asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board have considered the charge of neglect of duty brought by Mr. William Hegarty, of Curraghmacall, against Dr. Corry, Medical Dispensary Doctor of Drumquin, in the Castledery Union, County Tyrone; if he can state the effect of the Report of the Inspector; and, whether the Local Government Board have come to any decision thereupon?

(who replied) said, the Local Government Board had had correspondence with Dr. Corry in respect to the matter alluded to. There had not been a sworn inquiry held by an Inspector, as Dr. Corry had satisfactorily explained his conduct, and the Board did not see anything in the matter calling for further inquiry.

Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any objection to say what was the nature of the satisfactory explanation?

said, it seemed that, in the first instance, a ticket was brought to Dr. Corry which was not signed by the person whose name it bore, but which purported to be signed by a gentleman named Hamilton. Dr. Corry knew the signature of Dr. Hamilton, and was satisfied that the ticket did come from him. At 1 o'clock on the following morning it was brought back signed by Dr. Hamilton, and Dr. Corry went immediately and found that the case was by no means urgent, and gave the husband his opinion that his services would not be needed till 12 o'clock next day. Early in the forenoon the husband came again with another ticket, which he handed to Dr. Corry, informing him that he had telegraphed to Omagh for the services of Dr. Todd. Dr. Corry said in that case he could not interfere with Dr. Todd. The woman was delivered about G o'clock on that evening safely and satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the gun which was stated in The Globe of August 25 to have burst at Hounslow when tested by "a party of artillerymen," was made in Woolwich Arsenal, or where?

No official Report of the occurrence has been received; but it is understood that the gun which burst was a gun designed by Colonel Hope and tired by Colonel Hope himself, and that it burst with great violence at the first round. It was not made at Woolwich Arsenal.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that a Circular has, presumably with his sanction, been issued by the Adjutant General's Department, to the following effect:—

" No Band, in future, whether belonging to the Regular or Auxiliary Forces, will be permitted to play in public without the express sanction of the Commanding Officer of the Regiment or Battalion, or, if it belongs to the Auxiliary Forces, of the Officer Commanding the Regimental District or of the Officer Commanding the Auxiliary Artillery or Engineers, as the case may he, who will ascertain before giving sanction that nothing of a political tendency is likely to occur at the place the Band is to play. Whenever sanction for a Band playing is given, an immediate Report of it is to he made to his Office, stating place, date, and nature of occasion. Should it he found, while the Band is playing, that the meeting, party, & c, it is playing at is a political one, the Warrant or Non-commissioned Officer in charge will immediately withdraw the Band; "

if he will state the reasons for this Order; and, why Colonels of Volunteer Regiments, whose Bands are maintained by local subscriptions, are to be deprived of their present power over the Bands of their respective Regiments?

The Order quoted in the Question was not issued from the War Office. Bands, whether of the Army, Militia, or Volunteers, have been prohibited from playing in their military capacity at any entertainment organized for political purposes; and they have been further restricted, in the absence of special permission from the War Office, to their own military districts. No other curtailment of the power of colonels of Volunteer regiments over their bands is intended.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that, at the Potty Sessions of Middlewich, Cheshire, on Wednesday 24th August, John M'Convent, a young Irish lad, who had come from County Antrim in search of work, but had failed to secure more than five days' work, was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment with hard labour for bogging; whether the policeman who brought the charge stated in his evidence that, whilst in plain clothes, he told the prisoner that there was no police just about there; and, whether the punishment may be in part remitted?

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has received a Report from the Justices on this case. The prisoner, who is 25 years old, had been previously convicted of a similar offence a fortnight before, sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, and cautioned not to offend again. A plain clothes constable whom he met on the road told him no police lived near there; but cautioned him not to beg, as he would be apprehended. He was not destitute, as a silver watch and 1d. were found upon him. He appeared to the magistrates to be a regular vagrant; and as they informed the Secretary of State that professional tramps abound in this neighbourhood and commit frequent depredations the Secretary of State must decline to advise any interference.

asked the Postmaster General, Why the route taken by the postman of Great Sang-hall, Chester, on his return journey was altered about a year ago; whether the present route is considerably longer, and has caused complaint to be made to the Postmaster at Chester; whether the only household benefited is that of a Mr. Trelawny; and, what are the reasons, if any, against a return to the old practice?

I am sorry that the hon. Member who is responsible for this Question is not in his place, because I think the House will agree with me that it is a conspicuous instance of those trivial and frivolous Questions which ought not to engage the attention of Parliament. It should have been addressed to the Sub-Postmaster of Sanghall, who was quite competent to reply to it. However, as it has been asked, I can inform the hon. Member that the route referred to was altered to shorten the postman's walk. No additional benefit is conferred on Mr. Trelawny. One gentleman living 150 yards from the post office has made a complaint. He used to give the postman letters to post on his return journey. I fear that, as at present advised, I cannot revert to the old practice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fires, evidently incendiary, which have occurred near Rhode, King's County; whether it is a fact that a magistrate named Kerr refused to lend any assistance to put out the fire; whether the three local magistrates refused to attend a public meeting at Rhode, called to protest against the perpetration of these outrages and to offer a reward for the apprehension of the perpetrators; and, whether such a meeting of the priests and people of Rhode was held, under the presidency of the Rev. Mr. O'Brien, and the sum of £20 subscribed on the spot towards such a reward?

(who replied) said: The attention of the Executive has been called to the fires which have recently occurred in King's County, and the police are actively engaged in making inquiries in the matter. I am informed that it is not the case that Mr. Kerr, J.P., refused to lend assistance to put out a fire. The magistrates were asked to attend a meeting last Sunday week under the auspices of the Irish National League; but this they declined to do. The meeting was held. The Rev. Mr. O'Brien was the only priest present. I understand that subscriptions to the extent of about £20 were promised at the meeting, but that no money was actually subscribed.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whe- ther, under the terms of the appointment of Dr. Kerr, one of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools in Scotland, at a salary of £900 per annum, Dr, Kerr is bound to devote his whole time and attention to the duties of that office; whether he holds any other appointments, or discharges any other duties, public or private, from which he derives emolument or receives remuneration; and, if so, their nature, and the amount of emoluments; whether, before accepting these appointments, or undertaking these offices, the consent of the Scotch Education Department was previously asked and obtained; and, whether the Department has power to grant such authority?

Whilst Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools are bound, under the terms of their appointment, to devote all the time and attention requisite for the proper discharge of their official duties, they are entitled to a vacation, which they may utilize as they see fit. During the past year the Scotch Education Department has, under the terms of Section 19 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1878, and at the request of the school authorities, assigned to Dr. Kerr a share in the examination of three higher class schools. The days devoted by Dr. Kerr to this work have been charged to "vacation and private business," and not to "official duties." The remuneration to be granted to the examiners for this work is a matter of arrangement between the Department and the school authorities, and has not as yet been fixed. Any other duties which Dr. Kerr may discharge are undertaken during his leisure time, which is at his own disposal.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Town Commissioners of Listowel do not receive any portion of the fines imposed at Petty Sessions on offenders who reside out of the town, for offences committed within its boundary; and, whether he will communicate with the Constabulary Authorities in Ireland, with a view to having such prosecutions conducted before the Town Court?

(who replied) said, the District Inspector of Constabulary informed him that the Clerk of Listowel Petty Sessions reported that the Town Commissioners do get one-half of the fines referred to. The present arrangement with regard to these prosecutions appeared to be proper and fair; and the Government could not undertake to make representations to the Constabulary Authorities to the effect stated in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether ex-Head Constable Irvine was appointed to the position of station-master at Cork, on the Cork and Muskerry Light Railway; whether the following notice was posted up in Cork on the 12th August last—

" Boycott the now line of railway unless ex-Head Constable Irving is removed from the position of station-master at Cork. Numbers of respectable citizens are walking the streets idle, and their families starving, while Irvine, who draws a large pension and owns considerable house property near St. Luke's, gets important employment from a Company got up expressly to benefit idle people from the country. Irvine was known as the most insulting bigot in the Force, and his conduct on the day of Father Keller's arrest called forth the condemnation of the Press; "

whether, since the posting up of the above notice, ex-Head Constable Irvine has been frequently subjected to annoyance in public; and, whether, in consequence, he has been obliged to resign his position as station-master?

Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answers the Question, might I ask if it is not a fact that Head Constable Irvine, referred to in the Question, gave public notice that he had resigned his position on the Cork and Muskerry Light Railway on account of the long hours of duty—from early morning till late at night—hours which he had no reason to believe would form part of his duty when he accepted the position?

(who replied) said: No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that Head Constable Irvine made any such Report.

It appeared in the public papers.

I have read some of the public papers, and have seen no such information. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend, I am informed that ox-Head Constable Irvine, who was reported by the Inspector General of Constabulary to be a man of exemplary character, was, upon his recent retirement from the Force on pension, appointed to the position mentioned. Notices is the terms quoted were posted up in Cork on the night of the 12th of August. Following upon these notices, the ex-Head Constable was jeered at and otherwise interfered with when proceeding to and from his place of employment. In consequence of this he has resigned his position as station-master.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the numerous complaints in regard to restrictions upon the use of the circular post, and especially as to the severe interpretations of the term "communications in the nature of a letter;" and, whether he will endeavour to relax these restrictions, and to allow any open communications in the general nature of circulars, or which, being business orders or invoices, are clearly distinguishable from letters, to pass unchallenged by the halfpenny post?

As I replied to a Question of the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birk-beck) on the 25th ultimo, on a some what similar subject, so I beg to answer the hon. Member's Question— namely, that the subject has been for some time under my consideration, and that there is, without doubt, some anomaly in the present practice; and it is one I hope I shall see my way, with further consideration, to remove.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the cases of those who were com- polled to issue circulars by Act of Parliament, such as Friendly Societies, Insurance Companies, & c, who sent out thousands annually, all in the same terms, but were charged the penny rate?

That is the subject to which I referred.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether warrant officers are permitted, when off duty, to appear in civilian clothing in the locality in which they are quartered?

The Order on the subject is as follows (Queen's Regulations, sec. vii. paragraph 110 A): —

" Conductors of supplies, conductors of stores, and master gunners of the first and second classes are permitted to wear plain clothes under the same conditions as those laid down for officers, and all warrant officers when on pass or furlough and leaving the place whore they are stationed may dress in plain clothes."

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the mail car running between Skibbereen and Baltimore will be permanently continued?

, in reply, said, he knew the interest which the hon. Member took in this question, and he had had further inquiry made upon it. He could not yet state, however, whether the car would be permanently continued. He would require further time to enable him to form a permanent judgment on the matter. Meanwhile, the car would be temporarily continued.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether complaints have reached him that, on the night of the 31st of August, John Sheehan, a lamplighter, while performing his nightly duty, was attacked and beaten at Shinnicks Well, in the City of Cork by a sub-constable named Brown, who was semi-intoxicated; whether an explanation was made on the night of the alleged assault by Sub-Constable Brown and Constable Kirby to th.9 effect that they were executing a warrant, and they thought Sheehan was the person wanted; and, whether investigation into the matter will be made?

(who replied) said, the Constabulary reported that at 3 A.M. a constable and a sergeant proceeded to a lane to execute a warrant against a bad character. While the sergeant entered the house a man came down the lane and was stopped by Brown, the constable, who thought he was the man wanted. But on identifying him he allowed him to proceed. The constable denied that he had done more than stop this man Sheehan and prevent him from breaking away. Sheehan reported the matter to a Superintendent, by whom the sergeant and the constable were shortly afterwards met; and the Superintendent says that, so far from having charged the constable with being drunk, he censured Sheehan.

asked, how it was that Sheehan was so much bruised, and how he was incapacitated from doing his duty if the constable did not assault him?

said, he had no Report as to Sheehan having been incapacitated from doing his duty, no understood that Sheehan had been directed by the Corporation to proceed by summons, and until that summons was disposed of no further action would be taken.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the report from Victoria, British Columbia, 31st August, is correct—namely—

" Another British sealing schooner has been seized as a prize by a United States Revenue cutter, for illegal fishing in Behring's Straits; "

whether her papers, arms, and firearms, and cargo of sealskins, were taken on board the cutter, and that she was ordered to proceed to Sitka; and, whe- ther her captain, in taking the captured schooner into British waters, will be protected by the British Authorities, or will be by them obliged to fulfil his promise and obligation and take the schooner into Sitka?

Her Majesty's Government have no information of any seizure within the last few days. We are informed that American revenue cutters seized certain Canadian vessels on the 2nd, 9th, 12th, and 17th of August. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Government of the United States on the subject of these seizures.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Reverend Mr. Norris, CO., of Ballycotton, lately made an application to the Dublin Fishery Board for a loan of £500 out of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund to purchase a first-class fishing boat (passage built) for the Ballycotton fishermen, and that the application was refused, on the ground that the portion of the Fund allocated to the County Cork was exhausted; whether it is a fact that large sums which have been allocated out of the Fund to other districts are lying idle, amongst which is a sum of £17,000 for the County Kerry; if so, for how long has this sum been unexpended; and, whether he will consider whether a recommendation could be made that if the amount allocated to a county be not claimed within a specified time it may be given to applicants in another district on their satisfying the Board as to the justice of their claim?

(who replied) said: The application made by the Rev. Mr. Norris was refused on the ground stated. It is the case that large sums allocated to other districts are lying idle, including a sum of £12,000 for the County Kerry, the greater portion of which sum has remained unexpended since the passing of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act in 1874. The allocation of the Fund being regulated by Statute, the Government have no power to interfere.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. Whether he is aware that, on the 2nd of this month, at Stanhope Street Board School, Arthur Bailey, aged 10 years, of 6, Little Pancras Street, Tottenham Court Road, and Gabriel Jones, aged 10 years, of 29, Drummond Street, Euston Square, were in school between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon, having had no food since noon the previous day; and, whether he could arrange with the School Board Authorities that these cases might be brought under the immediate notice of the Boards of Guardians in the event of there being no local charity by which they might be relieved?

I believe the facts as stated in the first paragraph of the Question to be correct. How cases of this kind should be dealt with involves a question of policy; but I have been glad to bring ray hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion under the notice of the School Board Authorities.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the complaint of Walter Stewart, for eight years a constable in the Renfrewshire Police Force, who had been rewarded for meritorious services, and who was informed by letter on the 9th August, 1885, that his services would no longer be required after 7th September; whether, in the previous year, the constables had petitioned the Commissioners of Supply to adopt the first Government model scale of pay, with a view to increase of pay, and the scale was adopted, but was followed by new arrangements, which resulted in a diminution instead of an increase of pay; whether Stewart had committed no offence, except to represent this respectfully to the Inspector of Constabulary on 31st July, 1885, when the men were asked whether they had any complaints; whether he is aware that it is alleged that the example of Stewart has intimidated other constables, who suffered from the same grievance, but are afraid to complain, whether the Secretary for Scotland will protect the constables in exercising their right of complaint when Her Majesty's Inspector invites them to make complaints; and, whether, if the facts as above stated are correct, he will give Stewart some redress, or use his influence to obtain some redress for him?

The attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the case of Walter Stewart, from whom no complaint was received for 21 months, and till after the recent death of the Chief Constable, who alone could have fully explained the circumstances of the case. The result of the inquiry which has been made was communicated to Stewart on the 13th ultimo. The effect of the adjustment of the model scale of pay is correctly described by the hon. Member. But the Police Committee state that this matter has long since been rectified; and that if there are constables still dissatisfied any representation, they may make to them will be duly considered. The Police Committee have been unable, in consequence of the death of the Chief Constable, to furnish the specific ground upon which notice of discharge was given to Walter Stewart. But the hon. Member must, from his experience, be fully aware that the right of dismissal or discharge rests entirely with the Chief Constable. The Secretary for Scotland has no grounds to believe that the late Chief Constable exorcised his statutory powers otherwise than for the well-being and good discipline of his police force; and he cannot, therefore, promise any further redress to Walter Stewart. The Secretary for Scotland has no ground for supposing that constables require protection if they complain to the Inspector of Constabulary; and it would be detrimental to the control and discipline of police forces in Scotland to interfere generally with the statutory powers of Local Authorities.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he now can give his promised reply to the Memorial of the sorters of the London District asking that the Order of 30th November shall be extended to them?

A decision has been come to in this case, which will shortly be conveyed to the Memorialists in the usual way. It would be premature to notify the change now. It will take effect next year.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that large quantities of yeast adulterated with potato and maize starch are imported into England, and that there have been frequent convictions of persons who have innocently sold such yeast; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the importation of adulterated yeast, or to have its character more distinctly declared by the importers?

(who replied) said: I am aware that large quantities of yeast are imported into this country; but I do not know to what extent such yeast is adulterated with potato and maize starch, nor has my attention been called to frequent convictions of persons who have innocently sold it. Any examination of the yeast at the time of importation would have to be undertaken by the officers of Customs; but I learn from the Board of Customs that they have no means of ascertaining whether the yeast is adulterated or not. I think that adulterated yeast may be left to be dealt with under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. The seller can protect himself by obtaining a written warranty from those from whom he buys the yeast.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to an accident on the Midland Railway on Saturday last, when the 12.20 train from St. Pancras ran into a coal train shunting close to Wath Station; and to an accident at Cudworth, on the Midland Line, on Wednesday, 24th August, when, in shunting an empty passenger train, the man in charge of the engine brought the train into collision with the buffer stops, knocked a goods wagon almost to pieces, carried away part of a signal cabin, and smashed the buffer stops, and part of the permanent way; and, further, to an accident on Thursday, 25th August, just beyond Armley, near Leeds, when there was a serious delay of traffic, and a single line had to be used for some hours for "up" and "down" trains; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into those accidents, and. especially as to whether the trains concerned were in charge of men recently appointed as engine drivers or firemen?

An inquiry into the accident at Wath was hold on the 2nd instant; but the Inspector's Report has not yet been received. The accident at Cudworth occurred not to an empty carriage train, but to an engine only, which the fireman, in the absence of the driver on the platform, was improperly moving. No one was injured by the accident. The driver had been in the service 24 years, and as driver 17 years. The fireman had been three weeks in the service, and had previously been a fireman on the Great Eastern Railway. The accident near Armley was caused by the draw-bar of a private owner's wagon coming out, causing two other wagons to leave the rails. The line was cleared in two hours, and satisfactory arrangements were made in the meantime for working the traffic. Very little damage was done either to the wagons or the permanent way, and no one was injured. The driver had been 19 years in the service, 11 years as driver. The fireman is stated to be a new man, but thoroughly competent. In these circumstances, the Board of Trade do not think it necessary to make any further inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Workington Licensing Magistrates have intimated their intention of granting a provisional licence next Wednesday to a locality when its issue is most strongly and almost unanimously opposed by the town's people, and by the neighbouring inhabitants and property owners, as well as by most of the Religious Bodies and the Representative Bodies in the town; and, whether, under these circumstances, any steps can be taken by the Home Office to secure respect for the wish of the majority?

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State understands, from a newspaper account of a meeting of the Justices on the 24th of August, that they had deferred their decision with respect to this licence for a fortnight, not that they had intimated their intention to grant it. The Home Office has no jurisdiction in this matter; and the Secretary of State is unable to interfere with the discretion of Justices in granting or refusing licences. He has, however, sent a copy of the hon. Baronet's Question to the Justices, and invited their observations upon it, and has received, in reply, the following telegram from the clerk to the Justices at Workington, which arrived shortly before I entered the House—

" A majority of the Justices, after hearing evidence and due consideration, decided to grant the licence. There were petitions against from the School and Burial Boards; but none by Local Boards, or any other Representative Body. There were also petitions from inhabitants, including Temperance Societies and property owners in the immediate neighbourhood, signed altogether, it is estimated, by 700 or 800 townspeople, out of a population of over 20,000. Except the congregation of a neighbouring Baptist chapel, no Religious Body presented a Petition against. Matter adjourned for judgment to meeting to be held on Wednesday next."

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Petitions against the issue of the licence have been signed by 1,200 householders?

I cannot say.

said that, arising out of the answer just given by the Under Secretary, he wished, to in quire of the First Lord of the Treasury whether, if a private Member brought in a Bill to suspend the issue by the Excise of new licences authorized during the present Brewster Sessions, pending promised legislation with regard to licences, the Government would refrain from blocking such a Bill?

said, it must be perfectly obvious to the hon. Baronet that the Government were quite unable to give an affirmative answer to a Question of that kind, and one asked without any Notice whatever. But if the hon. Baronet desired to have an answer, he might say that, at this period of the Session, it would, undoubtedly, be the duty of the Government to oppose such a measure.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Director General of the Army Medical Department informed the Select Committee on the Army Estimates that the principal reason why medical men refused to entered the Army, and the supply of candidates ceased about 1870, was—

" The refusal to recognize medical men in the Army as on an equality with the combatant and other officers,"

and that at present—

" The medical officers feel that they are not treated as they ought to be with respect to rank and position,"

and that they desire the restoration of the position denned in the 17th Clause of the Royal Warrant of 1878; and, whether, as the agitation in the medical schools and journals, and the dissatisfaction felt by military surgeons may again diminish or stop the supply of candidates, he will appoint, as he promised, a Departmental Committee to consider the question of the rank and position of medical officers?

,in reply, said, he had several times stated that the recent Royal Warrant for abrogating relative rank detracted in no sense from the status, precedence, or privileges of the medical officers of the Army. It was a mistake to suppose that he had promised a Departmental Committee to inquire into the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the morning of Sunday the 22nd ultimo, Major Lidwell, of Dromard House, County Tipperary, went, accompanied by other persons, to the farm of one of his tenants, Patrick Stapleton, and, by the use of an explosive, blew up a bridge connecting the farm with the public road; whether, in consequence of the explosion, a woman named Kennedy was struck on the temple by a stone; whether Major Lidwell returned to the place after dark the same evening, and, by another explosion, completed the destruction of the bridge; whether he then proceeded to the house occupied by Mrs. Stapleton and her children, threatened to "blow them and their house into the elements," and also threatened some neighbours who came to the assistance of Mrs. Stapleton, that he would make them suffer; whether Mrs. Stapleton immediately reported the case to the local police, and has been since informed by them that they are awaiting" instructions from the authorities; "whether Major Lidwell adjudicates as a magistrate in the Templemore District; and, what determination has been come to upon the case?

(who replied) said, this Question only appeared upon the Paper this morning; and he must, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone it whilst he made inquiry.

said, surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that he raised the question in debate in the House several nights ago, and that the offence occurred a fortnight since?

I cannot allow the word "offence" until an offence has been proved. When the hon. Member mentioned the matter in the House I did make some inquiries; but I have not received sufficient information to enable me to give a reply to his Question.

I wish to give Notice that I will expect a definite and conclusive reply to-night on the Report of the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow mo to say to what extent my information goes. The hon. Gentleman says that a stone bridge was blown up. My information is that it was a temporary bridge composed of sleepers. All the information I have received so far is in favour of Major Lidwell; but I did not think it right to give that information, which is only from one source, without making further inquiries in order to test its accuracy.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the explanation of the six months' delay in dealing with the Granard Memorial as to Land and Quarter Sessions being held in that town; and, when will the matter be settled?

(who replied) said, the matter referred to in the Question would be before the Committee of the Privy Council this week, and the Report would be submitted as soon as possible afterwards. Some time was necessary for the usual inquiries; and the Question was not one of urgency, as any order made for additional Courts would not take effect until after the Sessions, and the new Courts could not be held till next year.

asked the Lord Advocate, What are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to emigration from the Highlands of Scotland?

, in reply, said, matters in connection with this Question were on the point of decision; and he would therefore ask his hon. Friend to repeat the Question on Thursday.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in the recent sequestrations of Mr. James M. Russell, which has excited so much attention in Scotland, it is a fact that Mr. Todrich, Procurator Fiscal of Haddingtonshire, acted as agent both for Mr. A. H. Tennent (the landlord) and also for Mr. Russell's Trustee?

