelling expenses on eviction duty, expenses of protection posts on evicted farms, &c, and of escorts and special guards by the Royal Irish Constabulary during April, May, and June 1887?

(who replied) said, that the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary reported that, to furnish this information, it would be necessary for the District-Inspectors—125 in number—to search through those items for all the months named. It would not be practicable to give the Return in less than a month, and the Inspector General also stated that, in the more disturbed districts, the preparation of the Returns would probably interfere with the ordinary police duties. Under those circumstances, the Government would not feel themselves justified in calling for the information.

In consequence of the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I shall call attention to this matter on the Vote for the Irish Police, and move that the Government in future furnish proper Returns monthly.

asked, could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when a Return of the expenses of the Military and Constabulary Expeditions to Bodyke would be furnished?

said, the hon. Gentleman should put the Question on the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many spirit grocers are there in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District, and what is the gross amount they pay for licences annually; and, how many inspectors and police are employed specially to watch this class of licences, and what is the annual cost of this police supervision?

(who replied) said, there were 229 spirit grocers in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District. The Irish Government had no knowledge of the amount they paid for licences; there were no police or other constables specially employed to look after them.

May I ask whether spirit grocers require any more looking after than the publicans?

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has received any report regarding a serious attack made, on the 14th May last, upon Charles Robertson, in Kinreachie, of Aviemore, Inverness-shire, aged 78 years, by a neighbouring farmer, who felled him to the ground, and otherwise maltreated the old man; and, whether he will cause an impartial inquiry into the circumstances?

, in reply, said, he had sent for information on the matter; but it had not yet reached him. He should be obliged to the hon. Member if he would repeat his Question on Friday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many clerks are employed in Dublin in the office of the Collector General of Rates; if the head clerk received last year, in addition to his salary of £400, £100 as acting collector general, and over £200 for extra work done; if the other clerks were paid for extra work in the same proportion; what was the nature of the extra work, and whether it could not have been easily performed in the ordinary office hours; what is the amount paid to the clerks in the Collector General of Rates Office, in salaries, allowances, and extras respectively, in 1885 and 1886; and, if there is any work being performed in the office now?

(who replied) said: The staff of clerks in the Collector General of Rates Office is a chief clerk and nine other clerks. The chief clerk received in 1886, in addition to his salary a sum of £100, which was awarded to him by the late Government for the extra trouble and responsibility thrown upon him during the serious illness of the Collector General. He also received a sum of £77, not over £200 as alleged, for extra work outside office hours. The other clerks who took extra work, received also sums in proportion to their salaries. The extra work done is the preparation of the rate books, ledgers, and collecting book for the new year, the making out of lists of arrears, vacancies, and insolvencies. The Collector General reports that those are duties which must be performed in a limited time, when the office work is most pressing; and that they could not be performed during office hours, if for no other reason than that the books are in full use throughout those hours. The work was never done in any other way. The payments referred to have been as follows:—In 1885, salaries £2,819, scrivenry £302; in 1886, salaries £2,861, scrivenry £320. There is no extra work being performed in the office now; but a temporary extra clerk has been employed for two months at £2 a-week in preparation for the annual audit.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the supply of mutton for the soldiers stationed at Lydd, in Kent, comes entirely from abroad; that the contract price is 5d. per pound; that this is the price now obtainable by the home producers of the district; and, whether the contract has been offered to and refused by them?

(who replied) said, the contract was put up to public competition by advertisement, and was secured by a butcher in the neighbourhood. He could not say how much was paid for mutton; but the price paid for meat for the barracks was nearly 6d. per pound all round.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Who are the tenants of the Martello towers at Monkstown and Blackrock, County Dublin; what the condition of the tenancies are; and, when they cease?

(who replied) said, the towers were let to Mr. T. W. Robinson, of Dublin, at £7 each. They were held under a repairing agreement, which was terminable upon three months notice on either side; but, by the War Department, the agreement might be terminated summarily subject to a small penalty.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government pays the passage back to England of destitute Englishmen found in India who are desirous of returning home; and, whether the India Office will take any steps towards defraying the cost of sending home three Natives of the Punjaub, who, being quite destitute, are at present confined in the workhouse of St. George's (Hanover Square) Union, and are chargeable upon the ratepayers of the said parish?