No, Sir. It is not the fact that Mr. Todrich, the Procurator Fiscal of Haddingtonshire, acted as agent either for Mr. A. H. Tennent, Mr. Russell's landlord, or for the Trustee.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will, at the commencement of next Session, give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the continuance or discontinuance of the present method of taking Divisions?

This is a matter upon which I must confer with the Speaker and the Officers of the House, as I am unable to give a positive answer to the Question.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, At what hour he proposed to take the Labourers' Allotments Bill that evening?

I hope to take it at as early an hour as the conclusion of the Irish Estimates will permit me to do.

asked, whether they could count upon the Bill being taken that evening?

Certainly.

said, he hoped the Army Votes might be taken on Wednesday; but he was not able to say positively. The order of procedure was that the Civil Service Votes would be taken first, after which the Navy Votes would be proceeded with, and then the Army Votes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman fix a day for the Indian Budget?

It will be taken as soon as Supply is concluded. I am not able to say when that will be.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention had been directed to the eviction of Mrs. Moloney, at Herbertstown, County Limerick; whether he was aware that she was 80 years of age and in a bad condition of health; and, whether the evicting landlords and the Sheriff were not told that the eviction would probably lead to her death, yet refused to stay the eviction; whether Mrs. Moloney died the third day after her eviction; and, whether the Government would order an investigation into the conduct of the Sheriff?

My recollection of the facts does not absolutely tally with that of the hon. Gentleman; and I must ask him to put the Question on the Paper, and I will look into it, as I would not like to trust myself to give an answer to the House without having an opportunity of refreshing my memory.

asked the Attorney General for Ireland the following Question, of which he had given private Notice: — Whether, having considered the case of Mr. Hayden, who had been served with two summonses under the Coercion Act, he had decided to proceed against that gentleman upon two charges arising out of the same transaction?

I cannot make any statement with regard to pending prosecutions, which would limit the discretion and responsibility of the officials prosecuting, which must be exercised on facts as established in evidence before the Court. I may add, for the information of the hon. Member, that if it should appear that the summonses were for the same cause of complaint, and only alternative methods of procedure, of course only one sentence could in that case be imposed.

I am desirous, on this Vote, to call attention to the extraordinary manner in which the Resident Magistrates have been appointed in Ireland; to direct attention also to the very curious classification adopted in regard to them; and, further, to their utter unfitness, as a rule, to discharge the very responsible duties which may be cast upon them in the near future. It is all the more necessary that, on this Vote, the Committee should have their attention drawn to the qualification of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland, on account of the passing of a recent measure in this House called "The Crimes Act," the very first section of which enables these Resident Magistrates to conduct a preliminary inquiry when any person is accused of an offence under the Act. We are told in the Act that these preliminary inquiries are to be conducted by two Resident Magistrates, of whose legal knowledge and experience the Lord Chancellor shall be satisfied. Now, if a Resident Magistrate is to be entrusted with the exercise of these powers—which are nothing more nor less than a revival of the old Star Chamber powers—it is only natural to expect that the magistrates should be, to use the words of the Act, "men of legal knowledge and legal experience;" not only that, but the Lord Chancellor is to be satisfied that they are men of legal knowledge and legal experience; and that is laid down as the source or the qualification which is to guide him in drawing his supply of Resident Magistrates. Now, hen I turn to the list of Resident Magistrates in Ireland I find that out of 56 whose names are included in the Return which has been laid before the House 20 have been Army officers, and 19 officers of the Constabulary. Out of the entire number there are only five in whom the Lord Chancellor could have any confidence whatever on account of their legal knowledge and experience. Taking into consideration the present state of Ireland, in view of the legislation which the Government have forced upon an unwilling House by means of their mechanical majorities, I think we ought to view with suspicion any Vote proposed to this Committee for the payment of Resident Magistrates appointed under such an anomalous system as I have described. What confidence can the people of Ireland have in a body of Resident Magistrates constituted as these men are, 19 of them having been selected from the Constabulary, and 20 from the Army, with a few also from the Navy. It will be seen that they are almost entirely selected from Her Majesty's Forces, and from the Constabulary, which must be regarded as a semi-military force. I look upon it as a grave and startling fact that two-thirds of the Irish Resident Magistrates should be promoted from those Services; and I trust that the Committee will not pass the Vote without having a close and strict explanation from the Government as to what the qualifications of these gentlemen are, and why, in the present state of things, they should be retained in this position. In addition to the fact that the 19 Constabulary officers have never had any opportunity of acquiring either legal knowledge or legal experience, there are these 20 Army officers who have never had any acquaintance with legal procedure or Courts of Justice, and who are far better acquainted with the proceedings of a drum-head court martial. In addition to the gentlemen I have referred to, I find one magistrate down the list who seems to have qualified himself for the important position of Resident Magistrate in Ireland at a salary of £550 a-year by following the avocation of an Army tutor. I have no doubt that an Army tutor is a very useful agent. He has not only gone through his degrees in the Army, but he has been appointed to teach the elementary tactics of war, and he ought to be well up in what is known as strategy. A part of his duty was to qualify Militiamen for commissions in the Army— a very useful qualification, no doubt; but I fail to see—and I think the Committee will be in a similar position—what qualification an Army tutor has for the appointment of Resident Magistrate in Ireland. So far as military tactics are concerned, this gentleman, Mr. John Bristol, has very high qualifications, and will probably know how to surround a large number of people with a small number of military or police. So far as that qualification goes, he may be in the position to give the Lord Lieutenant the highest satisfaction. But what I want to know is, what qualification this gentleman possesses for sitting upon the Bench and dispensing justice to Her Majesty's subjects; and especially what qualification he possesses, in the present condition of things in Ireland, when it is absolutely necessary that men of legal training and legal mind should sit upon the Bench in order to hold a fair balance between the authorities and the people who may be brought before them, and who may find it necessary to discuss points of law of the greatest possible nicety? The duty the Resident Magistrate has to discharge in the first instance is to make a special inquiry of a somewhat private nature, and then to preside and administer justice in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. "What qualification has an Army tutor for such a position? Absolutely none. I maintain that the appointment of these 20 Army officers and the 19 Constabulary officers is a scandal, and I trust the Committee will closely scrutinize the Vote before they allow it to be taken. Looking down the list I find that in addition to the qualifications I have mentioned there is a Mr. Lynch, whose qualification is that he has occupied a position of Consul in the Colonies. Now, what qualification is that for dispensing justice and dealing with nice points of law in Ireland? What qualification it is for dealing with a country which is supposed to be an integral part of the United Kingdom I am altogether at a loss to say. A gentleman who has occupied this position can have no idea whatever of the equal laws and equal liberties which hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and hon. Gentlemen on the Benches above the Gangway on this side, have so repeatedly assured the House that they are anxious to give to Ireland. Will Mr. Lynch bring to the Magisterial Bench in Queen's County his notions of Colonial justice—his notions of justice as it is administered to the niggers? I have not the most remote doubt that, in the idea of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Assistant Secretary, a man who has administered justice to niggers is quite good enough, if not even too good, to deal with the circumstances of Ireland. My contention is that, at any rate, the Resident Magistrates ought to be lawyers capable of trying these cases in a legal and satisfactory manner. They ought to be tried in accordance with the law of this Realm, so that that justice which the Dissentient Liberals were so fond of talking about during the debate on the Coercion Bill in this House, and even more fond of talking about on various platforms throughout the country, may be duly administered. Looking further into this list, I see the name of a Mr. Vickers, and of a Mr. J. Peel of Ballinasloe, who are to receive salaries of £550 a-year, and whose only qualifications for the post are that hitherto they have had no avocation whatever. They have not even been in the Army, the Navy, or the Militia. Nevertheless, although they have never done anything in their lives, they are quite good enough to go to Ireland and receive £550 a-year for taking the side of the Government against the unfortunate people who will be brought before them. The Government have searched the Army; they have searched the Navy; they have oven dredged the Militia; and they have taken men wholesale from the Constabulary. They have appointed one man who has served as one of Her Majesty's Consuls abroad, although the Return does not say in what part of the civilized or uncivilized world he has served. What guarantee can the Lord Chancellor have that these men have derived any legal knowledge or experience from any source whatever? I have no doubt that they have got a good certificate from Dublin Castle, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) may say that the Colonial Consul displayed distinguished abilities abroad; but how that assertion can be made to fit in with a proper legal knowledge and training for the administration of the law of Ireland, so as to enable him to deal with a new Coercion Bill involving nice and delicate points of law, I am unable to apprehend. For instance, the Law of Conspiracy may be constantly evaded by the Constabulary officers, who will be in a position to bring charges against the unfortunate and ignorant Irish peasantry. What qualifications can a Consul to Her Majesty possess for dealing with such nice and difficult questions of law? I have shown that among the Resident Magistrates are gentlemen from the Army, from the Navy, and from the Militia; a gentleman who has been a Consul abroad, others who have had no avocation at all, and now I come to those who claim to have some knowledge of the law—namely, barristers. Out of the entire number of magistrates whose names appear in this list I find there are only five practising barristers. We have a great many gentlemen who are learned in the law, but they are gentlemen who never held a brief, such as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, if my information is not incorrect, is himself learned in the law. Speaking as an ordinary civilian, not knowing much about the law, and not wishing to know much about it, I should certainly prefer, if I had to take my chance of being tried for any offence under this Crimes Bill, to go before a practising barrister possessing some knowledge and experience of the law rather than a man who is a mere dilettante barrister. A barrister without a brief is very like a man who has written a five-act tragedy, but has never seen one acted. If a manager wanted a play that was fit to be put upon the stage to-day, he would certainly not go to a man who had mearly studied dramatic writing in his closet, but would prefer to go to a man who possessed some knowledge of dramatic art. Certainly the people of Ireland will have no confidence in men who come fresh from the study without having had practical experience. It will be a matter of heart-burning for people under this Crimes Bill to find themselves brought up for summary jurisdiction before men who have had no legal training, and who possess no legal knowledge whatever. If it were not that the subject is a very serious one for the Irish people, and possibly one that may become very grave and serious as time advances, this Return would be very droll reading indeed. But we know that the tenure of office is to be at the Lord Lieutenant's pleasure, and instead of being droll reading it becomes a very serious matter indeed. I view the whole thing as a mockery of justice—as a matter which ought not to be tolerated by the House. The Committee will not forget that, on a very recent occasion, one of my hon. Colleagues, the Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington), read to the House some letters which had been written to a former Lord Lieutenant by the relatives of gentlemen who were applying for the position of Resident Magistrate. I remember in one instance the incredulous query of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) when he asked— "Did he get the appointment?" and the genuine amazement of the noble Lord when my hon. Friend was able to assure him that the person in whose behalf the letter was sent did get the post for which the application was made. As a matter of fact, it has been by subterfuge and intrigue of that kind that incompetent, unskilful, unlearned, and unsuitable men have been appointed to positions of great responsibility. But whatever may have been the responsibility a couple of years ago, at the present moment the position of Resident Magistrate is one of tenfold responsibility. The Irish people are besought by the Government to become enamoured of law and order. They are perfectly ready to do so. They love justice; but they hate a sham. They have always been lovers of justice when it is administered in a pure and honest fashion; but they hate the sham which foists upon them 50 or 60 Resident Magistrates, such as I have described, to administer impartial justice among them. What respect can they have for the law when they know the character of the men who are sent to administer it? All the information contained in this Return is, as I have said, droll and amusing reading; but it is not droll or amusing to the unfortunate men who, as pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the exercise of a legal right, join in combination to abstain from paying more than a certain amount of rent for a farm. What they feel is that they may be liable to be brought before one of these men, and be sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, simply owing to the incompetency of the Resident Magistrates to deal with the case for two reasons. One, that they are deeply prejudiced, not only against the nationality, but against the social claims of the Irish people; and, secondly, because they are unacquainted with the nature of the law. The Resident Magistrate himself knows that the continuance of his appointment and his promotion depends upon the way in which he obeys the wishes of the landlords and the Government. His salary commences at £425 a-year and goes up to £550; but everything depends absolutely and entirely on the goodwill and pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. Do not hon. Members know what that means? It means, first of all, that the appointment of these Resident Magistrates and their promotion depend entirely on the manner in which they are able to convince the Lord Lieutenant that they are carrying out their functions. Therefore, the promotion of a Resident Magistrate largely depends on the view which may be taken of the manner in which he discharges his duty by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. We know what the notions of the right hon. Gentleman are of legality, and what can be the notions of the Resident Magistrates, when there is no public opinion like there is in this country to restrain them from committing acts of oppression and tyranny? My hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin gave an amusing account of the way in which the Resident Magistrate? in Ireland got their appointments. It will be in the recollection of many hon. Members of the Committee that on that occasion one of the applicants was the scamp of the family—a "ne'er-do-well"—a blackguard who had only succeeded in smudging himself and his family without ever having done anything to obtain an honest livelihood. Having run his rake's progress up to a certain pitch he thought he would get married and settled down, and become a God-fearing citizen. Therefore, he fixed his eye on a certain lady, who, according to the testimony of a noble relative, who wrote on his behalf to the Lord Lieutenant, was good and pious, and would make a good Christian of him. This man, who had lived an idle and worthless vagabond life until the application was made on his behalf, got a letter written to the Lord Lieutenant of the day asking for the exercise of his influence, and suggesting that the position of Resident Magistrate would suit him down to the ground. Now, is not that a scandalous state of things? My hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division read out letter after letter which he appears to have come across iii a somewhat accidental manner, having purchased them at a sale of some private papers from a library in Dublin. It is, however, often the case that the curtain is lifted for a moment, and the outside world gets a glimpse of what is going on in official places. I do not believe that the statement of my hon. Friend, and the revelations which he was able to make that evening, at all received the attention they deserved. Events come treading upon each other rapidly, and the revelations of my hon. Friend were soon passed by. If such things had occurred in England there would have been such an amount of ridicule and denunciation that the system, as soon as it had been exposed, would have been utterly swept out of existence, and this Committee would not now be asked to vote Estimates for worthless and incompetent Resident Magistrates. Although the House has permitted the system to exist for so long, I maintain that the whole thing is a scandal and a disgrace to the legislation of the country. Of course, I know that, no matter how we are able to expose the system and to show how useless and monstrous it is, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen occupying positions in the Government are here to defend it. Well, their own formidable salaries for taking part in the maladministration of Irish affairs have already been voted, and I presume they will not be too particular as to the small salaries of these men. But there is a deep lesson to be drawn from all these transactions. The lesson I venture to convey to the English people as distinctly as I possibly can is that, in addition to the ordinary Resident Magistrate, the more common type of tyrant, we have a few men occupying that position who stand out conspicuously in the list. There is a gentleman put down here as a Divisional Magistrate, who is to receive extra remuneration for the 12 months amounting to £575. I allude to Captain Plunkett, who is one of the magistrates referred to in this item under sub-head D. These Divisional Magistrates got the same extra sum last year, but we are not informed what duties they have performed to entitle them to it. I suppose that the telegram which Captain Plunkett sent to the police, ordering them to shoot down the people of Youghal, was a portion of his extra work. On this point I maintain that the Government have been guilty of conduct which an ordinary man of the world would regard as suspicious. Certainly the epithet of truth will not apply to it. Captain Plunkett sent a telegram from Dublin to the Police Inspector at Youghal, ordering the police to shoot down the people; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, when the matter was brought to his attention, gave the House to understand that the reason why that telegram was despatched was to prevent a collision between the police and the people. Now, what are we to think of the right hon. Gentleman's contention when we now know that that telegram was private, that the police were anxious to keep it private, and tried to do so; but that somehow or other it leaked out, and a Cork paper published the telegram? 80 indignant was Captain Plunkett with the maladroitness of his own Inspector that an inquiry was set on foot, and a reward of £50 offered to anyone who would give information as to the means by which the telegram was made public. Nevertheless, in spite of the anxiety of Captain Plunkett and the police to keep the telegram private, and notwithstanding the inquiry which was afterwards set on foot, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary came down to that Table and gravely informed the House that the telegram was sent in order that it might be made as public as possible. The words of the right hon. Gentleman will bear no other construction. If the telegram was intended to be made as public as possible, how was it not made known at once in Youghal that the police had been instructed to proceed with murderous and merciless severity? If that was the object, why, when Captain Plunkett sent down the telegram, was it not immediately published by the Police Authorities who were in charge of the town? If that course had been taken the people would have gathered around their parish priest, they would have known that such a telegram had been sent, they would have been aware that it was intended to act with merciless rigour and severity, and the killing of the unfortunate man, O'Hanlon, would probably not have taken place. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the telegram was sent down in order to prevent a collision between the people and the police. It did not prevent a collision; and why was that? Because the telegram itself was a direct incentive to the police to act in a murderous manner. On that occasion the unfortunate man O'Hanlon, a Youghal fisherman, was stabbed in the back when he was running away. Is it the duty of a police officer, when he sees a man running away, to chase him and drive a deadly weapon through his back? I think that that very significant fact contains a whole volume in itself. No matter what Captain Plunkett does as a Divisional Magistrate, no matter who he chooses to shoot, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary does not hesitate to come down here and defend his action. Not with fair and legitimate argument merely, but with underhand and most disingenuous assertion. There was no necessity for the telegram whatever; but the telegram having been sent, if it had been made public, and was intended to be made public, I would freely allow that there is some substance in the contention of the right hon. Gentleman. But the telegram was sent in cipher, and its contents were known only to Captain Plunkett and the recipient, or supposed to be known only to them. I think that fact throws a deadly light upon the conduct of Captain Plunkett, and upon the apology of his apologist— the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It is a lamentable state of things that a man like Captain Plunkett should be allowed to exercise jurisdiction in Ireland; it is a terrible state of affairs. Lot any English Member in this Committee imagine for a moment a similar state of things occurring in England; let them imagine that a strike had broken out in the North, and that the foreman of the works was on the side of the strikers in the object they sought to carry out. Suppose that in such circumstances a strong body of police was sent down, and a large force of military held in reserve; that, in the disturbances which subsequently followed, at the very worst, a few threepenny panes of glass were broken; that not a single police constable was able to show any marks of ill-usage, or declared that he had sustained any injury whatever. Imagine that such a thing had occurred in England, and that the disorder was confined entirely to shouting and hallooing, and to the breaking of a few windows, and that all this occurred while a large crowd of people were in the streets. Of course there are no Resident Magistrates here; but what would hon. Members say if Sir Charles Warren had sent down au order to the local constabulary officer to" Shoot down the people; do not hesitate to fire into them?" Would he have been allowed to retain his position for 24 hours longer? he would have been compelled to retire in disgrace without a pension, and his conduct would have met with the execration of every member of the community. That is what would have occurred if this outrage had happened in England. But in Ireland it is regarded as part of the ordinary duty of the police, and the District Inspector is complimented upon his good conduct. I have felt it my duty to call the attention of the Committee, and of the House generally, to the proceedings of Captain Plunkett, and his arbitrary, illegal, and indefensible conduct in Ireland. All I will add is that if such a man is retained in his present position, a heavy responsibility will rest on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He may think lightly of the matter to-day; but, to quote an old say- ing, he is at present in the position of "a young hear with all his troubles before him." All I can say is that the responsibility of whatever disaster may occur in Ireland through the action of such men as Captain Plunkett will fall on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and Her Majesty's Government, who retain persons of this kind in office. I have shown the Committee what class of men the Resident Magistrates are, and what sort of a man the Divisional Magistrate—Captain Plunkett— is; and if, instead of law and order being less respected than it is at present, you have more difficulty in maintaining it, you will have to blame such men as Captain Plunkett, and such Ministerial apologists as the light hon. Gentleman, who hesitates to adopt that fair and legitimate course of argument which is alone honourable to a Member of the Government.

The hon. Member has been good enough to describe my conduct in this House as disingenuous and underhand. I will not inquire how far, in such circumstances, it deserves a reply, and how far the use of the language of that kind is in order in our debates. Before using such language the hon. Member ought, at all events, to have taken the precaution of seeing that he was himself accurately stating the elementary facts of the case to which he was calling the attention of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has told us two alleged facts in regard to the recent occurrences at Youghal, both of which are entirely inaccurate, and both of which are, as I understand, necessary to the hon. Member's case. Ono is that nobody was injured except the man who was killed.

Not seriously injured.

The hon. Member must be aware that I have on more than one occasion stated that many policemen were struck, and three considerably injured, by the stones thrown at them. The hon. Member has further stated, in direct contradiction to what has been told to the House on Ministerial authority, that the telegram to Captain Plunkett was sent under conditions which insured its privacy. One of the statements I have made to the House was that the telegram was sent under such conditions that it would immediately leak out—as it did, in fact, leak out. The hon. Member says that the telegram was in cipher. The telegram was not sent in cipher, and the statement I made to the House wag perfectly correct. The telegram was not only justified in itself, but was further justified by the fact that it was certain to leak out, and that the result of its being made public would undoubtedly be to prevent an attack on the police. The hon. Gentleman went so far, I think, as to say that if the telegram had not been sent in cipher the man O'Hanlon would not have been killed.

Oh, no; I did not say that. I said that the telegram was made public, and that it was of such a character that it naturally led the Nationalist Party to apprehend some possible violence.

I understood the hon. Member in some way to connect Hanlon with the telegram. If, however, I misunderstood him I will withdraw that part of my argument. I will only take the opportunity of reasserting in this House that Captain Plunkett's action in this matter was absolutely justifiable, and resulted in stopping scenes which might, and probably would, under other circumstances, have resulted in bloodshed and possible loss of life. Leaving the case of Captain Plunkett, and going to the earlier part of the hon. Member's speech—namely, the part in which he contended at great length that there is a want of proper qualifications in the Resident Magistrates to administer the law in Ireland, and especially the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the hon. Member appears to be extremely hard to please. He will not admit that a man who has served in the Colonies is qualified to administer the law in Ireland. On the contrary, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, he seems to draw a distinction between justice as it is administered abroad and as it is administered at home, for he asks—"Are Irishmen only to be treated to Colonial justice? "I apprehend that justice is justice everywhere, and that if a man is qualified to administer justice in the Colonies, he is equally qualified to administer it in England, Scotland, Ireland, or anywhere else. Not only does the hon. Member object to the unfitness of a Resident Magistrate who comes from the Colonies, but he takes exception also to everybody who has been a soldier, to everybody who has been a sailor, to everybody who has had no avocation at all; but, not satisfied with that, he has also attacked the appointment of barristers.

May I explain that I objected only to those who were not practising barristers?

The hon. Member would apparently be content with a barrister in large practice.

Certainly.

Well, you cannot get a barrister in large practice to accept Resident Magistrateship at £400 a-year. If the Government were to restrict themselves to the supply of men furnished by the Irish Bar they would deliberately deprive themselves of many of the best qualified gentlemen whose services are at their disposal. I and my Predecessors in the Office of Chief Secretary are of opinion that probably the very best policy is to draw them largely from the Army. I believe that from that source you will get men better qualified to serve you at £400, £500, or £600 a-year, than you will if you restrict yourselves to the unsuccessful barristers at the Irish Bar. It is better to have a successful soldier than an unsuccessful barrister. I am ready to admit, however, that wherever circumstances enable us to obtain the services of a barrister who has shown that he possessed legal knowledge we ought to try to avail ourselves of his services, and, in point of fact, the proportion of barristers now acting as Resident Magistrates is far larger than it was in the time of Lord Spencer. The hon. Member has passed a condemnation on the general qualifications of these Resident Magistrates. I believe that they have rendered great and valuable services in the past, and that they are qualified to render similar services to the State in the future. On this point I would advise the hon. Member to refer to the opinion expressed in public by Lord Spencer, and by the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan). The hon. Member has drawn largely on the speech made by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington) in the earlier part of the Session, and has asked how the Government could possibly think of appointing men of the character described by the hon. Member to the position of Resident Magistrates. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to recall what happened on that occasion. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin called attention to certain circumstances which occurred 30 years ago, and read out to the House certain letters of an amusing description that he had obtained at an auction of the effects of a gentleman who had been Secretary to a Liberal Lord Lieutenant, and he implied to the House that all the gentlemen to whom the letters referred had been appointed Resident Magistrates.