It is not the general practice of the Government of India to defray, out of the Revenues of India the passages of destitute Englishmen. The Secretary of State does not consider that the relief of the three Natives of the Punjaub now in Marylebone Workhouse, or of destitute Indians in England generally, would be a proper application of the Revenues of India.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the large and influential meeting of magistrates and representative men from different parts of the County of Down, held in Downpatrick on Saturday the 16th July, for the purpose of impressing on the Government the necessity for increased mail accommodation between Belfast and Newtownards, Downpatrick and other towns, in the county; and, whether he has yet made final arrangements for providing the additional service required?

My attention has previously been called to the meeting held at Downpatrick on the 16th July, in reference to the mail service between Belfast and Newtownards, Downpatrick, &c; and I can assure the hon. Member that I am quite as anxious as the meeting was to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question. As regards the second part of the question of the hon. Member, I can only say I have not yet received a final answer from the Treasury upon the subject referred to; but that no time shall be lost in informing the persons interested of the decision when arrived at.

May I ask can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee, considering all the time that has been spent over the matter, that the decision will be obtained before the Appropriation Bill comes on?

Yes; I hope to announce it long before then.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he Is aware that the district inspector, head constable, sergeant, and acting-sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Magherafelt, in the Comity of Derry, are all of them Protestants; whether a Catholic sergeant and three Catholic constables were recently removed from Magherafelt, and a Protestant sergeant and Protestant constables sent there instead; whether he can state the reason for removing the Catholic policemen from Magherafelt, and in having none but Protestant officers in that station; and whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt this practice generally, or only in counties where evictions have taken place or are likely to take place?

(who replied) said, that at Magherafelt the District Inspector was a Protestant, the head constable was a Presbyterian, but the sergeant was a Roman Catholic, acting as such in the absence of one who was on temporary duty elsewhere. A Catholic sergeant was recently transferred upon his marriage in accordance with the Regulations, and he was replaced by a man of the same religious persuasion. In the removals rendered necessary by the exigencies of the Public Service, a Roman Catholic sergeant had been temporarily replaced by a Protestant; but the former would return when his present term of duty expired.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," being the first appeal heard by the Land Commissioners, the Court valuer's valuation was not made known to the litigants until after evidence of value had been given by both sides; whether for some time subsequent to the hearing of that case it was the practice to make known the amount of the Court valuer's valuation during the sitting of the Court; and, whether subsequently it became the practice to make known the amount of the Court valuer's valuation by sending a statement thereof to the litigants by post before the case came on for hearing, and, in some instances, before the cases were even listed for hearing; if so, whether he is still prepared to state that the Court valuer's valuation was from the commencement made known to the litigants before the case came on for hearing, and that there was no change in practice regarding these valuations until December 1884?

(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners state that in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" it was decided that the report of the Court valuer should be communicated to the parties after the hearing of the evidence, and not before. A short time afterwards—the precise date is not recorded—the Commissioners determined to give the amount of the valuation to the parties when asked for, but no other portion of the document, and this was frequently done during the sitting in Court. It subsequently became the practice to communicate the valuation by post, or otherwise, to litigants. The reply to the previous Question on the subject was in substance correct. There was, however, a misunderstanding on the part of the Commissioners, when preparing the answer, as to the point raised, they being under the impression that it related to the former practice of having free valuations and the subsequent practice of having valuations paid for by the appellants, and as to the reasons of the next change to valuations at the discretion, of the Court, and to the effect of these changes.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a man named Moss, employed by the Landlords' Emergency Association to act as caretaker of an evicted farm at Newton Hyland, St. Margaret's, county Dublin, engaged a Dublin carman to convey him to that place on the 28th May last; whether, when he was asked for his fare, Moss attacked the carman with a long knife, and then threatened to shoot him with a revolver; whether, on the carman reporting the occurrence at the Finglas Police Station, and the police, in consequence, interfering, Moss paid the fare and induced the carman to withdraw the charge made against him; whether the police reported the case to their superior; if so, whether any and what steps have been taken to bring Moss to justice; and, whether it is true that the police in no less than three stations—namely, Finglas, Hollywood, and the Ward, have been for weeks employed protecting this "emergency man," to the neglect of other and more important duties?