Some of them.

When he was challenged on the subject by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), the hon. Gentleman said that some of those gentlemen—I think he said all—had been appointed. Now, this is not the first time that the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin has shown very great readiness of resource in matters of assertion. [Cries of "Order!"] Any hon. Member opposite can rise to Order if he likes. As a matter of fact, on this particular occasion the hon. Member was labouring under a grave misapprehension.

A few hours ago, Mr. Courtney, you ruled that an hon. Member was out of Order in accusing another hon. Member of the same thing as the right hon. Gentleman is now accusing my hon. Friend. May I ask whether it is in Order to speak of my hon. Friend as having a readiness of resource in matters of assertion?

The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, going very near the limit of disorder, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to proceed.

What I was going to say was this—that the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin was entirely in error when he made that statement. I have inquired into the cases, and I am informed that not one of the gentlemen recommended in the letters which the hon. Member read to the House was appointed by the Liberal Lord Lieutenant to the post of Resident Magistrate.

I know of one instance myself.

I am informed that there was one gentleman appointed of the same name, but it was not the gentleman on whose behalf the letter was written to the Lord Lieutenant. Speaking generally, I do not think it will be possible to improve the qualifications of the class of men who now fill the responsible position of Resident Magistrates in Ireland. I believe that they have in the past, and that they will continue in the future to discharge to the satisfaction of the House and of the country the responsible duties which have been entrusted to them.

I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his readiness of assertion, and also upon the readiness of his instruments, the Dublin Castle officials, who supply him with the information which from time to time we receive in this House. I have listened carefully to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman this evening, as I have done on many previous occasions. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have made up his mind before taking the Office of Chief Secretary that everything was right, and that he had only to carry out to the uttermost the proposals of the detestable gang who rule in Dublin Castle, whose conduct in respect to the men for whom this Vote is asked to-night has been constantly shown up in this House. From the beginning to the end of this Vote there are points which could be raised and which ought to be raised. Unfortunately, we are approaching the end of the Session; and our time being well nigh spent the amount of attention which the Vote ought to receive cannot possibly be devoted to it. It is, therefore, impossible for us in this matter to do justice to the constituents who sent us here. We may, however, do something to endeavour to alleviate their sufferings and prevent gross injustice and shameful wrong from being inflicted upon them. The principal item of the Vote to which the attention of the House has been, this evening directed is the item for the magistrates—notably for Special Magistrates and Resident Magistrates. Again and again in previous Sessions of Parliament has the conduct of these men, who have always been the partizans of one section of the people — the landocracy — been shown up, and I, for one, have repeatedly endeavoured, in my own way, to show it up. I regret that I have not that readiness of expression and happiness of phraseology which some of my hon. Friends possess, and that I cannot, accordingly, deal with these matters in the way in which I should like to deal with them. But I have known—and have known from my youth upwards—during all that part of my time which I have spent in Ireland, the character and conduct of these Resident Magistrates, and I can assure the Committee that whenever there is any little job to be done on the part of the landlords in Ireland these men are invariably consulted. In my own district—Macroom—what happens? Let me instance the case of Mr. James Gallagher in the Ardilaun district. Being desirous of getting his rents he wrote a letter to Captain Stokes, who went to the County Club on the Saturday afternoon, and there and then the two settled the whole business between them. This kind of "hugger-muggering" goes on Saturday after Saturday; and let e say that I only speak of what I have heard and seen, and it certainly goes beyond what hon. Members generally can have any idea of. When we raise specific issues as to the mode in which these men exercise their administrative functions the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—who appears to have made up his mind at the outset—refuses to give us a hearing, although one of the cases we are anxious to direct attention to is the murder at Youghal, which strongly stirred up the feeling of the people in this country in reference to the unfortunate Irish people. When the circumstance was brought before the House the right hon. Gentleman rose, on the occasion, with a laugh—a laugh which I hope his constituents will remember and the country will bear in mind on the first opportunity that may arise. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have felt that the life of a poor fisherman of Youghal was deserving of as much care and as much attention, and that there ought to be as much pity shown for his case as there would have been if he was one of the lords of the land. If there is anything that could make the people of Ireland naturally indignant and exasperated, it is the fact that a poor fisherman was wantonly slain in. the streets of Yonghal in consequence of the violence—the insane and senseless violence—of the officials of the Department now under consideration. The name of Captain Plunkett has been brought under the notice of the House again and again. Who is Captain Plunkett? Why was he appointed? He served for a short time in the Army; but his name does not appear in the Return because he is a Divisional Magistrate, and not a Resident Magistrate. I happen to know all about Captain Plunkett, however, and on other occasions I have endeavoured to enlighten the House as to what he is. He is now a Divisional Magistrate; he was taken from the Army, but he doss not appear to have achieved any great or glorious position while in that position. He handles the billiard cue much better than the sword; and I have not heard that since he left the Army he has distinguished himself much better with the pen than with the sword. With the billiard cue, however, he certainly is accomplished. The greatest exploit of Captain Plunkott's was in the City of Cork, in days gone by, when he drove a tamdem down a steep hill at full gallop. Fortunately for the gallant Captain, he did not break his neck on that occasion, nor that of a relative of mine who accompanied him. He is an extremely bad-tempered man, and it is deplorable that such a man should be placed in the position of Divisional Magistrate, in charge of three of the most important counties of Ireland—Cork, Kerry and Limerick. With a bad-tempered man in charge of those three counties it cannot be surprising that you occasionally have such eases as that of O'Hanlon. the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General laughs, but it is not a laughable matter. With the liability of such cases as that of O'Hanlon occurring in the district, it is much to be deplored that such a man as Captain Plunkett should be in charge of it. I recollect an instance which occurred this time last year, when two of my hon. Friends were returned for the City of Cork. Captain Plunkett was in the billiard room of the County Club at the time the announcement of their return was made, and in a fit of passion he at once broke his billiard cue across his knee, and throw it to the other side of the room. On another occasion Captain Plunkett, acting upon the powers with which he was entrusted, proclaimed a meeting which I was to have attended at Youghal. We heard a great deal about Youghal in the autumn of last year. I ought to know something about Youghal. I have been for a long time in the district, and I know that the town of Youghal is one of the most peaceful, quiet, and tranquil towns in Ireland, and that it was in the centre of one of the most peaceful districts in the South, until Captain Plunkett succeeded in stirring up bad feeling and inciting to disturbance and disorder. I trust that that was not the reason why he was sent there. On the occasion to which I refer a meeting wag called in connection with the evictions on the Ponsonby estate, and the night before the meeting was to take place, Captain Plunkett sent down a bundle of bills, drawn up the night before, proclaiming the mooting; and this is a matter to which I feel it necessary to enforce attention. Captain Plunkett and other magistrates, who have "plenty of time at their disposal, have never proclaimed a meeting until shortly before it is going to be held, and the precedent of Captain Plunkett is what was practically adopted the other day in County Clare. In consequence of his well-know predilection for this mode of proceeding, the gallant captain has obtained the name of' Paste Pot Plunkett" in the South of Ireland. As it was, at the last moment that the meeting at Youghal was proclaimed people naturally got indignant. When a meeting has been proclaimed, a large body of police is sent down—which is another mistake, because when the people have become indignant there is sometimes a row, and when there is a row, the police charge the people, and generally a number of persons are hurt. I mention this as a deplorable fact, and I certainly attribute it to the known predilection of this man, Plunkett, for this particular mode of procedure in these matters. On the occasion I am referring to at Youghal, he proclaimed the meeting on the night before. Having fortunately heard of it, and exercising a little discretion, I was able on that day to address no less than about five meetings in and about the district. To show the stupidity of Captain Plunkett, I may say that he proclaimed the town of Youghal, but he never dreamt of proclaiming the County of Waterford, which is on the other side of the water. Accordingly I went from Youghal, met a number of my friends, and told them that Captain Plunkett had proclaimed the County of Cork; but he had no power whatever to proclaim the County of Waterford, seeing that he is only Divisional Magistrate for the counties of Cork, Kerry, and Limerick. Therefore, all we had to do was to get a ferry boat and go across the river to hold meetings in the County of Waterford, which we accordingly did, much to Captain Plunkett's disgust. Generally Captain Plunkett contrives to gloss over his stupidity, but he invariably acts with increased brutality on the next occasion. I certainly think that his conduct and character ought to be inquired into. Even the unfortunate "shadows" who follow him about—I can assure the Committee that I have had some of these men under my own personal care—are nearly worried to death owing to the abnormal hours the gallant captain affects. Of course, when he has a game of cards, or a billiard match in hand, he does not like to break up the game until he has made his money, and in that way, or in his attendance on married ladies, he keeps the persons who follow him about up all night till they break down in health.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to moderate his language. The hon. Member must remember what is due to the House of Commons.

I always remember what is due to the House of Commons; but I could not help adverting, in passing, in the mildest manner, to the well-known character of Captain Plunkett in the County of Cork. But Captain Plunkett does not stand alone. There are many others of the same class. the Committee wore told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary just now that there could be no better men for the position of magistrates than gentlemen who have graduated in the Army. I think that is a singular admission—a very cynical and sinister admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If it were necessary to hold drumhead courts martial upon the people, of course it would be very well to get military officers to conduct them. But if you wish to deal with the people in a legal way, you should appoint men who are capable of reasoning and bringing a certain amount of technical knowledge to bear upon the cases brought before them. I should certainly say—looking at the matter from a plain, common-sense point of view—that a soldier cannot be the best man to appoint. We know that soldiers are generally gentlemen who have a certain number of aristocratic relatives. This is the case with Captain Plunkett, Captain Stokes, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Carew, and others. If hon. Members will run their eye over the list of Resident Magistrates they must see that the way in which most of these military magistrates have been appointed is a job is consequence of their having aristocratic connections, who want to pension off their poor relations upon the State. I could give the Committee dozens of instances. A man is sent into the Army, and after serving for a time, a noble or distinguished relative looks out for a comfortable berth for him. I remember a case which occurred in the City of Cork not long ago. The relatives of one gentleman there—poor fellow, he is dead now— simply because he happened to be a bankrupt, worked Heaven and earth to get a Resident Magistracy for him. His name was put down upon the list for such a post, but, unfortunately, before his turn came round he died. The sooner all of them are superannuated—I will not say dead—the better. No doubt these gentlemen may be pleasant men to meet socially— Captain Plunkett is pleasant enough, socially—except that lie uses too much patchouli. The present right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has had very little experience of these matters. He only met the Divisional Magistrates the other day for the first time, and even then only a select few, and Captain Plunkett was one of them. As to Captain Stokes, he is a Resident Magistrate; he has been in the Army, and his age when he was appointed was 37. He is stationed at Blarney in the County of Cork; originally, he had £300 a year, and he now gets £550. I am afraid I shall feel it my duty to wind up my remarks by moving the reduction of the Vote by the amount of Captain Stokes' salary. I am sorry that I should have to mention so many facts that are really to the discredit of the Irish Magistracy, but there are so many things to object to in them in their personal character. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has expressed unqualified approbation of Resident Magistrates who have graduated in the Army. Now, there has been a great deal of disturbance in the district in which Captain Stokes is placed. Again and again I have brought cases before the House in connection with the action of Captain Stokes, and I propose now to call attention to two or three of the various cases which I have brought forward. Not long ago a man. named Timothy Buckley was charged before a Bench of Magistrates —I think it was on the 27th of April last—with attacking the dwelling-house of a man named Farrell, and with presenting a revolver at Farrell's head. Now, it is not everybody who is allowed to go about the streets armed with a revolver, and this man, Buckley, was a notoriously bad character. There had been a previous conviction against him, and lie was deemed a rowdy in every sense of the word. I endeavoured to obtain some information from the right hon. Gentleman whoso duty it is to answer Questions dealing with these points, but no information could I get. Buckley was in the employ as an emergency man of the Cork Defence Union, with the members of which Captain Stokes was on intimate terms. Buckley was brought before the Magistrates, Captain Stokes and Mr. Lynch, when it was clearly proved that he had the revolver, that he drew it upon this old man, the owner of the dwelling-house that was attacked, and his two daughters. It was also proved that another of the persons who was charged with Buckley had undergone confinement for a term of five years in the County of Cork. Captain Stokes admitted that the evidence given satisfied the Bench that these emergency men had committed the offence with which they were charged. But what happened on that occasion? Captain Stokes, although he said that the outrage ought not to have been committed, refused to send the case for trial, and the other Magistrate, Mr. Lynch, disagreeing with that decision, said that such downright blackguardism ought not to go unpunished. That is case No. 1 against Captain Stokes. Captain Stokes was on the Bench not merely performing a magisterial function, but he was there also as a friend and admirer of the Cork Defence Union. He is altogether one of the Club, and he really lives there when in the County of Cork. It could hardly be expected that a man enjoying favouritism of that kind would go and desert his friends, or when an opportunity arose, would not stand up for them. It was a case of—"If you will scratch me, I will scratch you." Case No. 2 occurred in the Ballyvourneen district on the 20th May last. Captain Stokes was on the Bench with a well known man—I am sorry I cannot call him a gentleman — Jeremiah Hafferty. On that occasion an unfortunate old man, who did not know a word of English, and whose name was Casey, was brought before the Bench in consequence of some small row that had occurred in the neighbourhood. What did Captain Stokes say from the Bench about that unfortunate old man? The remark he made was—-"The old gentleman appears to have been a fighting old rascal." Now, is that language which any magistrate ought to make use of? I am only giving the Committee one or two instances to show the kind of magistrate Captain Stokes is; but, if I were so disposed, I could take up the time of the Committee for hours in giving instances as to the way in which this gentleman deals with the cases which are brought before him. An Irish-speaking witness gave evidence on behalf of Casey, which was improperly interpreted by the Court. A neophite, under the control of Captain Stokes, performed the task of interpreter, and his interpretation was objected to on the ground that it was an improper translation of the evidence given on behalf of the prisoner. It was then that Captain Stokes turned round, in a laughing way, and spoke of Casey being "a fighting old rascal." On a subsequent occasion, some other persons were brought before the Ballyvourneen Bench of Magistrates—third cousins of Mr. Haggerty—who were charged with throwing stones at some houses belonging a person they did not like, and with creating a disturbance. In that ease, of course, there was no rule; it is only when a case is preferred against one of the people that Captain Stokes shines. I implore the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to look into the conduct of these magistrates in a more independent spirit than he has yet displayed. I ask him. to make an inquiry from all sides. I do not want a sort of left-handed inquiry. Of course, if you inquire from one official what the action of another official is one will back up the other. We have had that demonstrated over and over again to the satisfaction of all sane and moderate individuals. But I say that these men, whoso conduct I have impeached—and shall be prepared to impeach whenever an opportunity is afforded to me—are manifestly unfit to discharge the duties of magistrates. Their conduct stands indicted before the House, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman, if he is really desirous of having law and order respected in Ireland, to do something in the matter. Only about three months ago another point occurred in reference to Captain Stokes and the administration of justice. The Macroom band has been in the habit of performing on Saturday evening in the square of Macroom. Some evictions were threatened in the district about six miles from Macroom. A meeting was called, but although it was postponed, it was proclaimed; and the authorities would not allow the band to go into the square to play, as usual, because a meeting had been proclaimed six miles off. What would be said in England if such an occurrence happened? If a man in this country, filling a similar position to that which is occupied by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in connection with Ireland, prevented a band from performing for the amusement of the town's people, he would be overwhelmed with ridicule and contempt. I contend that the way in which these men act is absurd and contemptible. They conduct themselves as tyrants and despots; and I presume it is because the Irish Representatives are now determined in every possible way to show up their actions, that we are refused an investigation into the circumstances of the cases which we have brought before the House. I shall not trespass further upon the time of the House, nor shall I at the present moment move a reduction of the Vote. I hope, however, to receive from the right hon. Gentleman some answer to the cases I have quoted, and to get from him an assurance that in the fulfilment of his function he will command an investigation to be made into these matters. He will certainly do so if he is desirous to see the winter pass over our heads tranquilly—as I sincerely hope it will—and by so doing he will do something to guard the sacred cause of law and order.

Having had some experience of the manner in which the magistrates appointed in Ireland perform their duty, I have come to the conclusion that they are utterly unfit for the posts they occupy. Mention has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) of the conduct of Captain Stokes on various occasions. Perhaps I may be allowed to relate to the Committee au extraordinary incident which relates to the conduct of Captain Stokes and Mr. Warburton, another Resident Magistrate, which incident no one in this House will be prepared to deny. Immediately after the passing of the Crimes Act of 1882 I presided at a meeting in my native town of Bantry, which is part of the Division of Cork I now represent. After the meeting was held I was served with a summons, as also was the present Mayor of Cork and the Chairman of the Board of Guardians. Three hours after the case came on for trial; Captain Stokes and Mr. Eaton, who conducted the trial, adjourned for luncheon to the home of Mr. Warburton, the Resident Magistrate, and the question was there discussed of the sentence which the accused persons should receive. Captain Stokes proposed that I should get six months, and the other two three months each; but Mr. Warburton remonstrated, and said three months for me and two months each for the others. The trial went on, and, after three days, the very sentence which was settled at the luncheon on the first day was awarded; I got three months and my friends two months. I did not care about the imprisonment at all; it did not take a feather out of MR. I felt that I was only doing my duty to the people who are now my constituents, but what I do complain of is that these gentlemen should have arranged at luncheon the punishment I was to get to days afterwards. I have called upon Mr. Warburton, from my place in this House, to contradict a statement I made in refer- ence to the action of Captain Stokes and Mr. Eaton on another occasion. A friend of Mr. Warburton, well known in the town, has said that I acted very ungratefully towards that gentleman, seeing that he had on the previous occasion taken three months off my imprisonment. I replied that it was entirely upon public grounds that I acted. The case was Regina against Michael Walsh, Thomas Culler, and Robert Kelly, the last two of whom were charged with threatening to shoot the gamekeeper of the Earl of Kenmare on the 11th of January last. In the first place, one of the witnesses who saw the attempted shooting spoke to the men having their faces blackened and that he was consequently unable to recognize them; but he heard a shot fired. In the month of February this witness made a further deposition to the effect that he saw two men go towards the gamekeeper, and when about 20 yards off, as far as he could judge, he saw the two men. He spoke to one of them, whose face was coloured black, but he received no answer. He then saw the man put his hat on the ground, and go down on his knee. He had a gun in his hand. "That man," he added," I identify as Robert Kelly." Yet this man had sworn that he did not know either of the men because their faces were blackened. In cross-examination the witness admitted that he had been accused of homicide, and that he had suffered 12 months' imprisonment for sheep stealing. In the case of which I have been speaking, the prosecution was in the end. withdrawn. Now, what I complain of is that these young men, who belonged to respectable families, had been imprisoned and sent for trial on the information of a man who was notoriously one of the worst characters in the whole district. The Attorney General saw at once that it was not a case to send before a jury, and he at once had it withdrawn, and I believe that both of the accused subsequently received licences to carry guns. It was monstrously unjust, in my opinion, on the part of Mr. Warburton to keep these young men for five months in gaol, and afterwards to grant them gun licenses. It turned out subsequently that another bailiff of Lord Kenmare brought Keown —the witness—to the accused men, and pointed out who he was to swear against. That is how the prosecution was got up against two respectable young men by the family of Keown, who were known to be the most dishonest and disreputable family in the whole parish. I think that some supervision ought to be exercized over the action of Mr. Warburton, and that he should not be allowed to proceed with impunity against persons whom the landlords and their agents happen to have a grudge against. I am afraid that the system of tyranny which prevails in this part of Ireland only tends to aggravate the people, and that it fails to secure their respect for the administration of justice. Let me mention another case in which Mr. Warburton was concerned—the case of the son of a landlord named O'Donovan, who was caught Moonlighting and knocking down fences, but was only fined 2s. 6d, Another person, brought into court for attempted murder, had attacked a small boy and thrown him into a pool of water. If another man had not been coming up the road, the boy would have been strangled or drowned. Yet the offender only got three months' imprisonment, instead of the case being sent to the Assizes for trial.

Who was the magistrate?

The same gentleman—Mr. Warburton. In another case —for throwing stones — Mr. Warburton returned the prisoners for trial at the Cork Assizes, but the Crown Prosecutor withdrew the information, and let the men out on their own recognizances. Persons are imprisoned because they oppose the landlords and give them annoyance. It is time, in my judgment, for this scandal to be put a stop to, and it is with that object that I have called the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) and the Government to it. Before any man is imprisoned the right hon. and learned Gentleman should peruse the information, and not allow the Resident Magistrates in small country towns to obey the behests of the landlords.