(who replied) said, it appeared that Moss did employ a Dublin carman, but the carman made no complaint to the police of having been attacked with a knife or threatened with a revolver. Moss had paid the fare, which was accepted by the carman, though it appeared after some altercation, before the case was reported to the police of Moss having admitted that he had a revolver, and that he fired shots with it, and the police having discovered that he had no Excise licence he was to be prosecuted. The police had been looking after two evicted farms in the neighbourhood, and so had incidentally afforded Moss, who was caretaker, protection, but had not done so by any means exclusively.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the impression created by his replying for the Metropolitan Board of Works that the Government are in some way responsible for the action of that Board, and whereas three Members of that Board have seats in the House, he will revert to the custom of allowing the Board to reply by their senior Member in the House?

I think it would be undesirable that the Government should be supposed to interfere with the responsibility and discretion of the Metropolitan Board of Works, by answering Questions in which that Board is alone interested, in cases where we have no power by law to interfere, and I propose to communicate with the Chairman on the subject of questions relating to the action of the Board, and affecting their interests, that they should be answered by the senior member of the Board, who has a seat in this House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any regulations exist respecting the tearing down of placards announcing public meetings by the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of such Regulations upon the Table; and, with whom rests the decision as to the presumed illegality of such placards?

(who replied) said, it was the duty of the police to remove all placards which might have a tendency to cause a breach of the public peace. Their action, in all such cases, must, to a great extent, depend upon the local circumstances, or the necessity of the time; and for those matters, the officer under whose orders they were was responsible.

Are there any written instructions to the police on the subject; or am I to understand that, in the opinion of the Government, each individual policeman acts on his own discretion?

The constables act under written instructions, one of which is, that any placards calculated to promote a breach of the peace are to be removed, and they may remove them.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, lay these written instructions on the Table of the House?

I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gen- tleman if, in any case, the constable tears down a placard which is proved to be legal, how is the responsibility of the constable or other officer to be made liable?

In the same manner as if he exceeded his duty in any other respect.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in view of the public interest in the mission of Mr. Stanley, the Government will cause inquiries to be made, so far as possible, of the present position of the Expedition, and particularly as to the reports now made of the death of the gallant explorer?

There are no means of communicating with Mr. Stanley's Expedition. Reports are sent by Mr. Stanley to the Committee by whom the Expedition was despatched. The report of Mr. Stanley's death is disbelieved by the Committee and by the authorities of the Congo Free State, and Her Majesty's Government see no reason to believe it. I may say that before coming to the House, I received a copy of a letter from the Minister of the Congo Free State at Brussels to Her Majesty's Minister there, giving reasons for entirely disbelieving the report. As I think that letter, or the substance of it, has already appeared in the newspapers, I need not trouble the House with it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is now in a position to give the House any information with reference to the Boundary Question between British Guiana and Venezuela?

The Government of Venezuela having broken off diplomatic relations with Her Majesty's Government, negotiations for the settlement of the Boundary Question are at present interrupted. Pending a settlement of the question, the territory within the boundary line proposed by Sir R. Schomberg will be treated by the Government of British Guiana as belonging to the Colony. The claim of the Colony to a more extended frontier is not withdrawn; but, for the present, remains in abeyance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that, at the inquiry into the Regent Street arrest case at Scotland Yard on Friday last, a woman named Fernando Pietre tendered her evidence, and asked that her name and address might not be made public; and, whether the Chief Commissioner, addressing the representatives of the Press, said—"If you give the name I will turn you all out;" and, if so, whether the inquiry, being an open one, anything transpiring in the Court is to be suppressed upon the order of the Chief Commissioner?

I am informed by Sir Charles Warren that when the witness in question gave her reasons previously to giving her evidence for not wishing her name and address to be published, Mr. Horace Smith, the legal assessor, said he hoped that those reasons were not at present being taken down by the reporters, as he did not know yet whether the witness would choose to be examined. Sir Charles Warren saw a reporter apparently, in spite of Mr. Smith's remarks, putting down the reasons, and he warned him that unless he desisted he should turn him out. Sir Charles Warren is assisted by very competent legal advice, and I am unwilling to interfere with his discretion so far as the conduct of the inquiry is concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that at the weekly petty sessions at Kingston on Thames, on the 14th instant, Sergeant Crook, of the Surrey Constabulary, applied for an extension of time for the sale of liquor on behalf of the "Bear" public house, and the "White Lion," at Cobham, and that the magistrates granted both the applications at the request of the sergeant, without either of the holders of the licences being present; and, if he will take steps to prevent such applications in future?