I desire to add my protest against the way in which the Resident Magistrates perform their duties. I have had some experience of the action of Captain Stokes in the South of Ireland; but be- fore I enter into the conduct of that gentleman, I desire to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to some circumstances which have recently occurred in the Island of Achill on the West Coast of Mayo. Last summer, some few individuals in that Island were induced to lay a sworn information about a conspiracy which was alleged to have been hatched there. Now, the unfortunate peasantry of the Island of Achill and the West of Mayo are about as quiet and and simple-minded a people as are to be found in the whole of Ireland. Their only desire is to be allowed to carry on their fishing and grazing in peace. The Island is barren and sterile, and as a class they are much impoverished. Nevertheless they are contented, and by no moans disorderly. The result of the information sworn against them, was that a large force of police was drafted there on the application of the Resident Magistrate, and week after week a Special Court was held to inquire into the state of things which existed on the Island. the people became utterly paralyzed, and got into such a state of fright that the parish priest, the Rev. Father O'Connor, had to send to Dublin and bring down an experienced barrister for the purpose of making an application to the Resident Magistrate to get rid of the police force. The remonstrances against the conduct of the authorities had such an effect that the police were withdrawn, and an interval was allowed to elapse. I have since received letters stating that the same kind of terrorism on the part of the Resident Magistrate has been renewed; and that it has extended beyond the Island of Achill, and that the people of Westport and Newport have been subjected to the same sort of annoyance. I therefore ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General if he will cause some inquiry to be instituted into the course which has been pursued in this remote part of Western Mayo? I presume that the Resident Magistrates of Ireland, like all other people who have to do with, the administration of justice in that country, are under the control of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The matter is not under my control, but under that of the Chief Secretary.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary then, or somebody, must be accountable to this House for the way in which the Resident Magistrates discharge their duty. Let me assume it is that the Chief Secretary, I suppose, at any rate, that the right hon. and learned Attorney General will advise the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, although he may not be directly responsible to the House for what may have been done by these gentlemen. Let me ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite what may be the effect of this constant annoyance on the part of the authorities down in Mayo and elsewhere, if there is any real desire to bring about a peaceable state of affairs, and I hope they will instruct the Resident Magistrates and County Court Judges not to avail themselves of every opportunity of irritating the people. When I was down there, a short time ago, I did my best to bring the people into a state of mind that would enable them to bear the undue, terrible, and wanton provocation they were receiving at the hands of the authorities. This is not the only part of the irritation which is carried on by the authorities, because I understand that, even although the people have taken our advice, the police authorities, the Resident Magistrates, and others have become worse and worse since. Ever since the Coercion Bill passed, these men believe that they have nothing to do but to ride roughshod over the people. They are in daily communication with men like Stoney, whose conduct I brought before the House the other day, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary admitted that many of the charges I brought against him were true, and that he had been guilty of wilful neglect, if not of something worse. These magistrates are the constant companions of such men as Stoney, and the result of this constant association with local landlords who are unable to get their rents, owing to the bad weather the farmers in the West have had to contend against, together with the fall of prices which has affected the farmers more in the West of Ireland than elsewhere, is that they have an undue sympathy with the landlords in their relations with the tenants. I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to consider whether it is not desirable, in the interests of justice, to pass some new rule, or even an Act of Parliament, to guard against the possibility of the magistrates getting on too familiar terms with the landlords, by shifting them from one part of the country to another every six or 12 months. Such a course as that would, I think, have an immediate beneficial effect upon the constitution of the Magisterial Bench in Ireland. They would not, in that case, be the mere creatures they now are of the local gentry of the country. The magistrates would be stationed for too short a time in any one particular district to enable the landlords to acquire an entire mastery over them. I will put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he had a Resident Magistrate, living close to his own house, dining night after night at his table, and any cases concerning his tenantry were brought before the Court presided over by that magistrate, would it not be natural to suppose, not that the magistrate would knowingly strain the law in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, but that his mind would be biased in some way so that it would be almost impossible for him to come to a fair decision in any case affecting the relation between landlord and tenant? If that were not so in the case of these landlords he would at once be Boycotted by the gentlemen he is in. the habit of dining with, who would, in all probability, make the place so hot for him that he would have to apply for his removal from the district. I maintain that the only way of remedying this evil is to shift these magistrates around the country every six months, or at least every 12 months. That would to some extent — I do not say that it would wholly — remove the evil, and would secure the better administration of justice in the country. I feel most strongly upon the way in which the people have been treated in the West of Ireland, and I contend that this is the only way of getting out of the difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) referred to the conduct of Captain Plunkett in proclaiming meetings. We shall probably hear a good deal upon that subject during the next six or eight months. I should, therefore, like to give some idea of my experience in connection with the proclamation of meetings, and I should like to show the Government what they may expect from the exercise of this power by the Resident Magistrates. It may be in contemplation to hold a perfectly legal and lawful meeting of the people of a particular district; but under certain conditions the Government are to be justified in preventing public meetings, provided the placard convening the meeting is drawn up in such a manner as to show that it is possible a breach of the peace may take place. Now, I have never heard of such a meeting, and I absolutely deny that any notice convening a meeting issued by any branch of the Irish National League, or the Land League before them, could have induced any man in his senses to believe that the promoters of the meeting desired in any way to lead up to a breach of the peace, or to any illegality. I remember, under the Crimes Act of 1882, the way in which these Proclamations wore issued. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) when he says that although a week or 10 days' notice may have been given of a meeting, and the fact was well known to the authorities, the magistrates have not stepped in to proclaim the meeting until late on the Saturday night—the night before the meeting was fixed to take place. Surely if a meeting is announced 10 or 11 days before, the Government have ample notice of it, and can get all their information sworn, as they were obliged to do under the Act of 1882, to show that the meeting is likely to be dangerous. They would be able to have a telegram down to prohibit the meeting in sufficient time to prevent any large gathering of the people, because, under the circumstances, they would be indisposed to attend it. Instead of taking that course, at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock on the Sunday morning a Proclamation is posted up on the dead walls of the town in which the meeting is to be held, which can have no other object than to bring the people into collision with the police, and bring about the shedding of blood, so that in fear of a massacre the people of Ireland may be terrorized into abstaining from daring to holding a meeting. I believe that this has been the deliberate object of Captain Plunkett and other gentlemen who have had to do with the administration of the law in Ireland, and who have, unfortunately, yet to do with it. I trust, in the interests of this country, as well as of Ireland, that, at any rate, when the Government make up their minds that a meeting shall not take place, they will order the Resident Magistrates to give due notice to the people that such meeting will not be permitted by the Government, and that it will, if necessary, be dispersed by force. But what is likely to happen the very moment this House is prorogued, which I presume will take place in the course of another fortnight? We know very well what the authority is which is given to the Lord Lieutenant, and we know what is likely to be the authority given to men like Captain Plunkett. We know that only the other day a resolution, signed by 21 magistrates of the City of Cork, comprising men of all shades of opinion, was sent up to the Chief Secretary; but the right hon. Gentleman altogether disregarded the resolution, and preferred to take the advice of Captain Plunkett—or if the right hon. Gentleman did not, his subordinates undoubtedly did. The consequence is that we have a man in supreme control over the lives of the people of three counties in the South of Ireland, and a man, too, who would not be allowed in England to have anything to do with the administration of justice in any part of the country at all. If there is any one man who is more thoroughly detested in Ireland than another—more thoroughly and cordially hated—and against whom there are most just complaints, it is Captain Plunkett. He is a man who was taken out of the Army —a man possessing no knowledge of the law, or of the country he is assisting to govern, and a man associated and connected with almost all the landlords in Ireland. This is the man you sent down to the South of Ireland to keep the unfortunate peasantry under control, and to prevent them from giving expression in an open and Constitutional manner to the grievances from which they suffer, and which are admitted even by the legislation of the Government themselves. I have stated that I have had some experience of a proclaimed meeting in Ireland. The sole object, I say, is to prevent the people from coming together, and giving expression to their grievances. If they are not allowed to do so at a public meeting they will do so in some other way. They have never yet been prevented from holding a public meeting; and although the police and the military have been scattered broadcast all over the country, and every wall covered with Proclamations, the people have come together, have passed resolutions, and have formed branches of the Irish National League. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that under the Act of 1882 some of the meetings were called to form branches of the Land League, and that they were proclaimed by Lord Spencer. They were proclaimed; but before three months had elapsed Earl Spencer gave up his Proclamations, because it was found impossible for Captain Plunkett, or for Earl Spencer, with all their resources, to prevent the formation of branches of the Land League when the people were so inclined. I have attended dozens of these meetings with the detectives a few yards from my heel. Whether by day or night, we were always able to hold our meetings; we had our regular quarters, and kept minutes of our proceedings; and similar meetings will continue to be held in spite of all the Government can do. the conduct of Captain Plunkett in reference to these meetings was such that I will not attempt to characterize it. the very meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary referred at Castlelinn was a deliberate attempt to bring the people into collision with the police, and a deliberate attempt at wanton murder, such as did subsequently occur in the town of Youghal. In that case, Captain Plunkett succeeded in preventing an inquiry from being held into the conduct of the Constabulary Force—he prevented an inquiry into the kicking of a man deliberately to death. The man who committed the crime is still at large, no charge having been preferred against him. But we have met Captain Plunkett before, and have been able to defeat him, and we have no fear as to the account we shall be able to give of him in the conflict we are likely to be engaged in next year. Before I pass from Captain Plunkett, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question—Under what Rule or under what Act of Parliament does Cap- tain Plunkett receive a salary of £2,000 a-year? I understand that before the inquiry upstairs—the inquiry into the Civil Service Estimates—it was stated by the gentleman who is at the head of the Department, more than once, that the payment of £1,700 odd is an illegal payment—that the Government have never come forward here to bring in a Bill to sanction the payment of that sum. What I want to know is whether the Committee are asked to-night to vote £2,000 to Captain Plunkett, without any justification in law for the charge, and contrary to the usage of this House? That is a point upon which I shall endeavour to extract an answer if I possibly can from the right hon. Gentleman, because I entertain the belief that this Vote is an illegal Vote, which cannot be passed here according to the rule and practice of the House without an Act of Parliament. I will now pass on to Captain Stokes, who is another of these worthies, but one who has not been entrusted with the same authority as Captain Plunkett; he is a mere creature of Captain Plunkett. Now, I have had some experience of Captain Stokes, too. Indeed, there are very few magistrates in the South of Ireland in regard to whom I am not able to tell some story. I shall confine myself, however, to a few words about Captain Stokes, simply because he officiates in the city in which I live. At one of the meetings which I attended, and which was proclaimed, the people assembled to the number of 10,000 or 12,000, and they were exceedingly annoyed at the high-handed conduct of the authorities. They pressed around the Resident Magistrate and the police, and if it had not been for the intervention of the parish priest and other influential gentlemen, there might have been a serious disturbance. I went up to Captain Stokes, and asked him to allow me to go upon the platform for a moment, in order to ask the people to disperse quietly; but he said I should do nothing of the kind, and that if the people did not disperse immediately he would at once order the police to fire into them. We made our apologies, and the result was that we held three mild demonstrations within three miles of the place where the original meeting was to have been held, and we had the speeches reported in the newspapers next morning. So much for the foolishness of endeavouring to put down public sentiment in the methods pursued by the Government. Then I ask would it not be better to allow these meetings to go on, and have the speeches made upon a regular open platform? Surely that would be the best way to meet us and deal with us, having regard to the fact that the Government have no power to deal with public meetings beyond the power of prosecuting before two Resident Magistrates the persons who deliver speeches at them, who would not dare to refuse to convict lest the magistrate might lose his £550 a-year, or, in the case of Captain Plunkett, his allowance of £2,000 a-year. We may be told that Captain Plunkett has no power to dictate the law, and that he takes no opportunity of doing so, so far as sitting on the Magisterial Bench is concerned; but we know how the walls were recently placarded in the County of Clare. We know how unsuccessful the attempt was to stop the meeting at Ennis on Sunday. [Cries of" Oh, oh! "] Some hon. Gentleman opposite seem to be of opinion that the meeting did not come off, but there are hon. Members in this House who can testify to the contrary. As to the appointment of men like Captain Plunkett, Captain Stokes, and others, I have only to add my testimony to what has been stated by the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) with regard to the conduct of these Resident Magistrates. I am acquainted with the general conduct of the magistrates in the county, and I can corroborate fully every statement my hon. Friend has made. I want to know from the Minister who is responsible for the conduct of the Resident Magistrates how he can account for what took place at Galway on Saturday last? A man named O'Donovan and 11 others were summoned before Mr. T. Gibson, a Resident Magistrate, by the District Inspector, under the Crimes Act. Those men were kept in custody, and when they were brought before the Court there was only one magistrate on the Bench; therefore the Court was not properly constituted. The accused, at considerable expense, had brought down from Dublin Mr. Bodkin, a barrister, but it was impossible to go into the case. Mr. Bodkin applied that the men should be allowed out on bail; but they were remanded back to prison by Mr. Gibson, the sole magistrate upon the Bench. Now, this is the most convenient way I know of for keeping men in prison without trial at all. It is much worse than the Crimes Act itself, under which you can only sentence men to three or six months' imprisonment after having undergone the farce of an inquiry. But here you have a Resident Magistrate keeping 12 men in prison, at the instance of a District Inspector, with the result that the unfortunate men have been sent back for another fortnight, until the next Petty Sessions are held. It will be very easy when men are remanded under the Crimes Act for the Resident Magistrates not to appear on the Bench, in which case the prisoners will not have at least the semblance of a trial, but will be sent back to gaol for indefinite periods, possibly because one of the Resident Magistrates is out boating, or attending a race meeting, or something of that sort. When the trial does come on, and they are awarded their three months' imprisonment, the time they have already spent in gaol will not be taken into account at all, but they will be tried as if they had not undergone any confinement whatever. I think this is a state of affairs which calls for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I hope that in future he will see when men are summoned under the Crimes Act to appear before the Bench of Magistrates to be prosecuted under that Act, that the Bench itself is legally constituted, so that the trial may take place at once, or that the prisoners shall be permitted to go out on bail until the next day of trial. It cannot be anticipated in such case that the men would run away; if they did, nothing would please the Government better. I can assure the Government, however, that they intend to stand their ground, and that they do not fear any punishment the Resident Magistrates may be pleased to inflict upon them. Now, let me invite the intention of the Committee to a disgraceful scene that occurred at Clare between a Mr. Roche—a relative of Lord Do Freyne—who had been subjected to the Plan of Campaign, and has got no rent for eight months, nor is he likely to get any for the next eight months, notwithstanding the Crimes Act, unless he will give fair terms to his tenants — and Mr. Kilkenny, another magistrate. Mr. Roche is Resident Magistrate in County Clare, and on a recent occasion—about three months ago —when some men were brought before the Bench for riot, so gross was the conduct of Mr. Roche that Mr. Kilkenny refused to act with him, and actually retired from the Bench. The proper cours-j would have been for an inquiry to be instituted at once by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Mr. Kilkenny was so disgusted at the way in which Mr. Roche behaved on the Bench, and the harsh and unjust sentences passed by him on unfortunate people who had been guilty of no offence whatever, that he refused to sit with him on the Bench. In one of the cases the man was simply guilty of the trivial offence of taking forcible possession of the place from which he had been evicted in order to obtain shelter for the night. Of course, Mr. Roche will be retained in the position he now occupies; but I should not be surprised to find that Mr. Kilkenny is removed. I will not detain the Committee further; but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he will endeavour to throw light, at any rate, upon the two points I have raised—first, by what authority Captain Plunkett receives a salary of £2,000? And, secondly, when an unfortunate man or woman, as the case may be—for women may be proceeded with under the Crimes Act as well as men—that when these persons are brought before a Bench of Magistrates under the Crimes Act, care will be taken to have two Resident Magistrates upon the Bench authorized to try the case, and if, by accident, one of them is absent, that the unfortunate persons accused shall be admitted to bail?

I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member both with regard to the salaries of Divisional Magistrates and also with regard to the question of the attendance of magistrates. With regard to the first point, it is perfectly true that the form in which those salaries are presented to the House is not wholly satisfactory, and the Treasury intend to put it on a more satisfactory basis. The duties of these magistrates are more of a police character than of a magisterial. They have not for some years acted as magistrates in a Court of Law, but controlled the police in their district. It will be better, therefore, that these salaries should come under the Police Vote. That alteration requires legislation, for which no opportunity has been afforded this Session. With regard to the question of the presence of two Resident Magistrates where persons are to be tried under the Crimes Act, it is certainly highly inconvenient that there should not be two magistrates present. I am not aware that the case has occurred in the past, and I will do what I can to prevent its occurrence.

I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will order these 12 men to be released on bail?

I will inquire into the case.

I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of Ireland to the conduct of Major Trail, whose appointment was an outrage on public decency, and whose continuance on the Bench I think is certainly not calculated to inspire confidence on the part of the people of Ireland in the administration of the law in that country, and, in doing so, I wish to draw attention to the antecedents of that gentleman in order that the Government may know what sort of man has been appointed to carry out that important work. Major Traill was an officer of the Army, publicly reprimanded by the Commander-in-Chief, and his removal was requested by his superior officer. This is the man who was appointed Resident Magistrate in one of the most peaceful districts in Ireland. One of his first exploits was to hold a Court on Sunday at the police barracks, where he sentenced three men to various terms of imprisonment with hard labour. The case came before the Appeal Court, and Baron Fitzgerald stated that these men had been illegally sentenced. The only answer his counsel could make was, that Major Traill was but a major in the Army, and as such could not be expected to know the law. I now wish to draw attention to the case of a lad named Killen. On the 5th July last, in the County of Meath, Mr. Tyrrell, J.P., laid an information before Major Traill against this lad. The information was that Killen had attempted to rescue a horse which Tyrrell was driving home, in order that he might charge the owner for trespass. This poor lad was dragged out of his bed early in the morning, and brought before the Court and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, in default of finding sureties, and he would have suffered that sentence if the sureties had not turned up. Major Traill asked if he had anything to say; and on the lad stating that he had witnesses, he turned round and said, "Witnesses be d—d !" and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment. This offence was committed on the 10th June, but it was not until four weeks afterwards that the information was laid, although at the time the offence was committed the Petty Sessions were being held. I put a Question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) in this House, and his reply was that my facts were not correctly given; that the offence was committed on the 18th June, and that the case was heard at the first Petty Sessions after the offence, and he went on to say that the magistrate stated that the case was treated as one of misbehaviour, and not of crime. I contend that there was not one word of truth in that statement. If the case was one of misbehaviour, and not of crime, why was the lad ordered to be arrested? I say, that a more scandalous case never occurred in Iceland, and unless I get a satisfactory reply that it will be inquired into when the Vote is put from the Chair, I shall divide against it.

I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland to give some information with regard to the Resident Magistrate at Ballinasloe. I cannot say what the Resident Magistrates in the district are doing, but I know that it is one of the most peaceful in Ireland. I want to know whether the Government intend to make any reform in the class of men who are selected for Resident Magistrates? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) knows very well that there are no two things which it is necessary to keep more distinct from each other than the Commission of the Peace and the Commission in the Army, because it is not to be expected that an officer who has spent his life in the Army will act impartially, or under- stand the law. The desire of these men is to oppress and tyrannize. It is well known that these gentry throughout Ireland are thoroughly opposed to the people, and several of the ordinary magistrates are opposed to them in religion. As long as this state of things continues we cannot look for justice as between man and man, although the Government must know perfectly well that nothing is more necessary than that the magistrates should, if possible, be absolutely impartial. Then, again, we object to the conversion of policemen into magistrates. The nature of a policeman is to oppress; his business is to run down criminals; and long experience has given these men the desire to get convictions. But you will never find a policeman who has been raised to the Bench adjudicating on a charge against a policeman; in no country in the world can such a thing be found. The best persons to discharge these duties are to be found among the municipal magistrates who are members of the various Town Councils, and have, therefore, a sort of popular consent. There are many of these men in Ireland, and I ask how it is that the Government never think of making them Stipendiary Magistrates? I say that these men, educated as they are, have a better knowledge of the people, and act more impartially and wisely, than officers brought from the Colonies and from India, whose whole lives have been passed, perhaps, in the practice of every form of iniquity. But my suggestion, I know, would not answer the purpose of the landlords; the gentry of the country must be coaxed and sustained in every possible manner; they must have their friends in the Stipendiary Magistrates. Thus we have a class of men whom the people regard as hostile to them; and when we in this House desire to bring about a change, and to have magistrates appointed more in accordance with the feelings of the people, the right hon. Gentleman and others get up and say a few bland words, pass over the occasion as well as they can, and we hear no more about it. Now, I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make any change in this respect? Will Government put upon the paid Bench men who are independent of the Government and the landlords, and who are uninfluenced by any other consideration than doing justice as between man and man?

It is quite impossible for the Government to pretend that the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew) is not deserving of an answer. The idea of passing over this very grave scandal without saying a word in explanation or reprobation of it is one which must rather amuse than otherwise, and certainly it will not tend to shorten debate or expedite the Business of the Committee. Here is a man whose antecedents have clearly unfitted him for any post in the service of the country; a man practically dismissed from his regiment by his commanding officer, and set up in Ireland to show some of the qualities he displayed in the Army, and for which he was dismissed; and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland actually takes pride out of the doughty deeds of Major Traill. Here is a man who had the audacity to say in Court—" Witnesses be d—d!" and sent the accused person to gaol without hearing evidence. The right hon. Gentleman pretends now to be discussing other subjects with his Colleagues, and to pass this over; but I can assure him that this is not the way to get the Business of the Committee concluded quickly, and the right hon. Gentleman may rely that if he does not make some promise with regard to the matter he will not get this Vote as soon as he expects. This Major Traill is simply a madman. That is the most charitable description of him, and why a madman is thought necessary to administer law and order in Kildare I cannot imagine. I should have thought it would be better to employ, instead of this madman, a man who has some of the craft of the serpent, and who would not be simply audacious in his disregard of the proprieties in the discharge of his duties. The treatment of this subject to-night is simply the culmination of the treatment accorded whenever questions on this subject have been asked in this House. Questions have again and again been asked upon the subject, and the answers have invariably been shifty, evasive, and lying.

the hon. Member knows very well that that word cannot be used here.

I understand there is but one Chairman in this House, and I shall obey him and no one else. What I mean is that the answers given in this House were supplied from persons outside, and it is not out of Order to say that information given by persons outside the House is lying and evasive. We all know that the answers in this case have been supplied by Major Traill himself. The idea of the right hon. Gentleman pretending not to catch this point now, and giving no answer to it! This is a matter which will not be tolerated on these Benches, no matter what your majority may be. The hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) has referred to a case of importance in his own neighbourhood, and I suppose it is because he is a Gentleman who does not speak often that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has passed over his complaint. In one case my hon. Friend charged some magistrates in his neighbourhood with condoning crime by inflicting a fine of 2s. 6d. for a moonlight offence committed by a member of the so-called party of law and order; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland does not seem to think it necessary to give an answer to that. I warn Englishmen that these local grievances are much more important than they seem; these things which occur out of reach of publicity are very important in themselves, because they make your law and order detestable in Ireland, and, in my opinion, justly detestable. In country districts, and in places like Bantry, the only impersonation of Government that the people have is the policeman and the magistrate. These are the two figures which bring the people into contact with the British Government; and in those two figures they are constantly taught to look for determined enemies. It is impossible to expect loyalty under those circumstances, and I hope you will never have it as long as they exist. Loyalty, then, would be, at best, a servile allegiance, dishonouring to those who would render it, and equally dishonouring, in my opinion, to those who accept it. With regard to the magistrates, the great point to my mind is that they all, with, perhaps, a single exception, belong to one small class of the community—they belong to the landlord class; they are mere representatives of the landlord class on the Bench; many of them are landlords them selves, and several of them are rackrenting landlords into the bargain. And then you expect that the vast mass of the tenantry of Ireland, when they meet these men on the Bench, will have respect for the decisions they give! I say that any people who would have respect for the decisions of a class of magistrates of this character would be slaves, and would deserve to be treated as slaves. Then, again, these magistrates are not only selected from the landlord class, but they are nearly all Protestants. In every department of Dublin Castle and of the Government of the country you have Protestants in a large proportion, notwithstanding the fact that four-fifths of the people are Catholics. There is no doubt about this at all. In the Privy Council you have nine Catholics to 36 Protestants. The Lieutenants of Counties number—

Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the Vote before the Committee.

I was about to go through a list of the Government Departments; but as you will not allow me, Mr. Courtney, I will not do so. I will simply remark that in Ireland, where the overwhelming majority of the population is Catholic, you have 25 Stipendiary Magistrates who are Catholics, and 55 who are Protestants. You have a great many Catholics who are fitted for this position. Why do you not appoint some of them? You will not do that; you confine these appointments, as in every other case, to the small class of Orange landlords, so that you have on the Bench the very worst representative that you can find for the discharge of this office, and then, as I have said, you expect in a country like ours, where the vast majority of the people is Catholic, that they should have respect for your Law Officers, and for your law and order. Your law is another name for injustice, and for organized injustice; your order, under the present state of things, is a perfect sham, and cannot be anything else. I was not in the House while the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was making some remarks about the telegram sent by Captain Plunkett; but I believe he made some statement as to the number of people injured on the occasion of the row at Youghal. He made a similar statement before, which was published in the newspapers, to some electors who were told that this telegram was being: largely circulated in certain districts, much to the disadvantage of the Unionist cause; and he said on the 25th July last, in a letter addressed to a Mr. Rowlands, that the circumstance which produced it, and amply justified Captain Plunkett's action, was an attack upon the police in the execution of their duty, in which many of them were badly hurt. The right hon. Gentleman made a similar statement in this House, and on the very day when he made it an investigation was going on, at which the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin asked the District Inspector of Police to state, on his oath, whether there was any truth in the statement made by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons on the previous night, when he said that 21 out of 22 policemen were severely injured.

I never stated that.

I cannot say what the exact words were which he used; but I was in the House when the right hon. Gentleman said that over 20 persons were injured.

Yes.

The hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin then asked whether there was any truth in the statement that that number were severely injured? And the Sub-Inspector's reply was—"There is no truth in the statement that they were injured. They were not injured." If the right hon. Gentleman's point is that he did not say that they were severely injured, but that they were injured, then I present him with the Inspector's reply, which was that there was no foundation for the statement. Another witness said that only one man was injured, and that he was not in danger.

The facts are these. Out of 22 men, 21 were struck with stones and pebbles, and three men wore severely wounded.

To that statement the Inspector gives a flat contradiction.

I made the statement on the authority of the Inspector himself.

I leave the matter to be settled between the Inspector and the right hon. Gentleman; but I would, in addition, point out that the latter statement is on oath, and that the information conveyed to this House is not on oath. I can only assume, therefore, that the latter statement is the more correct of the two; and if the right hon. Gentleman does not think it necessary to cast discredit on the Inspector of Police he might get up now and withdraw a statement calculated to cast serious obloquy on the people of the district. A very innocent interpretation is sought to be put on the now famous instructions of Captain Plunkett to the police not to hesitate to shoot We are told that this was to warn the people; but we know that the Irish Government were never so mad in their lives as when they found that this telegram was published, and they were so angry that an investigation, extending over three weeks, at which many officials were examined, was held in order to find out and punish, if possible, the individual who communicated the telegram. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has come very well out of this business; but, if he thinks differently, perhaps the time will come when he will revise his opinions on that point also.

I wish to draw attention to the case of Mr. Boylan, against whom Major Traill obtained a warrant. He went to Sir B. Chapman, his chum, and made a statement, upon which a warrant was issued for trespass. Now, anyone will know that trespass is not an indictable offence; but, nevertheless, Mr. Boylan was brought up and put into gaol, whore he remained several hours. In order to give the Committee an idea of the opinion which prevailed as to the legality of the warrant, I will just read some of Major Traill's cross-examination—

" Question.—Did you ask Sir B. Chapman to issue a warrant?

" Answer.—I do not believe I did.

" Sir B. Chapman.—I think you did.

" Question.—On your oath, did you ask for a warrant?

"Answer.—I think not. I pointed out that there were two courses open to him by Act of Parliament; one was to issue a warrant for the mail's arrest.

" Question. —Did you believe it was a case for a warrant?

" Answer.—Yes.

" Question.—On what grounds?

" Answer.—It was a trespass likely to lead to a breach of the peace."

Now, Sir, I ask this question—Is a magistrate having such a small knowledge of the Criminal Law a proper person to administer the Crimea Act in Ireland? I believe Major Traill was simply endeavouring to overdo his rights as a magistrate. He had no right or title to ask for a warrant. Major Traill has gone in for keeping fowls and selling eggs; he has also taken to summoning people for trespass, and about a fortnight ago the whole time of the Court was taken up between Major Traill and neighbours who were disputing a question of trespass. Under these circumstances, it is absurd to expect that this man can administer the Crimes Act properly. He is a man of irritable temper, and his action is such as in Ireland is calculated to provoke riot. A short time ago an execution was being made by the Sheriff, and Major Traill was sent in command of the police. A most inoffensive crowd assembled merely to witness the process of the law being carried out. There was some groaning by a small boy, and Major Traill rode through the crowd and said—" Who dares cough here?" I ask whether these sayings are consistent with the character of a gentleman and a magistrate? I think it is most monstrous to allow a man of such erratic mind, and with such a disposition to quarrel with his neighbours, to have any authority in these matters; and I ask whether he will be allowed to administer the Crimes Act, and also whether the Government consider that his action in Kildare and Meath was in keeping with the position he holds?

The hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) has made an attack upon the Resident Magistrates generally; but I must remind him, even supposing there was nothing to be said in favour of the Resident Magistrates, which I am very far from saying, believing that they have done their duty loyally and efficiently, that the greater part of them were appointed by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench when he was in Office. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the question of religion having entered into the consideration of the Government when they were appointed; but I am bound to say that neither the present Government nor any other in this country has ever entertained the question of religion in considering the appointment of magistrates when they believed that by them the law would be fairly and impartially administered. One of the magistrates who has been most bitterly attacked is Captain Plunkett, and he happens to be a Roman Catholic. From my own knowledge of Ireland, and speaking of the magistrates as a whole, I believe that both those who are Protestants and those who are Catholics do their duty, and that they are entitled to the respect of the country. A good deal of the time of the Committee has been taken up by the hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew) and other hon. Gentlemen in discussing the position of Major Traill, and matters connected with his jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the case and the hon. Member for North Dublin have gone very far into Major Traill's antecedents, and the latter hon. Gentleman has informed us that he was dismissed from his regiment by his commanding officer.

I believe that I was not technically accurate; I merely intended to put in popular language what was stated by my hon. Friend.

He was publicly reprimanded by the Commander-in-Chief, and his removal from the regiment was recommended by his commanding officer.

That may be correct; but I have not heard of it before. Major Traill, however, has done his duty to the satisfaction of successive Governments. The point brought before the Committee by the hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew) has been the subject of Questions put and answered two or three times in this House. I, of course, make no complaint whatever, except so far as this—that I answered those Questions on the best information I could procure, and to the best of my ability, and the hon. Gentleman certainly did not give me any reason to believe at the time that he was dissatisfied with my answers. I believe, from the information I received, that my answer was in the main correct; and I have no doubt the statement of the hon. Gentleman is also correct according to his information. But if the hon. Member has any know- ledge that the man is going to bring an action against Major Traill there is ground for complaint, because he might entrap the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland or myself into statements which might be used to prejudice the case. The hon. Member has made a statement which I know is specifically denied. He said that Major Traill used the words—" Witnesses be d—d." My information is that he used no such words; and I am informed that the man brought up no witnesses whatever. Now, I maintain that in this case Major Traill really acted with propriety. If Major Traill had sent the young man to the Assizes, he would have been put to great expense in engaging counsel and attending at the Assizes, which were held about 30 miles off; but, instead of that, Major Traill— there being no practical defence—took the facts into consideration, and bound him over to good behaviour on two sureties. With regard to the trial of Boylan, I can only say that this is another instance where Her Majesty's Government are called on to express an opinion in a case which is very likely to result in an action; and I, therefore, decline to express any opinion in the matter. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words used by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland— namely—

" If this warrant were illegal, it would be a case for civil proceedings against the magistrate who issued the warrant. And I decline to express a further opinion on the subject."

I think if the right hon. and learned Attorney General cannot express an opinion on the case, that I may reasonably refrain from doing so. At the same time, I believe that if a case of injustice is brought against any magistrate, bon. Gentlemen know very well that the matter will be investigated.

We have just listened to a speech of the precise sort which we expected from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We never expected to hear a repudiation of the action of landlord magistrates from one connected with them by every tie. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs to that class; and I am perfectly sure we shall never hear from him a reprobation of any act of that class, whatever be the outrage on justice which may be perpetrated by them.

The hon. Member has made a most unwarranted accusation in saying that whatever outrage on justice is perpetrated it will not be reprobated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

If I am obliged to withdraw, of course I do so. I proceed to remark upon other portions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. He says that the present Government are not responsible for the appointment of the magistrates. That is what we hear from one Government after another; no matter what Government is in power, it is always the answer we get. Dublin Castle remains the same iniquitous despotism, no matter what Party occupies the Ministerial Bench in this House. That is one of the things which distinguishes the Government of England in Ireland. The wishes and opinions of the majority of the people of England are deferred to; but in Ireland, no matter what Government is in power, you have the same detestable Government in Dublin Castle. On another point, also, we have heard from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the same reply that we are always accustomed to hear— namely, that the question of religion is never taken into account in the appointment of the magistrates. But you will find in every Department of Dublin Castle, and in every Department of Government in Ireland, a small minority of Catholic officials and a great majority of Protestants, although, as I have shown, four-fifths of the population of the country are of the Catholic religion, and it is simply ridiculous to pretend that all this comes by accident. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, presumed to speak for a section of the Irish people. I deny that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is competent to speak on behalf of any part of the people of Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was kicked out of Dublin County, and he could not get a seat anywhere else in Ireland. I believe he tried his luck in the North of Ireland, and was as unsuccessful as he had been South of the Boyne; and, therefore, I say it is not for him to speak on behalf of any portion of the people of Ireland. The principle of your Constitution is most beautiful in theory; you can read about it in books, and can hear about it in this House; but when you examine it in practice, you find it to be a sham and a delusion. It is the same with regard to the alleged right of action against magistrates when they do wrong. Whenever an action is brought against a magistrate in Ireland, the whole power of the Treasury is applied to defend that man, no matter what evidence there may be against him; and yet you tell us that poor men who cannot afford to spend 2s. 6d. at Petty Sessions have a right of action against the magistrates. To tell these people that they have a right of action against magistrates is to tell them what is technically true but substantially false, and to make such a statement in this House is simply to add insult to injury.

I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the nature of some important statements which are made in this House on the authority of Resident Magistrates and others. Irish Members know well that the Government must depend on secondary information, and that upon information of that kind they must give us answers. The information supplied by the magistrates in Ireland is very often lying information, because it is given in their own defence, and we cannot, therefore, rely upon it. Whenever I put a Question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) I find that, with regard to the cases brought forward, the Resident Magistrates supply information altogether wide of the mark. It was only last Saturday that a number of Orangemen entered a place within my district and challenged the people to come out and fight them; the Resident Magistrate of Armagh, Mr. Thomas Hamilton, gave no instructions to the police to summon these people. He is an Orangeman; and I know, of my own knowledge, that Orangemen in Armagh where I reside are allowed to assemble, and are reviewed by the Resident Magistrate. That is the sort of thing which does not create any regard or respect for the law. This magistrate receive £800 a-year, whereas the County Court Judge of Armagh has only £900 a-year, and his duties are very onerous, and, so far as legal requirements are concerned, he is a very excellent man. Now, I com- plain that the Resident Magistrate reviews those Orangemen. I have seen them and heard them parading through the town under the leadership of Mr. Hamilton, and parading and drum-beating even when the Judges wore sitting on the Bench administering justice. The Resident Magistrate, Mr. Hamilton, permits these men to go drumming through Armagh to such an extent that the Judge of Assize finds it necessary to adjourn the Court. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) led the drumming party, passed the place where the Judge was sitting in 1886, and Mr. Hamilton permitted the thing to take place, and allowed it to interfere with the holding of the Assizes for the day. That such things should be allowed is most extraordinary. Imagine such a thing being allowed in Cork, or in any other city in Ireland! We have heard great complaints in this country about the interference with the administration of justice in Ireland; but the occurrence I am describing took place in my own county, in the town in which I reside, and there never was a word of objection raised. If complaint had been made to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary by me, I should have been told that nothing of the kind had occurred, because the right hon. Gentleman himself would not have known the facts, but would have had to depend for his information upon the Local Authorities. When Questions are put to the right hon. Gentleman in this House ha bases his replies on information of this kind. I say that he relies altogether on false information. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in my opinion, the Orange organization in the town of Armagh has put down the Queen's authority. Its operations have manifestly displeased the people, and yet the magistrates leave them without any redress, notwithstanding that events have transpired there which, if they had occurred elsewhere, would have been dealt with by the police on their own authority, without even waiting for the advice of the magistrates. I do not wish to ask that those who differ from me in politics may be punished—far from it—but there is no doubt that the present state of things in County Armagh is so uncomfortable and irritating that it cannot continue. Some- thing must be done to give the people confidence in the administration of the law; and unless pressure is put upon Mr. Hamilton he is not likely to administer justice fairly. I happened to put a Question once in this House with reference to the conduct of Mr. Hamilton on the occasion of the demolition of my house by an Orange mob. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nowcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) who was then Chief Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman rose at that Table and made a statement contrary to the fact; but he depended, of course, for his information upon Mr. Hamilton, and of course the information he received was contrary to the fact. He took occasion, when trying some of the rioters at the Petty Sessions, to make use of the expression that he did not care about Parliament. If I made such a statement in this House, either the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees would call me to Order; and this man, who is in the pay of Parliament, wishes, apparently, to have his salary without having his conduct commented upon—at any rate, he has defied Parliament in open Court. It is of no use asking him about it, because he would altogether deny having used the words attributed to him; but there is no doubt as to the fact, because his observations were reported fully in the public Press. When we put Questions in this House relating to his conduct, the answer he makes, when he comes to hear the circumstances, is that he does not care about Parliament. I think such conduct should not be tolerated in this Resident Magistrate. If any Member gave utterance to a contempt of Parliament in this House it would not be tolerated; and I certainly think that where you have an ex-policeman administering the law, though possessing very little knowledge of that law, he should be subject to some supervision with reference to his conduct towards this House, and with reference to his language towards this House. He should be subject, I think, to the same supervision and the same control as a Member of the High Court of Parliament. I do not know whether my hon. Friends around me would agree with me if I moved the reduction of this Vote. I will not adopt that coarse; but, at any rate, I thought it my duty to bring the conduct of these men under the notice of the House.

The hon. Member who has just sat down appealed to me as to whether he should move the reduction of the Vote, and I urged him not to; and my reason for so doing was simply this—that there are about 80 of these Resident Magistrates, and if a reduction is moved in one case, there is no reason why it should not be moved in other cases—it would simply be useless to oppose the Vote in the case of any single magistrate. We do not wish hon. Members to narrow the Vote in any particular direction, and if we oppose it it is because we have a serious objection to all these Resident Magistrates. There may possibly be a few righteous men amongst the magistrates; but I believe it is about the proportion which of old you might have expected to find in Sodom and Gomorrah. We have heard a great deal to-night about Major Traill. We have heard a great deal about the performances of this military gentleman, who goes in for what we might call— to use an Irish phrase— "Bouilomskiagh," and for administering justice according to his own ideas. But this Major Traill is only one of a class of military magistrates; but he is typical of the rest—I might say "the trail of the serpent is over them all." What I complain of more than anything else is that they are backed up in their performances in this House. I do not like to say anything in the absence of the Irish Minister responsible in some degree for these persons—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman)—which might appear as though I was taking advantage of his absence; but I think I have a perfect right to say that he does not like to go back on his class. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have been one of these Resident Magistrates himself— probably he would have accepted the post some time ago if it had been offered to him. Of course, I may be wrong, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have fancied himself a bit above it. He has endeavoured to defend the Resident Magistrates here tonight, and has said a lot for them, which, after all, though it may have sounded plausible enough, to our minds amounted to very little. He denied that Major Traill was dismissed from the Army, and he endeavoured to make much of that point. Now, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in saying that played upon words. I do not accuse him of desiring to lead the Committee astray, or of desiring to impose upon them with a falsehood; but, as was shown by the interruptions he evoked whilst he was speaking, it was recognized that he merely played upon words. Major Traill may not have been actually drummed out of the regiment, and may not have had tin kettles thrown after him; but he was dismissed without pay and pension—lie was "requested" to leave. If he had not left when he did there can be very little doubt that he would have been put out in a more disgraceful way, and we all know what that means. Anyone who has had anything to do with public boards or offices knows exactly what it means when a man is "requested to resign." It means that if he does not resign he will be dismissed; but getting rid of him in this way leaves him an opportunity of getting another situation, which he might, to a great extent, be deprived of if he were absolutely dismissed. This has been the course adopted in the case of Major Traill, and I think that the Vote which is down here for his salary shows that such is the case. It shows, as compared with other Votes, that whereas an average military gentleman coming out of the Army with some distinction and receiving a pension is compensated for his services when entering the ranks of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland by a salary of £300 a-year, Major Traill, because he was dismissed from the Army with a certain amount of disgrace and without a pension, is compensated by the Government by being started at a salary of £425 per annum. It seems from this that disgracing an honourable profession represents £125 a-year in the eyes of the British Government in its administration of Irish affairs. At any rate, that is their position with regard to the case of Major Traill. Then we heard a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew), who very rarely troubles us in these matters, and I think that the fact of his having made his first two formal speeches on this subject shows that he feels very keenly on it. We have heard the arguments of my hon. Friend used in the case of the lad Killen, and we have heard the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet—or, at any rate, what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered an answer. This lad, it seems, had endeavoured to rescue a horse which one Mr. Tyrrell, J.P., was engaged in driving home in order to charge the owner with trespass. The boy was lugged out of his bed at 5 o'clock in the morning and taken 30 miles off to a Court, where he was tried by Mr. Traill, the Resident Magistrate. Well, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that if Major Traill has acted illegally in this case there is a remedy against him. But, granting that there is a remedy, it must be remembered that this is a poor boy, and that the resources of the law are not within easy reach of such a person. It will be admitted by everyone practically acquainted with the working of the Government in Ireland that all the resources of the law and all the funds of the Government are at the disposal of the Resident Magistrate, especially when he breaks the law. Then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made another point. He said—"Oh; but the boy was ready with his sureties in Court, and that showed he was ready to meet the case." A person taken out of his bed at 5 o'clock in the morning and conveyed to a Court 30 miles away is said to be ready to meet a charge brought against him under those circumstances; but how is the fact that the boy had sureties in Court accounted for? They are accounted for in this way. The boy's father naturally could not sleep when his son had been taken away, and he therefore got up and made the best of his way to the Court, getting a neighbour to accompany him. They followed in the track of the post ear which was carrying away the lad, and the consequence was that when they got to the Court they were ready to be sureties for him. I say they were ready to be sureties, but they were not called upon; for, as a matter of fact, the boy was sentenced to three months' imprisonment before the father or his friend arrived at all. Even if that had not been so— even if the boy had not had a father, or if the father had been decrepit—thank God such, is the state of public feeling in Ireland at this moment that there is no place, however obscure, where a young man like this could be tried, and whore it is evident to the people around that the accused is deserving of sympathy and is being; persecuted, where you could not get persons to come forward and pledge everything they possessed in the would to go surety for him. That, Sir, is the state of things in Ireland. It is not sympathy with crime; but the fact is firmly imprinted on the minds of the people of the country that ninety-nine out of a hundred prisoners proceeded against in cases of this kind are not guilty of crime at all. The very arguments that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman used in this case can be turned against himself. "Oh," said he," Major Traill would have been guilty of cruelty if he had postponed this case. He would have been acting unjustly if he had remanded the prisoner, because the case would have been put off to the Petty Sessions; "and he says that at the very same time that he makes a point out of the fact that the father and the friend of this young man were present in Court to go bail for him. Everyone who knows Ireland, and who knows what the administration of the law is there, need do nothing more than take the first part of an answer made by anyone representing the Irish Government, and wait for the second part of the answer before the conclusion of the speech, in order to find one part contradict the other. All you have to do is to put one against the other, and you will find that the first will refute the last, and the last will refute the first. If these men were in Court ready to go bail for this young man, surely Major Traill could have remanded the case, and would have found these persons substantial and sufficient surety. If they were substantial and sufficient bail for three months, they would have been substantial and sufficient bail for the appearance of the accused at the expiration of a remand to allow him to prepare his defence. Magistrates in Ireland have no right to dispense what has been significantly called "palm-tree justice." It is their duty to do real justice. This case has been raised before. The proper thing for the magistrate to have done would have been to say—"This young man does not seem to have his evidence ready, and I will therefore remand the case to the ordinary Petty Sessions. If I am there I should try it, and if not it will be taken up by the other magistrates; but in any case I remand this young man on substantial bail being forthcoming. I consent to release him from this day to the Sessions day." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say that there would have been anything unconstitutional or improper in the adoption of such a course as that. The young man might have been released during the interval between the first hearing of the case and the Petty Sessions, in order to attend to his work and to do his ordinary business, and then in the course of time, when he had his case ready, he would have come forward to stand his trial, and take the consequences of his action if he were guilty. But what are the facts? Why, the facts are these—that there is this Justice of the Peace, named Tyrrell, who goes down into County Kildare and into County Meath occasionally. This is one of the peculiarities of the system of government in Ireland—and it really is very wearisome to be obliged to inflict these descriptions on this House time after time; but until the House tries to realize the kind of men they keep in Ireland in the form of governors we shall find no improvement in these matters, and cannot avoid speaking of them. You have a class of broken-down adventurers who have become magistrates, and are local Justices, outside the class of Resident Magistrates altogether. Belonging to this class was this Mr. Tyrrell. He was a Justice of the Peace, having got the position because he asked for it, I suppose, or perhaps because the Government thought him just the sort of person to exercise the functions. He had no property qualification. I have known a case in Kerry where the father has ceased to have the property qualification, and his three sons have obtained it in rotation. But I pass from the question of Justices of the Peace. This man Tyrrell was engaged in driving a horse from a farm from which a tenant had been evicted when the lad Killen tried to rescue the horse. Mr. Tyrrell prosecuted the boy, and the Resident Magistrate, just because Mr. Tyrrell brought the summons, conceiving it to be a case in which there was some agrarian or political aspect, said to this adventurous Justice of the Peace, who has degenerated through all the grades which are known in Ireland from Justice of the Peace down to bum-bailiff, "What costs do you require? "Now, I do not pretend to be anything of a lawyer, and I have had the audacity to publicly thank God that I am not; but I, at least, know this with regard to the Petty Sessional practice in Ireland—that no costs are ever given in such cases, and I believe that the law does not allow the magistrates in cases of trespass to give any costs at all. The damages which are inflicted under the Petty Sessions Acts are damages which are intended to cover costs. Damages are given in the case of trespass by means of a fine, and there is no provision for costs at all. But Major Traill not only strained the law, but invented a law of his own. He says—I presume in the words of that other gentleman of whom we heard some time ago—" What do I care for Parliament," or "Parliament may go to—"—well a place that was designated. Major Traill said—" Will you take 10s. 6d. in one case, and will you take £1 in the other?" I have seen magistrates who seemed to affect to know a great deal about the law—I have seen them going over and over again to study the books to see whether in certain cases they could not give 5s. costs to the solicitors at Petty Sessions. I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland opposite to me, and I see also another hon. and learned Gentleman sitting there, one high in the pay of the Government. I ask those Gentlemen to tell me under what Statute it is legal to give these costs, and even if they fall back on that beautiful Elysium of Common Law, I ask them where in Common Law is power given to a magistrate to grant costs because he grants a summons? Now, I will tell hon. Members who are doing me the honour of listening to me that the real and only ground upon which these magistrates go is this. They say to themselves—" This man has acted as an Emergency man; he has shown a certain firmness; there is a bit of dash about him; and he sets himself in opposition to the Nationalists to whom the Government are opposed—I will give him 10s. 6d. in one case, and I will give him £1 in the other case." I need not say that it is absolutely illegal for a magistrate to take such a position. I say that without fear of contradiction—of course, if I am overstating the case, there are hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side capable of correcting me; and I think it would be a useful thing if they did correct me if I am overstating the case. When we were discussing the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland we were careful enough to raise this point, and to request that he should give directions in these matters, and should see that these magistrates kept within the law. Would it be too much to ask him that he should apply his mind to the facts of the case I am now referring to, in order to see if this man Traill has gone outside the law and had any warrant for giving Tyrrell £1 costs in one case and 10s. 6d. in another? I would narrow my question to these two figures. Of course this 30s. is a small consideration; but there is a great principle at stake. This is not a matter in which I need confine my observations to what I may call reflected experiences of my hon. Friends representing other counties; but I speak of what comes under my own observation in the county of Kerry. I know cases in which persons are Boycotted in the sense that no one will take their farms, and the landlord levels down the fences and throws the land open to the cattle and pigs and horses of the neighbouring farmers, and then he occasionally rides out, finds the animals trespassing, and proceeds against their owners for damages as did this man Tyrrell. In cases of this kind damages are given such as were allowed by Major Traill. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to inquire into this matter, and to see what warrant Major Traill had for the action he took in the case to which I have referred. Under what Statute is this power to be found? The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be studying Dod at this moment. He will not find the information I am asking for in that book. If it is to be found in the Common Law, I would ask him in what Reign, because even Common Law begins somewhere or other, I presume. When was the practice first established of allowing heavy costs in the case of the trespass of a goat? I take it that the trespass of a goat will last from half-au-hour to four hours, and at the very outside 6d. will represent all the damages which the animal could have inflicted in that time in the matter of the consumption of vegetables. Why should you give a man in such a case £1 as costs for his trouble in turning the goat out of a field? And yet magistrates have done that. I do not think even Common Law is elastic enough to cover cases like this. Is it elastic enough to say that where fences have been levelled down, and that where there is a common adjoining the public road leading to the fields, the fences round which have been levelled, that the owners of cattle sent to graze on such common shall be guilty of trespass if their animals wander on to the land from which the fences have been removed? The law requires that you shall take reasonable care to prevent trespass upon your land—that is to say, that you shall have it properly protected, so that trespass shall not be easy, before you can recover damages from your neighbour. But it is found in practice in Ireland that the magistrates make some such excuse as that the fences are torn down by vindictive persons. They say this in cases where the fences have crumbled through old age, and whore they have been levelled by the landlords themselves. Yet the Resident Magistrates are evincing their vindictiveness against those amongst whom they live, inflict not only punishment for trespass, but also allow heavy costs to those who bring the actions. Probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will think I have said enough on this subject. Well, Sir, I should like to pass from it to another matter which more closely affects myself. There is, of course, no Motion before the Committee. I should not countenance one, and I do not intend to move one myself, because I believe that a Motion for reduction might as reasonably be made in the case of one Resident Magistrate as another, and if we started moving reductions we should have to move a matter of 70 or 80 of them. While refraining from such a Motion, however, I desire to bring before the Committee a matter which I have already raised in this House on previous occasions. I believe that when I have previously brought the matter to which I am about to allude before the notice of the Government, the attendance of hon. Members has been just as thin as it is at present. I am going to make a charge against the Irish Executive, and I make it in the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I have made this charge twice before, and after I have solemnly and seriously brought it forward for the third time in this House, if he does not think it right to formally refute it, I shall be obliged to assume that it is true. [Mr. GIBSON dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head; but how many times, I would ask, is a Member to affirm the truth of a certain circumstance without receiving a refutation before he is entitled to believe that the circumstance he has alleged to be true is so? After all, I am a Member of Parliament just as much as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is. Nay, more than that, Sir, I represent a locality in which I am known, having lived there much of my life, which is more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say. I am elected for a district which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would try in vain to get returned for. I have not to go out of Ireland to get elected to this House. Well, I have a right, not only to the attention of this House, but to some credence; and the charge I make, if it is not answered—if it is not disproved—I shall continue to make from time to time, and shall continue to assert the truth of. It is this. I have asserted in this House that there is a practice which has existed under former Governments, and which at present exists under this Government, and which, I believe, will continue to exist— that is to say, in cases where two Resident Magistrates are called upon to adjudicate upon cases brought before them of sending to those magistrates what is known in Dublin Castle as a "file of instructions," containing the history which Dublin Castle has secured of the men under trial, and all the circumstances relating to them. What I fully believe these files contain are implied directions as to what is to be the sentence to be imposed on the men to be tried. That, Sir, is the charge I have brought against the Irish Executive before. I make that charge again to-night more emphatically than ever before. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman shirk it again if he wishes. I do not charge it particularly to the present Government; but I charge it to the system of Government at Dublin Castle, because, in those matters, there is no choice with regard to particular Governments. All that a Tory Government can pretend to do is to say that they have got so far in the administration of the law in Ireland as a Liberal Government got some years ago. But that is not enough for us. They have only got so far to go to get up to their necks in filth. The late Government have waded through it, and they are now sensible enough to be anxious to cleanse themselves entirely. I say that a mere wave of the hand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, denying that such a thing is the case, is not enough for MR. I am speaking not only from my own information, but from information supplied to me. I am speaking particularly from information I have received from a respected member of the Irish Bar, a gentleman very well known to persons practising at the Irish Bar— one well known, I have no doubt, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland him self—

What is his name?