I have obtained a report from the clerk to the justices pointing out that the law does not compel publicans to apply personally for an extension of hours; and that being so, it does not appear that there has been any infraction of the licensing law. I have no authority to lay down the law in the matter; but I certainly think it would be better if these applications were not made by the police.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When it is proposed to introduce the Technical Education Bill for Scotland; and, whether it is intended to carry it on pari passu with the English Bill?

, in reply, said, that the proposals of the Government with regard to technical education in Scotland would be shortly announced, and the same facilities would be afforded for Scotch as for English legislation on this subject. He hoped the Scotch Bill would be introduced within one or two days.

Does that also apply to Ireland?

Yes, Sir; Ireland is included.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the ease that a final settlement of the Afghan Frontier Question has been arrived at with the Russian Government?

The terms of a settlement of the Afghan Northern Frontier have been signed by the British and Russian Commissioners, and only require the acceptance of the Governments concerned.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to inform the House when Moukhtar Pasha will leave Egypt?

No, Sir, I cannot give any information on the subject.

asked, whether Her Majesty's Government had taken any steps to induce the Porte to procure the speedy withdrawal of Moukhtar Pasha from Egypt?

I think the House will see that it would be a very grave matter to put pressure on the Porte to withdraw its officer from a part of its own territory.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now state a probable date at which the War Office will decide as to the adoption of a magazine rifle; and, whether he can state how long it would probably take thereafter to have a supply of 100,000 rifles available for service?

The Military Authorities are unanimous in the opinion, in which I concur, that further trials are necessary before a final decision can be arrived at as to the type of magazine rifle to be adopted for our Service. It is, therefore, impossible for me now to name a definite date for this decision. The time that would be occupied in manufacture would also depend to a considerable extent on the type of rifle adopted.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Whether the designation of Her Majesty as Queen and Empress by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff in his despatches from Constantinople is in accordance with usage; and, whether the introduction of such designation by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is to be regarded as a precedent?

The designation in question does not transgress the exclusion of its use in instruments whose operation extends only to the United Kingdom, which is the only exception enjoined by the Royal Proclamation of 28th April, 1876.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will now state his decision as to the release or otherwise of the four defendants convicted along with Mr. Williams by Mr. De Rutzen, who are still in prison?

I have carefully examined the evidence before the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the decision of the Court in Williams's case, and I do not find anything bearing on the cases of the other prisoners. But the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions in Pole's case, by which his sentence was reduced to two months, appears to me to have an important bearing on the cases of the other defendants who have not appealed, and whose cases do not differ in kind from that of Pole. There is, however, an appeal in one of these cases, and of Stafford, which has been heard to-day, and I think it is proper that I should wait until I have considered the result of that appeal before tendering my advice to Her Majesty as to the other defendants.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that successive Governments have acknowledged the justice of the claims of the Irish National Teachers to some beneficicial legislation; whether there is any intention this Session on the part of the Government to ameliorate the very hard lot of the teachers; whether there was a small increase made to the salaries of the teachers in 1879; whether the increase averaged £4 per teacher in the service; whether the total sum allocated to this purpose was £46,000; whether, considering the deductions made from the salaries of teachers for the purposes of the pension fund, and the loss of income consequent on the apathy of non - contributing unions, the average increase of £4 per teacher is practically illusory; and, whether, pending future remedial legislation for this most deserving class, he can see his way to recommend the Government to follow the precedent of 1879, by giving a grant in aid, say, equal to an average increase of salary of £10 per teacher in the service, which would for the present tide over dissatisfaction and difficulty?

(who replied) said: The entire question relating to the position of the Irish National School teachers is most complex, and cannot properly be dealt with within the limits of a Question. The Government are not yet in a position to come to any decision in the matter.

In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I wish to give Notice that on the Estimates I will raise the whole question of the status of National School Teachers in Ireland.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement in a letter in the Daily News of the 21st instant, signed by the Hon. Secretary of the North Hants Liberal Association:—

"In the district of Crookham I saw a gentleman come to the poll with his servant, whose name had been struck out by the Revising Barrister, and who had been informed of that fact by my son, to whom he admitted that he had no qualification. Yet his master brought him to the poll to swear that he was another of the same name. Afterwards that other applied to vote, but could only tender a vote which contributed nothing to the issue, like that of the personator and perjurer;"

and, whether the facts are as stated; and, if so, whether he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take action in the matter?

In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have to state that I hare no means of judging whether the facts are as stated, inasmuch as the newspaper extract contains no names. As the offence suggested is of a most grave character, I certainly should not direct the Public Prosecutor to take proceedings upon the strength of a newspaper paragraph. The hon. and learned Gentlemen, no doubt, knows perfectly well, as well as I do, that if the facts are as stated, they can be brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor in the usual way, or independent proceedings can be taken.

asked, whether the Attorney General was not the official representative of the Public Prosecutor in that House; if not, who was; and, whether, as the case had now been brought officially under his notice he would make the inquiries required of him under Section 45 of the Corrupt Practices Act?

There is no such thing as an official representative of the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor acts, in many cases, independently. It is only in some few instances that the Law Officers communicate with him with regard to giving him their sanction as to certain proceedings. I say, again, the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that if the facts are as stated, there is a ready means of bringing them under the notice of the Public Prosecutor.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have a Bill prepared for amending the Law of Limited Liability; and, whether, supposing they have abandoned the intention of passing such a Bill into Law this Session, they will introduce it in the House of Lords, so that its provisions may be fully discussed by the mercantile community during the Recess?

This subject has engaged the serious attention of the Government, and a Bill has been drafted; but the hon. Member is aware that it is a subject of very great difficulty, and, under all the circumstances, the Government do not think it desirable to legislate upon it in the course of the present Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, With regard to the recent announcement of the Secretary to the Treasury, that the requisite particulars touching the application for the grant of a city charter to Belfast had been placed by the municipality in the hands of the Irish Law Officers of the Crown for their consideration and report, whether the Government have yet advised the Crown to grant the charter?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him, if it is not a similar Question to that which I asked him on Tuesday, 14th June; and if, in accordance with an intimation from him, I have not been waiting for an occasion to repeat the Question. The hon. Member for West Belfast seems inclined to make political capital out of this matter by trying to monopolize Belfast Questions entirely.

May I ask, whether it is not a fact that while the hon. Member was away engaged in Orange processions in Ulster, I twice brought the matter before the House?

While I have no wish to enter into controversy between the hon. Members, it is a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast did, in the first instance, ask me, whether Her Majesty's Government thought it well to celebrate the Jubilee of Her Majesty, by conferring a City charter upon the town of Belfast; and I told the hon. Gentleman that the Government were of opinion it was not desirable to connect the Jubilee with an event of such a character. The subject, however, has since had the attention of the Government, and we are informed by the Irish Law Officers that they are of opinion it is competent for the Government to grant a charter for the City of Belfast. The subject is receiving the attention of the Government.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Standard of Friday last, signed "Arthur Pryor," and headed "A terrible List;" attached to which letter is a record of farms in one district in the county of Essex, showing 3,527 acres to be out of cultivation, and 17,945 acres to be in the hands of landlords who are unable to find tenants for the same; whether he is aware that a similar state of things exists in many other counties; and, whether the Government will take some steps or propound some scheme whereby a practical remedy for the same can be found?

My attention has been drawn to the letter which the hon. Member quotes, and I am aware that a similar state of things exists, though I hope in a less degree, in other parts of the country. The Government regard this as a very serious matter indeed; and if any hon. Member can make a suggestion of any kind which will enable us to find a practical remedy, we shall receive such suggestion with gratitude, and give it our best consideration.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is disposed to take into consideration the proposals and the schemes laid before the House by the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) when he brought forward this matter?

I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirableness of resumption by the Crown of those valuable lands now allowed to go to waste by their owners?

The Government are now asking for a remedy for the existing condition of things under which it is difficult to cultivate the land with profit. If any hon. Gentleman can give a practical suggestion for a remedy for that state of things, it will receive careful consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with any of the three important Bills which they have announced relating to Scotland—namely, the Secretary for Scotland Bill, the Universities Bill, and the Technical Instruction Bill, but which have not yet been introduced in either House of Parliament; and, whether, having regard to the late period of the Session, he can promise that any of these Bills which the Government still intend to press forward shall be introduced without further delay?

The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the Secretary for Scotland Bill will be shortly introduced. I have every reason to hope that it will be introduced in the House of Lords in the course of the present week. As regards the University Bill, there are some financial details which have caused some difficulty and delay in dealing with; but I trust they may be overcome in the course of the next few days. The Technical Education Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Vice President has said, will also be introduced very shortly.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland two Questions of which I have given him private Notice. They refer to the Proclamations which have been issued in Ireland. I wish to ask him, Whether anything has happened to explain the extension of these Proclamations over almost the whole of Ireland, since his assurance given to the House that there are parts of Ireland in which the law is at this moment as well obeyed as in any part of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, I wish to ask him, in view of the assurances then given by the late Attorney General for Ireland, that the proceedings of the Privy Council were of a purely formal character, how it was that Mr. Justice Monroe and three other judicial personages attended, or are alleged to have attended, the proceedings on Saturday?