I was about to say, but whose name I will not disclose. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite are very ready to stand up in this House and to say—" I make this statement on my honour—I make it as a Member of the Irish Government—for obvious reasons I cannot give the name of my informant." Very well, Sir, the Government will not disclose the names of men who receive hundreds of pounds for supplying them with false information; and yet when gentlemen are good enough to allow their instincts of humanity to lead them to give information of a truthful kind reflecting upon the character of the Government, they say, "Give us their names."

Of course they will not. These names ought to be as easily obtainable as the directions upon finger-posts and mile-stones if the statements made by the Government as to Boycotting are true. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland says, with a simplicity which I should hardly have given him credit for, "What is his name?" and he asks that even before I had finished that part of my sentence in which I was going to protect myself by saying—" whose name I will not give." Do not mind the name—suppose I heard it from a parrot or a starling. I make the charge on my responsibility as a Member of Parliament. I pledge my faith—I pledge my soul—that I believe the truth of what I say. Do you think it worth your while to answer it? I pledge myself solemnly that I believe the truth of it; and, moreover, I pledge myself to this—that nothing the right hon. and learned Gentleman shall say in mere evasion, or in mere deprecation of raising questions of this kind, will blot it out from my mind until he gives the legal proofs that such a thing is impossible. [Laughter.] One of my hon. Friends says that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is laughing at me. Well, I think his laugh will not be taken as against myself, but as against these men against whom this serious charge is brought, if they do not attempt to show that it is unfounded. After all, this Parliament is not going to scatter quite as suddenly as might have been expected, and perhaps I may be able to give the name of my informant in order to satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it my duty to give this name. I do not; but this I will promise, that I will write to my friend in order to ask him if I have his authority to mention his name in the House. I know that my friend is a man who has the means of knowing the circumstances of which he speaks, and I certainly think it would be just that we should be punished if we are deceiving the House in this matter. My firm conviction is that my friend is not deceiving me. I state here what I have already said on a previous occasion, that I myself have seen, in cases where there have been trials before two magistrates, notably in the case tried before Messrs. Warburton and Stokes—I have seen parcels brought from Dublin by the mail train and handed on the railway platform to the District Inspector, who, in turn, has handed them to the Resident Magistrates. That is what I have seen; and, besides that, the information I have received in this matter is given me by a friend of mine who may be said to be in the green room of Dublin Castle. Letters which I have seen handed in the way I have pointed out have been described to me as containing instructions to the Resident Magistrates, giving the political and criminal history of the men to be tried, and the decision which it was expected the magistrates would arrive at, That is the system of administration in Ireland. Supposing the allegation is not true, then all I can say is that it is six months ago since I first brought the charge in this House. I assorted it subsequently, and it has now been believed for many months in Ireland.

That, I say, is the system of administration in Ireland. If there be no truth in this charge, and if you really have the interests of good government in Ireland at heart, why will you allow belief in its truth to exist in the minds of the Irish people? I suppose you do not care for the opinion of the Irish people; but, after all, it seems to me that anybody desiring to govern a country properly must be anxious to have the confidence of the people of that country. Surely those who have the administration of the law should be above suspicion. I will just mention a single instance which will, perhaps, show how we have reason to distrust the law in Ireland. I mentioned this case also in this House, and it was another matter which was not replied to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Colleague the Chief Secretary for Ireland never loses an opportunity of disproving charges, however small they may be, when they feel themselves in a position to disprove them. I instance the case of two Resident Magistrates in the county of Kerry, the case of Messrs Considine and Butler, who sat at the Killarney Petty Sessions a few days after the Glenbeigh evictions. There were 23 cases of obstruction to the officers of the law tried there. It was proved by the solicitor for the prisoners that the whole proceedings at the evictions at Glenbeigh were illegal. It was proved that the young man who went out there as bailiff to the Sheriff to take possession had no legal title to do so. He was merely a friend of the Sheriff, and was sent by the Sheriff to do the work. He had no regular commission approved of by Act of Parliament. As a matter of fact, in the cases of the 10 or 11 houses which were demolished by crowbar, and burnt by petroleum, not one single tenant was lawfully evicted, and for every one of these cases the police, the Resident Magistrates, the agents, and this young man who represented the Sheriff could be brought to book for incendiarism. It may be said—" Then why do you not bring them to book?" Well, Sir, this is one of the cases where the people have the law on their side, but in which they are utterly unable to enforce it. The people are too poor— they are starving and famishing by the roadside. Their houses have been demolished over their heads, burned to the ground, and they have no remedy. Well, as I say, these two Resident Magistrates sat in the town of Killarney with two other Justices of the Peace, because it was the ordinary Petty Sessions, and in the case of these prisoners brought before them for assault the judgment given was to the effect that though it was proved that there was assault committed, the police and the representative of the Sheriff, and the magistrates and all those who had taken part in the proceedings, were trespassers, and accordingly the case was dismissed. Well, the magistrates in this case were technically right and morally right; but what was the result? Why, Mr. Considine differed from the judgment of the majority of the magistrates, whereas Mr. Butler agreed with the local Justices in their view of the matter; and for this, presumably, Mr. Butler was transferred to a far-away district at great personal inconvenience and expense to himself, while Mr. Considine was sent up to the neighbourhood of Dublin, very near his own property, to a place where there was plenty of society and all manner of comforts to his personal taste. It is impossible to refrain from the view that in the one case the magistrate was punished, and that in the other he was rewarded for the action taken at the trial of the prisoners for assault in Killorglin. I do not say that it is actually so, but such is the idea in the minds of the people, and I say I have made this charge before, but without receiving any answer. I again challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon this point, and upon the point to which I have just referred. I think it has come to a point now when he should either admit or deny the justice of my accusation. The matter is serious enough to be taken notice of; but no mere perfunctory denial, no statement to the effect that such and such a thing is impossible, will be satisfactory to me or to the Committee. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not reserve his answer for a moment.

I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question with regard to the conduct of a Resident Magistrate at Millstreet. It appears that a summons was issued and signed by the magistrates in Mullingar for an offence committed at Millstroet. Why was not Mr. Beckett asked to sign the summons, and at whoso instance was the prosecution in the first place instituted? Did Mr. Beckett institute it, or did Colonel Boulby move at the instance of Mr. Beckett? Then, as to the double charge, I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give me some information with, regard to that. He left the point in an incomplete state the last time it was raised; but I think he will be able to give some information to-night. I desire to know whether Mr. Beckett initiated the proceedings in the first instance, and whether Colonel Boulby only acted under his advice? Mr. Beckett was in charge of the police.

I regret to say that I cannot give the hon. Member any information as to the confidential communications made to the authorities on which the prosecution has been instituted against Mr. Hayden and the 26 other gentlemen far illegal conduct on the 17th of August. Mr. Beckett was the Resident Magistrate in charge that day, no doubt, and the hon. Gentleman will see that by reason of the circumstance of his being actually in charge he would not be a proper person to take any part in the hearing of the case. Here is another matter which will probably recommend itself to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps it is known to him already, however—that Mr. Beckett went away a short time ago to some German baths, in Hamburg or some other place, from which he has been summoned as a witness—as I am informed—by Mr. Hayden. As to other matters bearing upon this case which have been alluded to, I will not enter into them, as I understand they are to be dealt with later on on the Report stage, hon. Members not being satisfied with what they have learned from the Government. In regard to the observations of the hon. Member for West Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington), I have often been struck in this House with the extraordinary amount of information of an imaginative character enjoyed by hon. Members opposite as to what takes place in Government Offices. The hon. Member says that his information has been supplied by a gentleman that I am acquainted with, and who is in the employment of the Government.

I did not say anything about his being employed by the Government; and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say that I stated that the information I received from this gentleman was amply corroborated by my own experience? I mean as to the handing of letters from the authorities in Dublin Castle to the District Inspectors for the Resident Magistrates.

What I was alluding to was the hon. Member's statement here to-night in my own hearing. What he said was that the information he received in this matter was from a gentleman well known to me who was behind the scenes in Dublin Castle. All I can say is that that gentleman who is referred to as being behind the scenes, and who has given the hon. Member the information we have heard, must be much more behind the scenes than Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland. It might be supposed that I, at all events, should have some knowledge of the facts which this gentleman to whom reference has been made is said to have such complete knowledge of—this gentleman to whom the hon. Member says he will take the trouble to communicate, asking for his authority for his name to be mentioned in this House. I should be very glad to hear this gentleman's name mentioned—this gentleman who is known to me, with whom I am on terms of familiarity, and who makes a statement of this kind. When I hear his name I shall be able to deal with his allegation. At present, however, so far as I am aware from my limited knowledge as Attorney General for Ireland, no such practice as that described by the hon. Gentleman has ever existed. What the hon. Member states in confirmation of the allegation he has made is of a purely imaginative character. He says he has seen letters given to the Resident Magistrates on the platforms of railways.

Always.

"Always," says he. So it seems that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Kerry is constantly in the habit of watching the proceedings of the police authorities and the Resident Magistrates on the platforms of railway stations; but I should have thought, from my own experience of his action in this House, that he has other things to occupy his attention in connection with his Parliamentary duties.

I am a newspaper man in Ireland, and my business is to attend at railway stations when there is occasion to do so. In troublous times my business is to watch the movements of troublous Governments.

I certainly understood that the hon. Member was in pretty constant attendance in this House; but I now gather that he has a kind of double personality, so that since the passing of the Crimes Act he has been apparently sitting and voting in this House, and has also attended at the railway platforms in Ireland. The Crimes Act was passed in July, and the hon. Member has been in attendance in the House since then, voting on all Divisions, and, notwithstanding that, he tells us that he has the remarkable gift of being able to see letters presented at railway stations in remote parts of Ireland to Resident Magistrates.

lam very loth to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am sure he does not quite see what he is doing. He is making an accusation as to the impossibility of the facts which I stated. What I said was that I had seen these things done under Coercion Acts. I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not the first Coercion Act which has been passed in this country against Ireland, but about the 85th. The occurrences which I have described to the House have not only been reported to me, but I have seen them take place myself on scores of occasions, without exaggeration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that I said that I did not want to make an accusation against the present Government specially in the matter, but that what I complained of was the practice in Dublin Castle.

I understood that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which was passed into law on the 19th of July last; but I now understand that he refers to 85 previous Coercion Acts, and the connection which has existed between the Government and the Resident Magistrates as to the administration of those Acts. I am not able to say what has taken place on railway platforms under those Acts of Parliament, and under previous administrations. I am only concerned with my own administration, and, so far as the secrets of the prison house are revealed to me, I must say I have never heard anything of the kind which has been related by the hon. Gentleman. I never heard of any interference with the decisions of the Resident Magistrates on the part of the Government. These magistrates have got some small executive duties to perform, such as were performed by Mr. Beckett on the occasion of these evictions to which reference has been made. The hon. Member is aware that in cases of riot, or in cases where public order is involved, the Resident Magistrates do, to some extent, exercise executive functions. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) will know that, in connection with the riots in Belfast, the Resident Magistrates were continually in the streets taking part in the proceedings. But no doubt it is desirable, and all will agree with me in this, that persons in a judicial capacity should be entrusted as little as possible with administrative functions. However, for Resident Magistrates to do what I have described has been the custom for some time past in Ireland. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Tuite) in regard to Mr. Beckett, it is plain that that gentleman could not have taken any part in the proceedings in question, owing to the fact that he is not in Ireland. Having regard to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further in justification of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. My right hon. Friend has given these gentlemen the highest testimonial. Then I would remind hon. Members opposite of the axiom of one of their own distinguished friends with regard to approbation and reprobation of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. For goodness sake, when they receive the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) into their camp, let them take him with all his allegations around him, including his allegation, which he has never disavowed, that the Resident Magistrates do their duty like men, loyally and honestly.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an answer as to the two Resident Magistrates I referred to, one as having been punished and the other rewarded for the action taken by them at the Killarney Petty Sessions?

I explained at an earlier period of the evening that I have nothing to say with regard to the Resident Magistrates. It does not rest with me to take any part in the administration of justice, except to prosecute; but I may say generally that I am satisfied of this—that though it is necessary from time to time, in the interests of the Public Service, to move these Resident Magistrates about from one place to another, the removal of the gentlemen he has referred to had nothing whatever to do with their action on the Bench. The view entertained by an hon. Member opposite I believe is that Resident Magistrates should not become, like oysters, too much attached to one locality, but that it is desirable to move them about, putting them in different places, so that they may not become too much attached to any one particular view, or any one particular interest. Yet we find that when the Government move these gentlemen about, though it is a matter of every day occurrence, it is said that it is owing to a desire to punish the magistrate, or to show displeasure at the action which he has taken on the Bench. I think that such a charge is entirely unfounded—as unfounded as other charges which have been brought in this House. I can only say that I am convinced the hon. Member is entirely mistaken in this matter. I do not blame the hon. Member himself, but I must say he has the misfortune of having a highly imaginative correspondent.

I have the advantage of personal observation in the matters to which I have referred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not the advantage of personal observation extending far back in the Government of Ireland, nor is he, although responsible, supplied with a sufficient amount of information to enable him to answer the questions which I have put to him to-night. This is how we stand. I have made certain charges which have come up to the time of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's administration, and he stands upon this point. He says that this occurrence has not taken place in his time. He is here to-night as the sole Representative of the Government of Ireland. I have learned that certain things of a questionable character have occurred in Ireland; I have questioned him about these things; he is paid a large salary to attend to matters of this kind; he has the aid of Dublin Castle; and notwithstanding this he is not able to give the House one single fact in answer to my statements. It is all very well to make general assertions. I did did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would stoop to assertions, certainly not such as he has made. He has denied the truth of these statements I have made to the effect that it is the practice of Dublin Castle to send down a file of instructions to Resident Magistrates as to the decisions they are to give. He says—" I have never known such a thing occur during my time." What has been his time, Sir? He says that I have attended regularly in this House, and have been present at nearly all its Divisions. I have, Sir; but then, so has he; and what, then, has been his time in Ireland? How much time has he spent at Dublin Castle? Out of his own mouth I can convict him. According to his own announcement here the other night, he did not know of the occurrence of the Westmeath case; he wired to Dublin, and his Colleague the Solicitor General for Ireland knew nothing about it. It is plain, therefore, that he is not at all in touch with Dublin Castle. What is his answer to-night?"I have been Attorney General for one month, but yet have not heard of these proceedings, and therefore they have not happened." Surely that is a fine sample of Dublin Castle logic to endeavour to palm off on this House? He says— "I have been in my present position for one month; I have attended to the various Votes; I have, watched the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Kerry, arid I have seen that he has attended to every Vote as well; and therefore he cannot be cognizant of anything that takes place in Dublin Castle." Well, Sir, I have had the advantage of seeing Coercion Acts worked by other Gentlemen sitting where the right hon. and learned Gentleman now sits. I have had the advantage, moreover, of knowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Predecessor, who is now blooming on the Bench in Ireland, and I know how this matter is likely to be pushed on by such as he. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Predecessor knows all about the system of which I complain, and that is our great trouble, for these are the Gentlemen who have to administer the law in Ireland from Dublin Castle. All these Gentlemen get the very same training; and we know how they keep back, as the very last commodity reluctantly to be delivered to this House, the real truth in these cases. I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman again—I warn him that this is a charge which will not stop here, but which will ring throughout the land. There are plenty of witnesses as to what takes place—there are plenty of people who can speak positively to the fact that it has been the practice, under former Governments in Ireland, to prepare a "file of instructions," technically so-called, in Dublin Castle, and send it down to the Resident Magistrates who have the trial of a case, and I say, in corroboration of that, that I myself have seen these files pass into the hands of the local officials. I do not say that I have been to every railway station in the country to watch the Resident Magistrates as these files of instructions have come in; but I have been to many of them, having felt it my duty to do so, and I may say that I have very often sacrificed my own business to do the duty I am now describing. I have in every case seen the District Inspector hand by letter what I believe to have been correctly described to me as private instructions to the Resident Magistrates; and however much the right hon. and learned Gentleman may pooh-pooh the matter, he cannot assert, on his own responsibility, that what I describe does not take place. If he does, let the House take his assertion for what it is worth; let hon. Members take his and mine together—his statement, with his £4,000 a-year behind it, and mine, with only the trust and confidence of the people of Ireland behind it. I do not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told the truth so far as his constituents have sent him here to tell the truth, and so far as his information may enable him to do it; but I assert that the system I have described is the constant practice of the Government in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's assertions are not very strong on this case. He has been one month Attorney General for Ireland, and yet he does not know of those occurrences.

The hon. Gentleman, in the excitement of oratory, has rather forgotten the facts with which he is dealing. I have been in my present Office more than one month. I have been nearly three months Attorney General for Ireland; and the hon. Member seems to forget that I was Solicitor General for Ireland from the year 1885, and that everything known to my right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General was also known to me.

the Crimes Act has not been in exist-once more than a month or so; and at the period of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks there was no case before the Resident Magistrates in regard to which such a file of instructions as I have referred to could have been sent down. I have stated that this is a practice which exists under the administration of Coercion Acts in Ireland. The practice is this. The Irish Government in the first place pick out two Resident Magistrates from amongst the worst and most prejudiced magistrates they can find, and then, as if that were not bad enough, when a case is about to be tried they send down from Dublin Castle a file of instruction describing the characters of the accused and the kind of decision which is to be given. That is my allegation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he does not know of the existence of such a system. I ask him does he know anything about what has taken place under the Crimes Act within the last month? What does he know? Who has dictated the prosecutions? Who dictated the prosecution in the County Westmeath?—who has dictated the prosecution in the County of Kerry? The case I refer to in Kerry is that of a person who is charged with endeavouring to retake possession. In this case the person was enticed into the house under false pretences by those who are now undertaking the prosecution. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know of these circumstances? If he does, he ought to be ashamed of them; but I do not believe that he does. I know the circumstances I describe to have taken place within the past fortnight in the County of Kerry. I know a case where a magistrate has gone out to a farm from which a tenant has been evicted, where he has seen the evicted tenant's child, 10 years of age, and has sent the child on that to bring in the father, and when the father has come in, this magistrate has prosecuted him under the Coercion Act for retaking possession. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know of these things? If he does, I ask is such a case as this a thing that he has reason to be proud of? If he does not know anything about these things, then it does not go to disprove the truth of my assertion as to those files of instructions being sent down to the Resident Magistrates, that he is ignorant of the existence of the practice. In the cases in question the files of instructions may not have been sent down yet. They may be sent down in a few days; and this leads me to point out that we are about to plunge into the darkness of the Recess, and that we desire to have all the information we can get before we leave this place for some months, and are deprived of the opportunity of throwing the light of publicity upon the Irish Executive by putting Questions and raising discussions in this House. We ask the Committee, by an expression of opinion, to interpose between the Irish Government and the victims of their operations. If there is a case to be tried under the Crimes Acts lot the Resident Magistrates be indifferently chosen, except, of course, for legal knowledge, and let them not receive instructions as to the history of the men to be tried and as to the decisions they are to give. Let the cases come before the magistrates blindly, and when the magistrates want to inflict a heavy punishment, then let them ask, if they like, as to the antecedents of the prisoners, and then let the District Inspector or any other witness brought forward on the part of the Crown say whether or not there have been previous convictions. Do not let the fountains of justice be poisoned by putting into the hands of the Resident Magistrates files of instructions from Dublin Castle, saying—" Oh, an enemy to the landlords! Au old offender! A troublesome character ! A thorn in the side of the landlords ! A very troublesome fellow ! "Why, if I were brought up before two Resident Magistrates and this file of instructions dealing with my case were sent down, it would be as long as any Petition ever presented in this House, in order to represent the ideas of the legal functionaries in Dublin Castle as to my personal character. The object, of course, would be that I should be submitted to their idea of a trial, and receive their idea of justice. Trial under these circumstances is a mockery. It is rendered a mockery by this sending down files of instructions from Dublin Castle. A great deal of the information contained in those files is obtained in this way. A lot of stupid policemen are put into plain clothes, and they have the duty put upon them of watching certain men and certain localities, and the pay and easement of these gentlemen in plain clothes depends on their making certain reports every day. Of course, they do furnish reports to Dublin Castle, and it is the reflex of these which comes back from Dublin Castle to the Resident Magistrate. I represent the case as it is, and having put the facts before the Committee, and having heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has to say in reply, I have only to remark that I am satisfied if he is.

I trust we shall have some statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland respecting the provision to be made for the attendance of two Resident Magistrates to adjudicate under the Grimes Act.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated the views of the Government with reference to the administration of the Crimes Act. My right hon Friend has already explained that when parties are summoned under the Crimes Act, care will be taken by the Government to see that a Bench of two Resident Magistrates shall be constituted, so that the case shall be determined on the first opportunity in order that the parties shall not be subjected to delay, and inconvenience, and possibly unnecessary expense. Of course, the hon. Member for East Galway understands that when a summons is taken out it is returnable on a fixed day, the ordinary Petty Session day, and in that case, of course, it will be the duty of the Resident Magistrates to arrange that there shall be a properly constituted Court to decide the case. But where a man is arrested on warrant he is brought before a Justice on the earliest possible opportunity. There may not be an opportunity for the case to be adjudicated upon immediately, and it may be necessary to bring the prisoner before the ordinary Petty Sessions Court, and that Petty Sessions Court may not assemble for a considerable period after the arrest. Suppose he were taken before the Petty Sessions Court the hon. Gentleman will see that one Resident Magistrate may only be in attendance; indeed, it would be impossible to have two Resident Magistrates in every Petty Sessions district in the country. Now, in such a case as that we must of course do the best we can, If the arrest takes place at such a period that it is impossible to have an immediate inquiry before a properly constituted Bench, I assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort will be made by us that there shall not be any unnecessary delay. I do not think I can give the hon. Gentleman any further assurance, but I admit that parties who are proceeded against should not be left long in the state of uncertainty. I think hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that we have done our best this evening to answer all the questions that have been addressed to us, and that we may now reasonably ask the Committee to agree to the Vote.