I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Is it true, as stated in The Times of this day, that a meeting of the Irish Privy Council was held in Dublin Castle on Saturday afternoon, at which were present General His Serene Highness the Prince of Saxe Weimar, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Chief Secretary, the Vice Chancellor, the right hon. J. T. Ball, L.L.D., and Mr. Justice Monroe; whether the meeting lasted two hours, during which the Privy Council were chiefly occupied in drawing up the Proclamations necessary for putting the Crimes Act into operation; whether the Vice Chancellor and Mr. Justice Monroe are both members of the Irish Judicial Bench; whether Mr. Justice Monroe was sworn a Member of the Irish Privy Council after his elevation to the Bench; whether the Government stated, through the mouth of the late Attorney General for Ireland, now Mr. Justice Holmes, on the 15th June, 1887, that it was not intended to consult the Members of the Irish Judiciary in reference to the administration of the Crimes Bill; and, finally, whether the right hon. Gentleman has any, and if so, what explanation for this departure from the understanding on which the Crimes Act was passed; and, whether he has any reason, and if so, what reason, for converting the Irish Judiciary into agents of the Executive Government?

I have to say that it is true that the Privy Council, as named in the Question by the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Neill), were present on Saturday. It is true that a large portion of the business done related to the Proclamations to be issued under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act. It is not, I think, true, as far as I recollect, that the Council sat for two hours, but it is true that they sat for a considerable time, not because they were occupied during the time in consultation, for there was no consultation. There was no consultation—as I will explain in one moment. The delay arose out of some clerical errors which had been committed in the Proclamations. Then I am asked, whether Mr. Justice Monroe was sworn a Member of the Privy Council after his elevation to the Judicial Bench? That, I believe, is true, though it does not appear to be very relevant to the remainder of the Question. Then, as to whether it was stated in this House by the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) that it was not intended to consult the Judges with reference to the administration of the Crimes Bill, I may reply that the Judges were not consulted upon that subject. As the House is aware, the assembling of the Privy Council to conduct business of this kind is of a purely formal character. It is intended to give, and it does give, solemnity to the action of the Executive. But neither in Ireland nor in England is it the custom to debate questions when anything is done by the Privy Council gathered in that manner; and, therefore, whether it be right or not right that the Judges should be present on an occasion of that sort, it is strictly true that the Government did not consult the Judges with reference to the administration of the Act. That, I think, deals with the whole of that part of the Question. Then the hon. Member asks my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has any explanation for this departure from the understanding arrived at; but, as I have just told the hon. Member, there has been no departure from the understanding.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, as to whether there was any, and, if so, what, reason for converting the Irish Judiciary into agents of the Executive Government? They were not there to be consulted.

The hon. Gentleman refers me to an understanding on the faith of which he says the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act was passed, and which he quotes in the preceding paragraph of his Question. That understanding, as I have already said, has not been broken. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) asks me whether I have any reason to alter my opinion that parts of Ireland are as peaceful as any part of England? No, Sir. I have no reason to alter my opinion on that subject. What we have done with regard to the Proclamations under the Act is to apply Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 to Ireland generally. Sub-section 3 consists of three sub-heads. Sub-head A deals with rioting and unlawful assembly. That has already, by the action of Parliament, been made universal in Ireland, irrespective of any Proclamation; and the original form of the Amendment by which it was made universal irrespective of any Proclamation, moved by some hon. Gentleman from Ireland below the Gangway, was that the whole of Sub-section 3 should be made applicable, irrespective of Proclamations, to the whole of Ireland. I have carried out roughly the intention which the hon. Member appears to have had when he put the Amendment on the Paper. Sub-section B relates to the taking or holding by forcible possession. That is clearly not a sub-head which can, by any circumstances, be abused. It is a specific and definite offence, and if it takes place in any part of Ireland, in my opinion it ought to be dealt with effectively. With regard to Sub head C, that relates to obstructing the police, and it assimilates the law of Ireland to the existing law of England in that respect. Therefore, when I said that there were parts of Ireland which were as quiet as any part of England, by inference it may be understood that it would be a judicious course to assimilate the law in that respect. The House will see that the only part of the Act which has been made general throughout Ireland is that single sub-section of that single clause.