I should like to know whether it is intended to adopt any safeguard in cases where the Resident Magistrates have a discretionary power to accept or refuse bail. I have already referred to the case of the young men who were imprisoned for five weeks in consequence of the refusal on the part of the magistrates to accept bail. In that case the immediate predecessor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland considered that there had been a gross abuse of the power of the magistrates. I wish to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give any pledge or promise that in future such cases shall not arise, and that Resident Magistrates before refusing bail shall submit depositions to him?

That would be quite outside the province of the Attorney General. There are two classes of cases, one in which bail can be given as a matter of right, and the other in which the acceptance of bail is a matter within the discretion of the magistrates. In the latter class of case regard is had to two considerations; first of all the nature and gravity of the offence; and, secondly, whether the person charged is likely to turn up for trial. It would be out of all question for the officer who prosecutes to give instructions to the Court which is to decide the case as to the granting of bail. It is quite impossible for him to do anything of the kind. I am confident that the Resident Magistrates will exercise their jurisdiction upon the principles I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the case in which my predecessor considered the non-acceptance of bail an abuse of the discretionary power of magistrates. My experience is that magistrates, not merely Resident Magistrates, commit cases for trial at the Assizes on information which appears to show that there is a case. The Attorney General is bound to act for himself, and if the information laid before him does not, in his opinion, warrant further prosecution, he declines to direct one. I have myself refused to direct further prosecutions. I may call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the circumstance that if bail is not allowed the parties who feel aggrieved can always apply to the Court above.

The expense of such a proceeding is very great.

I admit that the expense of such an operation is rather considerable, and the uncertainty of its success great. Of course it would be much more convenient that bail should be granted by the magistrates. I think the hon. Gentleman must allow the law to be administered by the magistrates on the principle which, I say, regulates the acceptance or refusal of bail.

Is it not a fact that the magistrates often refuse bail in cases where the witnesses for the prosecution are men of bad character?

The only test in the case is whether the magistrates believe the witnesses are telling the truth or not. The Court is bound to act on its discretion. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a case of the circumstances of which I know nothing.

In the case I have mentioned the principal witness swore on the 11th of January that he did not know the men, but on the 9th of February he swore that he did know them. Were the depositions in this case of such a character that the Resident Magistrates ought to have committed the men to prison for five weeks?

I beg the hon. Gentleman not to press me for an opinion upon this evidence because I have known the converse. I have known a man swear he did know people, and seven days afterwards swear he did not know them at all. The question was on which occasion he was telling the truth. I earnestly hope we may now be allowed to proceed with the Business. I certainly have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to meet the views of hon. Members.

I have only a few observations to make before we proceed to a Division. I have listened to a greater portion of the debate, and I must say I think we have made out our case. We have shown that the magistrates of Ireland are men incapable of properly discharging the delicate and difficult duties so often entrusted to them. We have shown that they are, as a class, men who are not possessed of legal knowledge or legal experience, and as such are not to be entrusted with the large and drastic powers which are given in the summary jurisdiction and the private inquiry clauses of the Crimes Act. However, we have had our say and there is no use in prolonging the controversy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland have defended these magistrates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has stood up for their competency, and he has vindicated their claim to legal knowledge and experience. We shall watch the action of these magistrates during the coming winter and spring, because the chances are very strong that unless the Government give these gentlemen to understand that they must carry out the law within the limits of strict legality, next year—when the Estimates are brought on—the discussion will be most protracted and will amount to one of the most minute and most searching criticisms that has ever taken place in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Courtney, I approach this Vote with some misgiving, because our experience has been that promises have been made yearly that the grievances that exist in regard to public education in Ireland shall be attended to. I approach it also in some misgiving because I fear that the reply to the various points which I shall raise will be of a somewhat perfunctory character. This Vote invites attention from many points of view. From a National point of view, it contrasts with education in England and Scotland; and it invites criticism as compared with the English and Scotch Vote on account of the total absence of anything like public control of education in Ireland. We have also the cost of the administration to take into consideration, and its relative smallness as contrasted with the educational grant made in Eng- land and Scotland is worthy of notice. For the purpose of my argument it would be just as well that I should point out that in England, according to the Blue Book issued only last week, a sum of over £3,000,000 was voted for the education of 4,500,000 children. Four and a-half million children on the Looks. In the Blue Book issued on Saturday morning with reference to Scotch education, we find that over £500,000 was voted for the education of 615,000 children. In Ireland the Vote is practically stationary, and we have only £750,000. That is to say, that if we eliminate the grants for the encouragement of agricultural and other technical instruction, we have £750,000 voted for the education of 1,071,000 children. If we contrast the sums, we find that Ireland gets not nearly so much as Scotland per head, and very much less than the amount of money voted in respect of each child in England. We must take into account that in Ireland the children are largely educated under the national system. We have self-sacrificing people at home, we have the Christian Brothers who take charge of a considerable percentage of children, but practically speaking the education of Ireland is in the hands of the National Commissioners. Now, in England the children in elementary schools are the children of the poor. There is a large middle-class population in England, and a considerable population attending high-class schools, so that if we put the children of Ireland on a par with England, we arrive at once at the conclusion that, as compared with England, Ireland is very badly treated in the matter of education. In Scotland, too, there is generosity. The State is very generous to the people of Scotland so far as the education of their children is concerned. But, Sir, there is many a comparison which may be instituted with a view of driving home the fact that the help given towards the education of the children of Ireland is most miserable. Last week a discussion took place with regard to the cost of police. We find that in the counties and boroughs of England the police are assisted to the tune of £800,000 a-year, and that education is assisted to the extent of £3,500,000 a-year. In Scotland the police grants only amount to £149,000, and the grants for educa- tion to over £500,000; but in Ireland, in the country in which the people are taunted with not being well educated, hon. Members opposite frequently get up and talk about the illiteracy of Ireland—£1,500,000 is voted for the police, and only £750,000 for public education. I think that when this condition of things is realized, it ought to bring a blush to the cheeks of the Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench. Both political Parties have sinned with regard to public education in Ireland. Now, since the National Commissioners undertook the control of Irish education there has been no public control, none whatever. The Commissioners employ the whole machinery for the education of over 1,000,000 children, and under their system there is no less than 10,996 teachers. These teachers are employed in educating over 1,000,000 of children. You would think that the Commissioners would be somewhat generous to these teachers; you would think they would treat them fairly if not generously. Especially when it is laid down in one of their rules that the national teachers shall be persons of character and sentiment, of calm temperament and discretion; that they shall be imbued with the spirit of peace and obedience to law, and be loyal to their Sovereign: that they shall not only possess the art of communicating knowledge, but be capable of moulding the mind of youth, and of giving to the power which education confers useful direction. These are the qualities which the local managers of schools have to look for in teachers when making a choice, and these are the qualities which the Commissioners are anxious to encourage and reward. This is the effect of one of the rules extracted from the list of rules set forth for the benefit of the teachers of Ireland. There are no less than nine different admirable qualities found requisite under this particular rule, and if the teachers possess these qualities they are told by the Commissioners that they will receive encouragement and reward. Now, I say that education in Ireland is practically under the control of the Commissioners of Education; the teachers are directly under the thumb of the Commissioners, they are not allowed to take part in any political meetings, they are not allowed to use their judgment as to when they shall go in for examinations to raise their certificates—all promotion is given through the Inspectors. If teachers want to change their situations they have to give a month's notice to the Inspector, so that the course of the teachers from the time they are classed to the time when their services are finished is persued by the National Commissioners of Ireland. This brings us to the consideration of the character of the work these men do. The character of the work the Irish teachers do compares favourably with, that produced in England and in Scotland. To enable us to estimate the character of this work we have the Reports I mentioned just now before us. According to a recent Return the percentage of children in Ireland passing in reading is 93·6, in writing 96, and in arithmetic 83·3. These are good results, and, if put side by side with the results attained in England and Scotland, one would think the National Commissioners would be warranted in giving to Irish teachers similar salaries to those given to English and Scotch teachers. The results, according to the Blue Book, of the voluntary schools in Ireland, are, in reading 91·4, writing 83·41, arithmetic 79·58. In particular schools the results are a trifle better, reading 93·31, writing 86·49, arithmetic 83·69, but still in particular schools, the success attained is not greater than the success attained by our National teachers in Ireland. In England, the results are, reading 94·05, writing 91·07, arithmetic 86·78, so that there can be no complaints made as to the character of the work done by the Irish teachers. The results certainly bear favourable comparison with those attained in England and Scotland. Now, just let us compare the salaries paid to teachers in Ireland with those paid to teachers in England and Scotland. The average salary of a master in England is £120 17s. 6d., and the average salary of a mistress in England is £74 4s. 11d. In Scotland, the average salary of a master is £135 8s. 3d., and of a mistress £64 18s. 7d. So that we have compared with the results of 1874, four years after the now Code came into operation, a marked improvement in the condition and prospects of English and Scotch teachers. In England there are 251 masters who receive over £300 a-year, and there are no less than 1,433 who receive over £200 a-year. In England there are 329 mis- tresses who receive over £200 a-year.; In Scotland there are 170 masters receiving over £300 a-year, and five mistresses who receive over £200 a-year, and also 552 masters who receive over £200 a-year. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was recently Chief Secretary for Scotland, and, no doubt, his attention has been called to the Blue Book relating to Scotch education. From that Blue Book, the right hon. Gentleman will see that there are a certain number of masters who receive £400, £500, £600, and £700 a-year, and I believe that one master of an elementary school receives £800 a-year. So that, when I come to talk about the masters in Ireland, who are classed according to their certificates, and who receive certificate money plus result fees, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not begin by pointing out that certain masters in Ireland are receiving £130 to £140 a-year. The average salary of a master in Ireland, as far as we can make out from the Returns, is £57 9s.; £57 9s. against £123 on the English side, and £135 on the Scotch side. The average salary of a head master in Ireland is £51 14s. 7s., and of an assistant mistress £38 8s. 8d. These salaries are from all sources. When we take into consideration that the results produced by the Irish teachers are equal to the results produced by teachers in England and Scotland, I think the time has come when similar rewards ought to be given to the Irish teachers. Now, one great grievance the Irish teachers has is, that the result fees are made contingent upon certain circumstances. I think that the Government should do away with anything like contingencies. There are managers of schools in this House, men who take a great interest in their schools, and I appeal to them whether it is not the rule in England to engage masters, quite irrespective of any results they may obtain. A manager says to a master, "I will give you so much a-year. I expect you to attend to your duties, and I expect certain results. Whatever the results are, I shall pay you such a sum a-year." A master in England expects a salary down, and we think that such a rule ought to apply to Ireland. The Irish teachers do uncommonly good work, and they ought to receive a definite salary, and not to be bothered or disturbed in mind as to whether they will receive full salary or not. The Irish teachers' position is affected by the uncertainty of pay, and they ask that some amelioration of their condition shall be effected. I believe that, in regard to salaries, the third-class teachers of Ireland would be satisfied if they received £1 per week on their certificates. As it is, they only receive £35 a-year. I believe the second-class teachers would be satisfied with 30s. a-week, and that the first-class teachers would be satisfied with £2 per week, or with something approaching that sum. Something certainly ought to be done in order to relieve the minds of these men from the anxiety attending on the uncertainty of their remuneration which exists throughout the year. They ask, in the first place, that something more definite shall be given to them, and I believe they would be satisfied with certain result fees after these sums were given. This, of course, is not too much to ask from the Government. We ought to remember that before the Pension Fund was started the Government generously gave £10,000 per annum for gratuities to old teachers; but, when the Pension Fund was started, this sum was no longer demanded from the Treasury. The Government might fairly fall back on some temporary grant until a definite scheme of payment was fixed upon. Over and over again the Government have promised to look into the question of the position of the teachers in Ireland. I am perfectly well aware that the Session is drawing to a close; but I think that the Government might acknowledge the justice of the teachers' claims by making a temporary grant. This brings me to a Question I put on the Paper some time ago. In that Question I pointed out that the teachers had suffered great loss owing to the non-contributory Unions failing in their subscriptions, and I asked for a grant of £10,000, out of which the salaries of the teachers might be increased. I was told I was a simpleton for asking so much; but I do not think it is too much to ask the Treasury to make some grant towards the salaries of the teachers even at this late period of the Session. If the Government would give us a promise that the whole system of payment in Ireland shall be reviewed and placed on a basis similar to that in England and Scotland and Wales, we should hail such a promise with satisfaction. Now, Sir, there is another point which I wish to raise in this House, and it is that of residences. The Board have striven to get managers and patrons of schools to take up the question of residences; but it is not a question for the managers and patrons, but it is a question for the Commissioners themselves. The Commissioners have the security of the houses, they have the security of the schools as it were, and they ought to be satisfied with one security, and give grants for building school houses without so much red-tape-ism. At present the improvement and repair of the residences which are at the command of masters are all done at the cost of the masters; these certainly ought to be done at the cost of the Commissioners. The houses themselves ought to be roomy; they ought to be very attractive and well-ventilated. I hold that the basis of the well-being of a nation lies with the school teachers of the country. So that when I advocate their cause I advocate a cause which is likely to produce beneficial results to the great Empire of which we are so proud. I hope the question of residences will be dealt with in a more liberal and large-hearted manner than it has hitherto been dealt with. The Commissioners are always complaining that the managers and patrons of schools do not take up this question of residences; but I maintain that it is the fault of the Commissioners themselves. In many cases in which residences are provided, masters are put to the trouble of walking three or four miles to and from school every day. The question of salaries and that of residences are two of the great points that trouble our teachers; then they also complain about the system of pension. They are disturbed because they must be 65 years old before they can receive a pension. When you understand that a lad goes into school at 18 years of age, and works until he is 65 years of age, it will give you an idea of the length of service he is required to put in. The teachers of Ireland would like to see, instead of an Age Clause, a Service Clause; they would like to see 35 years' service put in on the part of men, and 30 years' service on the part of women. There is precedent for this. It is not definitely laid down, but it is understood that a master in England may get a pension, subject to the approval of the Education Department, after 30 years' service. There are certain pensions given every year, and 30 years' service is the basis on which these pensions are given. In asking for 35 years' service on the part of a man and 30 years' service on the part of a woman, I do not think we are asking too much for our teachers, who do good work. These are the chief points I wish to raise. I have shown that the work of the Irish teachers is good in quality, and that it bears comparison with the work done in England. I have shown how well the English masters are paid, how well the Scotch masters are paid, and how miserably the Irish masters are paid. I ask some relief in the matter of salaries; and inasmuch as the masters at home are practically civil servants, I ask that the question of residences should be taken up, and that some relief should be given in the matter of pensions. There has been a threat that the services of the third-class masters will be dispensed with unless they obtain head masters' certificates. The men have given great services to the nation, and I appeal to the Treasury not to dismiss them without good and sufficient reason. Then, again, the first-class assistants complain of their scale of pay. They receive pay just at the same rate as third-class masters—namely, £31 per annum. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will take these points into consideration, and do something for the amelioration of the condition of the Irish teachers generally, he will receive the gratitude of this deserving body of people.

Perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee that I should rise at once and reply to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leitrim (Mr. Conway). I will take the various points he has touched upon in the order in which he has mentioned them. The first accusation is that the control of teaching in Ireland is vested not in the localities, but in what he describes as an irresponsible Board. Well, the Board may not be responsible to the different localities, but the Board is responsible to Parliament, and that seems not to be an irrational plan when you are dealing with a system of education in which the cost is borne not by the different localities, but by Parliament. In England, undoubtedly, those responsible are the localities in the first instance; but in England the localities bear the cost, or a very large proportion of the cost, of education. In Ireland there is not the same ground for placing responsibility upon the localities, because in Ireland a very email proportion of the cost of education is borne by the localities. My re collection of the figures is that in England about 23s. per child per year, counting attendances, is paid by the localities. In Ireland only about 5s. per child per year is paid, and yet in Ireland, though a very small and insignificant fraction of the cost of education is borne by the localities, with the localities practically rests the responsibility of appointing and dismissing the teachers. Under these circumstances, I think the first accusation of the hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. He then went on to complain that whereas the Education Vote is, as he says, stationary as regards Ireland, it is progressive as regards England and Scotland. But, Sir, I do not think he can have had in his mind when he made that statement the figures regarding the payments of teachers which have obtained during the last 20 or 30 years,

The salaries were reviewed in 1875.

I think the hon. Gentleman will see that I am meeting his arguments quite fairly. I will take the amount paid by the State towards the salaries of the teachers of the first class from the year 1854 to the year 1887.

How many teachers are there in the first class?

I do not care what class I take, I will take the lowest class if the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires me to do so. I will take the years 1854, 1864, 1874, and 1885. Now, I find that the average pay of Irish teachers of the first class has been in 1854, £36; in 1864, £54; in 1874, £87; and in 1885, £101. Sothatin the 30years which intervened between 1854 and 1885 the salaries of the Irish teachers of the first class, paid from Imperial sources, have risen from £36 to £101.

How many teachers are there in the first class?

And this is a Vote which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Conway) describes as a non-progressive Vote.

How many teachers are there in the first class?

I have not got the statistics with me, but I do not think the point is material.

In averaging I took head masters and assistants.

I fail to see how that affects the matter. I will now take the lowest class if that will satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan).

No; I want the number of teachers of the first class.

I think I have met the case perfectly fairly. I am dealing with the argument of the hon. Member for North Leitrim that this Vote is a stationary Vote. I think I have shown that so far as the salaries of the first-class teachers, which are paid from Imperial funds, are concerned, this Vote is certainly progressive. Now, what have been the salaries of the lowest class of teachers? In 1854 the salaries of these teachers amounted to £15, in the year 1864 to £19, in 1874 to £36, and in 1885 to £51. So that, taking the figures of the lowest class, the progression or the actual development of the supply from Imperial sources to the salaries of these teachers of the lowest class in Ireland has been from £15 in 1854 to £51 in 1885. I think that I need not go into any further figures. After this, the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will hardly maintain that this Vote, be far as Imperial contributions to the teachers' salaries are concerned, has been a stationary Vote. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Irish teachers were much worse off than the English and Scotch teachers. Well, Sir, I am not prepared to deny that the salaries of the Irish teachers are lower than the salaries of English and Scotch teachers. I do not deny it; but the question is whether that is a thing which can or ought to be remedied by the action of the Imperial Parliament, and I apprehend that in considering that question more than one argument is to be taken into account. First of all, we have to consider the point on which I have already dwelt— namely, what is the comparative contribution in the three countries from local sources to teachers' salaries? I allow that in Ireland the teachers' salaries are lower than in England, but, as I have already stated to the Committee, in England and in Scotland the contribution from local sources is about 23s. or 24s. per child per year, while in Ireland it is only about 5s. per head per year. No; 7s. 4½d. is the exact amount. Now, to ask this House to contribute an increased sum over the large sum that is already contributed to Irish education, considering how little is contributed from local sources, is rather hard on the English taxpayer. But that is not the only point we have to take into consideration. We have to consider what is the comparative amount of work which is being done respectively by Irish teachers on the one hand, and by English and Scotch teachers on the other hand. Now, I find that there is one English teacher, on the average, to about 83 pupils. In Ireland there is a teacher, on the average, to about 41 pupils. So that the amount of work, estimated by the number of pupils taught, is rather more than double in England what it is in Ireland; and that alone—leaving out the arguments I have already adduced—is a ground for making some distinction between the amount of the salaries paid in England and the amount of the salaries paid in Ireland. Sir, there is a further argument—are the Irish teachers as good as the English teachers? I apprehend that it is perfectly certain they are not.

You will not get them for the money.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County appears to think that we should pay teachers more than their market value, and that their value as teachers will increase according to the salaries you choose to pay them. That is not the ordinary method in which business is conducted on this side of the Channel, and I do not think it is on the other. But, as a matter of fact, take as a test—I admit it is a rough one, but it is a test up to a certain point—the number of teachers you have got from Training Colleges in Ireland. I think it will not be denied by those who have interested themselves in the subject of Irish education that the number of Irish teachers who have gone through Training Colleges is incomparably smaller than the corresponding number in England and Scotland. Though I admit that is a test you cannot apply absolutely, it is an indication which is supported by all other indications we have on the subject, that Irish teachers have not yet reached the standard attained by their English and Scotch confrères. There is a decided progress visible on the part of Irish teachers. They are increasingly able to pass examinations which do give them a larger salary. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for North Leitrim has complained of the practice of paying Irish teachers to a certain extent by result fees, and he has actually compared in this respect the Irish system with the English system. But he seems to forget that while in Ireland the largest proportion of a teacher's salary is a fixed salary irrespective of result fees, in England the whole contribution from the State—call it by what name you will — is entirely and solely paid by results; so that if the Irish teacher has ground for complaint in the fact that part of his salary depends upon the results of his educational efforts, how much greater reason has his English brother to complain that the whole contribution of the State is determined by the results he produces, and by no other consideration whatever? Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the teachers of Ireland had a grievance in regard to residences. Sir, I am bound to say that if there be any failure in the provision of teachers' residences in Ireland, it does not depend upon the Board of Education in Ireland, or upon the efforts that this House has made towards providing these residences. Under the law as it at present stands money can be lent by this House at 5 per cent, for purposes of teachers' residences. This 5 per cent includes not only the interest upon the capital sum expended, but practically pays it back in 35 years, so that the actual interest does not amount to more than 3½ per cent, and of that 5 per cent, half is paid by the the Board of Education if the buildings are bonâ fide used as teachers' residences. Now, I ask the Committee whether it is possible to make more liberal arrange- ments than those which have been provided by the State for these purposes?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the landlords will not give land for the purpose of building teachers' residences?

I have never yet hoard that any Irish landlords have shown any unwillingness to dispose of their land on fair tenure. Therefore, if you take into account these facts, first, that the payment of one-half the money which is made by the Government is supplemented by the Boards of Guardians in Ireland, and, secondly, that England and Ireland are on au equality with regard to the taking of land for teachers' residences by compulsion, you will, I think, admit that if there is a grievance in this respect in Ireland, it exists in tenfold force on this side of the Channel. When the hon. Member for North Leitrim compared the position of the National School teachers in Ireland with the position of the National School teachers in England, I think he might have stated to the Committee the fact that in England there is no State pension fund whatever, while in Ireland there is a sum of £1,000,000 and more set apart for this purpose. There is no corresponding fund in England.

The principle of pensions is accepted in England. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no!] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. If he will refer to the Returns issued to Parliament he will see that a certain amount of money is allowed for the purpose of pensions to National School teachers. There is a difference in form, but the principle is the same.

The hon. Member for North Leitrim has, I think, not made himself acquainted with the history of the English system. Under the old system, which is dying out, there was some provision made for teachers' pensions; at present there is no such provision made.

I wish to state that a statement has been issued from the Education Office, to the effect that a friend of mine, on his retiring from the service, will receive a pension. Of course, the principle is that those who were teachers before 1862 would be entitled to pensions; but you will, in the course of a few years, extend the principle to the years 1865 and 1870.

The hon. Gentleman has founded his whole case on the experience of one of his friends, and that friend was a teacher before the year 1862. The hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that the past state of things would exist in the future. That, will not be the case. In England we no longer recognize that the State is responsible in any way whatever for providing pensions for teachers; but in Ireland the teachers are so much better off that £1.300,000 has been allocated from the Irish Church Fund for the purpose of providing pensions for all time, and therefore I repeat that if there is an Irish grievance here, there is, with respect to teachers' pensions, a tenfold English grievance. The hon. Gentleman thought that the pensions ought to be larger than they are; but I would point out that although it might be possible to distribute the interest on the pension fund in a different way, the amount cannot be increased, in other words, if an alteration in the mode of distribution were to be made you would, by giving more to some, be taking away from others. And if you decline to recognise this necessity and insist on increasing the total amount given in pensions, this would only result in making the fund bankrupt, because you would disturb the actuarial calculation on which it is based. If you change the allocation you will simply be giving to A in the future what you are now giving to B; and I am not aware that there is any possible redistribution that can be suggested that will place the teachers in a better position than they are in at the present time. I think I have met the case of the hon. Gentleman fairly, and shown that although the Irish teacher is, in some respects, in a less advantageous position than his English brother, it is no fault of the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial Parliament does more for education in Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and if the Irish teacher is worse off than the English or Scotch teacher, it is because the Irish people contribute less to the cost of education.