As to the provision in Clause 5, that the Lord Lieutenant may, when it appears necessary, by Proclamation declare the provisions of the Act which relate to proclaimed districts, I should like to ask whether the Irish Executive made any classification in their own mind of the counties in which it was necessary to prevent, and those in which it is necessary to punish crime?

In every case in which we have proclaimed under the Act, generally, any county in Ireland, we have done so because we have believed, either from the actual existence of crime or intimidation, the Act was necessary. No counties have been pro- claimed generally under the Bill where crime does not exist, if by crime is included, as it certainly ought to be, intimidation.

Are we to understand that, by the law of England, a person who commits an offence under Sub-head B of Sub-section 3 is liable to be tried by summary jurisdiction?

Without appeal?

It was Subsection 3 to which I referred.

As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman on Saturday, in company with the Judges, proclaimed the whole of Ireland to be subjected to this provision—namely,

"That any person who, within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land, shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land, or any part thereof, shall be punishable with six months' imprisonment by order of the Resident Magistrate."

Now, I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say that in any part of England such a thing can be done, and, if he cannot say that, will he say why he applies a law not applicable in England to any part of Ireland, which is as peaceable as England according to his own statement?

I have treated Sub-section 3 as a whole; and the right hon. Gentleman will notice, as I have before said, that this, which, I believe, is a purely Irish form of crime, is one which certainly ought to be punished wherever it exists.

Let me recall to the right hon. Gentleman's mind the fact that these words are perfectly applicable. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] I strongly advise hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches not to object to my asking these questions, or else they may drive us to further extremities. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] They seem to think that it is a very light matter. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] If hon. Gentlemen are silent, I will not make these observations; but if they will endeavour to interrupt me, I must do so. [Cries of "Go on!"] I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that, under this Act, this Sub-section B, which really amounts only to a question of trespass, or resistance to expulsion from a tenement, ought, to be applied to portions of Ireland which are perfectly peaceable?

; I believe the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his law. It does not apply to trespass.

asked whether the County of Kilkenny had been proclaimed, and whether the sole outrage there during the last quarter had been one case of an alleged threatening letter?

That is the case; Kilkenny is proclaimed; but I cannot, without Notice, give statistics as to offences.

asked, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland, under cover of an Order of the Privy Council, had not done what the House in Committee had refused?

It is not true that I have done by an Order in Council what the House has refused.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would state accurately what had been done in reference to the Proclamations?

I have already explained what has been done with regard to Ireland generally. [A VOICE: Antrim.] Antrim is included in what has been done with regard to Ireland generally, of course. The counties proclaimed under the whole Act are Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Kilkenny, King's County, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Mayo, Monaghan, Queen's County, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary, Waterford, and Wexford. The counties and cities of Dublin, Belfast, Carrickfergus, Cork, Drogheda, Galway, Londonderry, and Waterford have not been proclaimed under the Act generally, but only under Sub-section C.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could state, in the case of Donegal, which had been proclaimed, what cases of intimidation he had discovered in that county?

I think it would be most inconvenient to give statistics of this sort in regard to the different counties in the way of question and answer; but if the hon. Member desires information on any point, he can put a Question on the Paper.

asked, whether Done, gal and Monaghan, the only Ulster counties proclaimed generally, had been so proclaimed because they returned Nationalist Members?

That is not the reason. There is no connection between the two circumstances.

asked, whether, in some of the counties proclaimed the Judges of the recent Assizes had been presented with white gloves, in consequence of the absence of cases to try?

I must ask for Notice of the Question for Thursday.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to give a statement to the House showing accurately what had been done under the Proclamations, so that the people of Ireland might not have to grope their way through these Proclamations?

I think that would be convenient, and I will have it done.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can give the House any information respecting the unfortunate occurrence at Spithead on Saturday?

I can only answer the Question generally, as I did not know before coming down that the hon. Gentleman intended putting it to me. Four men were unfortunately injured, as stated in the newspapers, by the premature explosion of a saluting charge. They were taken to the hospital, and I am sorry to say one of the men died shortly after. The last report I heard of the remaining three was that they were progressing favourably.

Has the noble Lord no information as to the cause of the accident?

It is, as I stated, a saluting charge which exploded prematurely. Whether all the precautions that should have been taken were taken I cannot state.