I do not desire to prevent the Allotments Bill being reached at a reasonable hour, which I believe is desired by the Com- mittee, and I shall therefore be as brief as possible in the observations I have to make on this Vote. In my opinion, not only is there ground for complaint that there is no pension fund established for the National School teachers in Ireland; but the whole education system as regards Ireland is at fault. The hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. Conway) has drawn attention to the fact that the education system in Ireland is not under local control. I point out that it is one which has been forced on the people by the Government, and they ought to accept the responsibility for it. The people of Ireland have no voice whatever in the appointment of the Commissioners, and although the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated that the Commissioners are a responsible body, inasmuch as they are appointed by the Executive, which holds its authority from this Government, yet, in my opinion, the Irish Representatives in this House have no voice in their appointment. Now, I was not prepared, even after the experience of this Session, to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would take up such an attitude of uncompromising hostility to the wishes of the Irish Members with regard to this question of the position of Irish National School teachers. The Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman —the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)— when this Vote was under consideration last year, said that there should be some modification of the entire system of national education in Ireland; and although, in the matter of the position of the National School teachers, no definite promise was made, yet he gave us distinctly to understand that amongst other matters the salaries of the National School teachers should be considered, and the right hon. Baronet even held out the promise that he would ask the Representatives of Ireland to co-operate with him in reforming the Irish educational system. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland is so over-taxed that he cannot enter upon this very important work; but, however that may be, I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will take some steps in the matter before long. I do not want to approach the question of national education in Ireland entirely from the point of view of the Irish National School teachers, although I believe their views are well worthy of consideration. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has made an attack upon the National School teachers—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no!]—I speak of them as a class, not as individuals; and I want to draw attention to the status of the National School teachers in Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman compared the working of the system in Ireland with the working of the system in England, he said that the teachers in England were very much better than those in Ireland; but I wish to point out that if that is so it is because their salaries are higher, and higher salaries attract a better class of men to the profession of teaching. The right hon. Gentleman made merry over the fact that my hon. Friend proposed to increase the salaries of the lower class teachers with the hope that they would become better; but cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that if higher salaries were offered that men of a higher class would be attracted to the profession, while the better class of men would remain in it instead of leaving it and going into the Civil Service, or to America; or even into the Constabulary, as some have done, rather than work on the present rate of pay? The scheme of education in Ireland may be described as a grand one. It has its Commissioners paid and unpaid; it has splendid offices, with a large staff of clerks, who are appointed from the favoured class, and a large number of Inspectors; but the people on whom the successful working of the system depends are underpaid. The system has always reminded me of the spectacle which would be presented by some fine carriage drawn by a set of starving horses. If it is a fact that the teachers are inadequate to the work of education that is required, I am prepared to maintain that the explanation is to be found in the words—"The teachers are underpaid." My hon. Friend has already pointed out the fact that in London teachers are paid on an average £135 per annum. My figures are £140, and I have taken them from very good authorities. The teachers in England receive on an average £120 a-year, while those in Ireland certainly do not receive more than £59 on an average. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says that the whole of the salaries of the teachers in England depends upon results; but I wish to point out that it is not the teachers, but the managers of the schools who receive the result fees. The teachers have nothing to do with them; the manager pays the teacher a fixed salary, and. the complaint in Ireland is that the teacher does not receive a fixed salary, but that a portion of his salary depends on results. Of course, you cannot institute a comparison between the two systems. In England you have a system belonging to the people; in Ireland you have a system belonging to the Government, and there can be no kind of comparison instituted between them. You have taken the matter of education in Ireland into your own hands. Now, with regard to the salaries which the National School teachers receive, Mr. Rowntree, the Inspector of National Schools in Sligo, writing in 1883, says that of 164 teachers in his district, there was only one who received £100 a-year; and of 123 principal teachers, 33 had between £70 and £100, and the remaining 90 between £30 and £70 a-year; 23 received £60, 39 £50, 30 £40, five £30, and three under £30. Notwithstanding this, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated just now that the lowest class of teachers in Ireland received £50 a-year. Then we have the fact that 80 per cent of the teachers in Ireland are without houses. The right hon. Gentleman, upon this subject, was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that there was a difficulty in obtaining sites for both school rooms and for houses for schoolmasters in Ireland; but that is a fact that would be in the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman if he knew much about the condition of the country. It is a matter of complaint all over the country that landlords will not grant sites for such purposes as schools and teachers' residences, and the complaint has more than once reached me from clergymen who are anxious to build school houses or houses for themselves that they cannot get the land necessary for that purpose from the landlords. Then, again, there is an- other matter which the right hon. Gentleman did not take into account, and that is that in England large numbers of resident gentry and manufacturing firms who contribute largely to the local schools—

When I spoke of the amount of contribution, I took every source of contribution within the State.

But in Ireland we have not this resident gentry. The landlords, who draw large revenues out the country, prefer to leave their duties behind them, and dwell elsewhere; and who have not got those large manufacturing firms who in England contribute so largely to the local schools of the country. Now, as to the causes of low classification in Ireland. I do not intend to enter into that question. The teachers themselves have very clearly stated their case in a pamphlet, to which I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention. I remember that during the course of his speech this evening he spoke of the small number of children to be educated in Ireland as compared with the number in England. Now, I think, if the right hon. Gentleman would look into this question, he would find that the averages are different; and in England it is possible—particularly under the present system of compulsory attendance—to secure a better average. The case is very different in Ireland where, during a certain part of the year the schools are almost deserted, because the children have to go from long distances, and in bad weather they cannot attend so regularly, and, again, in harvest and seed time they are engaged in the fields. The teachers in Ireland are therefore at this disadvantage, that while at certain times of the year they have a large number of children at the schools, at others the attendance is cut down and the average does not represent the number of children for whom they are responsible. The right hon. Gentleman has thrown the blame on the Local Authorities in Ireland, and, certainly it would appear that the Poor Law Authorities have not done their duty in this respect; but I point out that the Irish people are powerless in the matter of education. This is a Government system of education cut and dried. The Commissioners make the rules, draw up the programme, and select the books. Books cannot be used in the schools in Ireland as they can be used in this country at the will of the managers. Some time ago you might take up a whole set of books used in the Irish National Schools, read them right through, and not find the name of Ireland mentioned in them; and even now Irish history is not taught; and why? The Commissioners say it is because there is too much contentious matter in it, and I may draw attention to the fact, that the portion of history about which Irishmen have the best right to be heard, has nothing contentious about it at all. I am speaking of the period before the Danish Invasion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not know that Ireland had a history so far back, but I beg to assure him that she had, and that standing monuments remain of the schools and institutions founded in the time of Charlemagne. The right hon. Gentleman has made a comparison of the state aid as between England and Ireland, but he never said one word about the immense sum given out of the Treasury for the police in Ireland, where both the educational and police systems are grossly mismanaged. My hon. Friend the Member for North Leitrim has drawn attention to the amount of money expended on the rent extracting machine—the police force. You spend upon this machine £ 1,000,000, while you seem to think it too much to spend £100,000 on the work of education—in other words force ad libitum. is used to squeeze an impossible rent out of the Irish tenant, even if it is necessary to pull down his house or burn the roof over his head, while you begrudge the money for educating his children. Now, both constables and teachers are at your disposal in Ireland, but you limit the sphere of action of the latter in every way. I should like hon. Members opposite to consider for a moment the relative position of the members of the Constabulary Force to that of the National School teachers. A constable in Ireland receives from £60 to £70 a-year; teachers of the same grade receive from £30 to £40. Sergeants of police receive £70 to £80 a-year, while the teacher of the corresponding grade gets from £40 to £70. A head constable receives £90 to £140, while the head teachers in the National Schools receive from £70 to £100. Then the members of the police force stand in a better position than the National School teacher, inasmuch as the police have barrack accommodation. The police pay a trifling amount for barracks, but it does not amount to as much as the teachers pay for houses. The police are provided with medical attendance: but whent the National School teacher is away through illness, he has to pay for a substitute as well as bear his own medical expenses. Let us look at the salaries from the point of view of the National School teachers, who have had hopes held out to them of improvement from year to year, even so far back as 1854, and in 1875 an Act of Parliament was passed which was intended to have an effect in the direction of improving the teachers' salaries, but which was found in operation to be a total failure. The object of the Act was to increase the salaries, but a portion of the amount was to be dependent on the Local Poor Law Unions, and it was found that out of 163 Unions only 21 contributed to the teachers' salaries, and as I have remarked, the Act became a failure. Then, again, in 1878 a Resolution was passed in this House, to the effect, that with reference to the position of the Irish National School teachers in Ireland, and the fact that the various means taken by Government had failed to satisfy the just demands of the Irish National School teachers, the House was of opinion that their present position called for immediate attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the satisfactory adjustment of their claims. In 1879 there was an increase of £4 per head, but this concession was accompanied by a falling off of the contributions of the Guardians, so that, notwithstanding the increase in question, the National School teachers were reduced to the same position as they occupied in 1875. Then in 1883 a deputation waited on the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, consisting of Irish National School teachers, and to this deputation the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he was so strongly impressed with the statements made by the deputation that he considered action ought to be taken by the Government in the matter, and, if possible, that it ought to be taken at once. He said, further, that he recognized the pledge which had been given by Parliament in 1875, and also recognized the fact that the measures taken by Government in redemption of that pledge have been only of a temporary character, and that he would be glad to introduce a measure on the subject at once. In 1884 a Bill was introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to deal with this matter, but it was unfortunately dropped. We hoar in foreign politics a great deal about continuity of policy, and I do not see why we should not hear more about it in connection with the Irish teachers. As to the few thousand pounds it would cost to put the system of education in Ireland on a satisfactory footing, I must say that I cannot see why Her Majesty's Government should shrink from it. If people are educated, they will be more easily dealt with. I know the progress of education within my own memory has had a wonderful effect upon the habits of the people. There may be some pauperism in the country, but I think that every right-minded man, whether Tory or Liberal, will agree, if he has any knowledge of the subject at all, that the people of Ireland are in a much more satisfactory condition now than they were in 25 years ago, and this is owing, in a great measure, to the work which has been done amongst them by the schools. Although the action of the schools is very important, much better results could have been obtained by putting them in a better state. Nothing, I believe, would contribute to helping the work on more than raising the status of the teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for North Leitrim (Mr. Conway) spoke of an intention on the part of the Government to dismiss the third-class teachers who have been for a long time at work in the schools. I hold that there should be no third-class teachers in the service, except for very elementary purposes, but at the same time it would scarcely be fair to throw overboard men who have been induced to enter the service, and who have discharged their duties to the best of their abilities for a number of years. But something must be done by the Government in the matter of refusing to sanction in the future the appointment of third-class teachers or men who are not likely to be suitable men for the work of education, and I hope that notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the subject, that he will reconsider his decision, and see if he cannot do something to improve the condition of affairs.

I do not mean to trouble the Committee with many remarks, but I should be sorry to allow the debate to close without saying something on the matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leitrim (Mr. Conway), who introduced the subject, did it very temperately, and many of the points upon which he has touched have been fairly treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. So far as money goes, comparing England with Ireland, the Imperial Parliament gives really more in the case of Ireland than in that of England; but the real point in this question, to my mind, is this, the position of the National Schoolmasters as a means to an end, as a means of bringing up the youth of Ireland in a proper way, with right ideas, and with a due education. Now, Sir, I speak — putting aside the statistics— from personal knowledge. The view that I form is this—that the wisest thing any Government could possibly do is to look at this matter from the point of view that the National Schoolmasters constitute this means to an end. I think the Government should regard it in the light that in order to discharge our duty to the Irish people, it is a matter worthy of their most serious attention to deal with their position in such a way as to elevate and improve the masses. I think myself, Sir, that, under all the circumstances, putting aside the question whether we pay more or lees to Irish schoolmasters than to English, I cannot help feeling that if I were an Irish schoolmaster I should be a discontented man. I do not think that it is a good thing for the State to have the schoolmasters, as a body, discontented men. The question must be looked at, not as one to be determined by statistics, but as one for statesmanlike inquiry and for grappling with the facts. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when he has a little more time to give to considerations of the future, will find that there is a great deal in the way of improving the population which can and ought to be done. I quite agree that though the State does give money for residences, still I know many districts where the money is valueless, because there is no possibility of obtaining sites. The real difficulty is not so much a landlords' difficulty. The fact is that landlords let their lands to tenants, and, as a general rule, I believe, that by giving up part of their land—or, rather, taking it from tenants for the purpose of offering a school site—brings about consequences which it is desirable to avoid. I think, therefore, that when this question is fairly approached, it will be seen that there is room for improvement in the law by which the landlord shall be relieved from his difficulties, and may be able to give sites for school residences where they are wanted. And there is another thing to be considered, even if there were no objection on the part of the landlords, and that is one of the difficulties before us in facilitating education. It largely proceeds from the fact that it is found that the nature of the education given does not tend to advance the agricultural interests of the country. It is found that the present system of education turns out a large number of inferior clerks, who are utterly unfit to obtain their living by agriculture. I would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to this point—the character of the education given. There is a point which is hardly ever alluded to on these Benches, or by the National Leaders in Ireland, and it is with regard to the National Schoolmasters. I touched upon it last year, and I promised the House that I will touch upon it on every possible occasion, in the hope of getting the evil of which I complain remedied. It has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the schoolmaster in this country is a local servant, but that in Ireland he is a State servant. The State pays the schoolmaster, but they are the only servants of the State in the whole length and breadth of the Empire whose tenure of office depends upon the will of private individuals. Though nominally the servant of the State—the manager—that is, a landlord's agent—the parsons and the priests may discharge the schoolmaster at three months' notice on the merest caprice; and these State-paidservants may not only lose their position under the State and their present means of living, but also the prospective advantages of pen- sions which the State offers. Well, now, to rectify this state of things would not require any addition to the Estimates. It is a grievance capable of being remedied—a grievance which is working a great deal more ill in Ireland than those who have not a clear knowledge of it suppose. I do entreat the right hon. Gentleman, when he gets time at his disposal, which I hope he soon may —because I trust that we shall soon see the peace and settlement of Ireland— that he will look into this question of the grievances of the schoolmasters, and I trust that, above all, remembering that they are State servants, he will secure them from capricious dismissal by private individuals.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks upon this subject with great knowledge; but his speech indicates what I am sure he himself is alive to—namely, the great difficulty that is inherent in the question, do what the Government may, and do what Parliament may. He has stated very fairly that the Irish school teachers are, to a certain extent, a discontented body, owing to the smallness of their salaries; and I think the hon. and gallant Member will feel just as much as I feel that for the State on that account to step in and add to their salaries without asking them to do anything for the increase made, may be, to a certain extent, good for the teachers, but it certainly would not be good for the cause of education, which I think does require effort on the part of localities corresponding with the effort of the State, for its healthy development. The second point my hon. and gallant Friend started was this—he said that while the State pays the teacher, somebody else appoints him, and somebody else dismisses him. My hon. and gallant Friend has not exaggerated the peculiarity of the Irish educational system. He has exactly described the system, which is a most extraordinary one; but he knows, as well as I do, that to attempt to take out of the control of the priests of the country—for that is what it comes to practically — the management of the education of the country, would be to throw the whole Catholic hierarchy into direct and violent antagonism to the whole system. I do not hesitate to say that I have always been anxious, in those parts of Ireland where the Roman Catholic religion predominates, to act, as far as I can, in the direction of favouring an educational system in accordance with the prevailing feeling and sentiment of the locality, and any alteration, such as that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, which would bring into antagonism with the system of education the whole Catholic hierarchy, would alone be enough to blast the most perfect system which could exist on paper. I only make these few remarks in order to show my hon. and gallant Friend that I am alive to the evils he points out, and that I recognize with him that there are evils, and that I am also alive to the difficulties which beset not only this Government, but I am afraid any Government for a long time which attempts to deal in a comprehensive and liberal spirit with the Irish educational system.

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in reply to the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. Conway), will be received with great disappointment by the school teachers of Ireland, as, during the early part of the Session, the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), in reply to a Question of mine, held out every hope that the case of the teachers would receive attention. Early in the Session I called attention to the position of the teachers, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply, stated that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was engaged at the time he was stricken down with illness—-an illness which we all very much regret — in dealing with this question. He said—

"I can assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend has been working assiduously for some time on several matters in fulfillment of his promise to attend to this subject."

And he went on to say—and this is the point to which I would more particularly direct attention—

"He has left the result of his work for his successor, and I am certain there will be no default in this matter on the part of my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)"—(3 Hansard, [311] 1443.)

I want to know how far the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol had proceeded with the scheme which he intended for the benefit of the National teachers? From the speech of the then Attorney General for Ireland, the right hon. Baronet was evidently at work upon it, and in view of that I must say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to-night will be received with great disappointment by those persons who have been so long promised relief. In 1879 a Resolution was passed declaring that the salaries of the teachers in Ireland was altogether inadequate, and that the teachers required relief. That relief has never come, though, from that time to this, successive Governments have promised relief, particularly the Tory Government, and particularly the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol. I very much regret that right hon. Gentleman's absence from this House, because I believe that if he had been in Office since last March the case of the National teachers would not have remained undealt with.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in the course of his speech, led the Committee to believe that the money to be voted towards the increase of the salaries of the National teachers in recent years was all derived from Imperial funds. I think, if I may be permitted to say so, and if the phrase is not un-Parliamentary, that that is altogether disingenuous. The right hon. Gentleman must know that all the recent increases in salaries, whether to National teachers or anyone else in Ireland, have come out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund—a purely Irish fund. This has been the case with regard to all the grants from this Parliament made for the promotion of intermediate or higher education, or for the relief of distress or for advances to the landlords. I deny that the Government are entitled to take credit for having been generous to the Irish people in the matter of any of these grants during the past 15 years. All these grants, I repeat, have been taken out of the Irish Church Fund, which has been a sort of much cow for Ministers, on whichever side of the House they sat, whether on that side or on this. The right hon. Gentleman says that the demand made to-night for increased salaries to the Irish National School teachers would, if granted, be hard upon the English taxpayers. Undoubtedly, it is hard upon the English taxpayer; but that is the fault of your system of government. Every branch of Irish Administration, under the present system, is supported in an extravagant manner, because you are upholding a system of government in Ireland which is incapable of reasonable maintenance. You are supporting a system of government which is entirely corrupt and corrupting, and the consequence is that you are obliged to spend an amount of money which no purely Irish Administration would dream of spending. When England objects to spend more money on Irish education, our answer is—"Will you give up the control of Irish education, if we, the Irish people, pay the money?" Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to give us the appointment of the Commissioners in Dublin, and to hand over to us the framing of the rules and the management of our whole system of education? If he will do that, we shall be perfectly content to pay the cost. If he will not do that, what right has he to complain of the demands made by us? The ratepayers in Ireland have refused to avail themselves of the power to become contributory to the support of the National teachers. They have done so deliberately, and, for my own part, I think they have done right, because they were refused all share in the management of the schools; and so long as the British Parliament refuses to the people of Ireland the control of their own education —a thing which every people ought to possess—I hope the people of Ireland will persit in this attitude. The right hon. Gentleman founded an argument for not giving an increase of salary to the teachers in Ireland on the fact that very few of them, or a comparatively small proportion of them, are trained. Now, this is really too bad altogether. After having for years resisted the demands of the Representatives of the Irish people, in and out of this House, for denominational training schools — the only training schools which the Irish people would be content to accept—and having by that refusal denied an opportunity for the training of teachers in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman now comes for ward and bases upon the result an argument against us. I must say I never heard in the form of argument anything so preposterous or anything more audacious, if I may be allowed to say so. In the first place, he denies us that system of education which the Irish people would accept, and then, discovering the bad result of the denial, he charges it upon us and makes it an argument against us. Everything like that, it seems to mo, comes with a very bad grace from any supporter—I do not care who he is, whether Liberal or Conservative—of the present system of education in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just left the House (Captain Colomb) complimented my hon. Friend the Member for North Leitrim on the manner in which he had introduced this question to the House. The House will admit, I think, that my hon. Friend introduced the subject in a very temperate fashion; but what thanks has he got for so doing? Why, he has been treated just the same as if he were one of the most reckless talkers in this House. The fact of the matter is, that the result is precisely the same whether you advocate the demands of Ireland in a temperate fashion or in an intemperate fashion. Let the National teachers hear and note to-morrow that never has there been a man who occupied the post of Chief Secretary for Ireland who returned a more emphatic negative to every one of their demands than the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies that position. The right hon. Gentleman will probably, before he leaves Office, discover the fatal results of outraging the feelings of the National teachers of Ireland, for those National School teachers will now be informed that they have nothing to hope for from the present Government, a discovery which will be particularly disappointing to them, when they recollect that within the last six months the Government has made to this House the pledges it has now violated; and I sincerely hope that the National teachers will exercise the power they have of marking in an emphatic mariner the resentment they must feel at such treatment. Sir, I rose for a very different purpose than to dwell on these matters, and it was to draw the attention of the House to a point to which I attracted attention last year, with regard to the Training Colleges. On that occasion I pointed out several advantages which the State Colleges in Ireland possessed over the denominational Training Colleges which have recently been permitted to be erected. I will not trouble the Com- mittee with stating the case over again; but on that occasion, after I had made my statement, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he could promise hon. Members that the subject would receive his consideration. At the time I knew the value of a promise like that; of course, I knew that it meant simply nothing at all. Vague promises of that description in the mouth of a Chief Secretary for Ireland never do mean anything at all. However, we should like to know from the present Chief Secretary whether anything has been done, or whether any consideration has been given to the question? We should like to know whether anything has been done to level up or to level down in respect of these denominational Training Colleges, and the State Training College in Marlborough Street? At present some most irritating and objectionable differences exist; and, so far as I have been able to make out, nothing has been done during the past 12 months to remove those differences. I should like to know whether anything has been done, and, if not, whether it is intended to do anything, to put the denominational Training Colleges on the same footing as the State Training College in Marlborough Street?

I had hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland left the hot field of political discussion and turned his attention away from such questions as Resident Magistrates, that he would have met us in a different manner to that in which he has met us. I had thought that when we got to the question of these teachers, to whom, he admits, in past years our Governments have shown the cold shoulder, and whom he admits to have been very badly treated, that he would deal with the question in a conciliatory and sympathetic spirit. Instead of that, I think we have got from him less satisfaction on this matter than we have received from any of his Predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman has been a constant attendant in this House for years, and he, no doubt, has watched the course of former Administrations with regard to Irish affairs. I think he will admit that the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) always spoke sympathetically of the Irish teachers, and always expressed a desire to do something for them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), when Chief Secretary, also spoke sympathetically of this class, and, on the question of sites for school residences, promised to do something. Well, there is no question as to the obtaining of these sites now before the Committee; but the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the case of the teachers deserves investigation, though he has treated them with extreme coldness, and held out no hope of ameliorating their condition. He has given us a number of arguments which, when examined, become of extremely small value. The hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) has pointed out that the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman that the schoolmasters have not got training is entirely unfounded. What did the right hon. Gentleman say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Bow Division of the Tower Hamlets (Captain Colomb)? Why, he said as to doing away with the power of the school managers to dismiss the teachers, that to take this power away would be to set the whole Catholic hierarchy of Ireland against the system of education. I agree with him in that; but he does not say the same with regard to the Training Colleges—that is to say, he does not attach the same importance to the opinion of the Catholic hierarchy on that subject. He knows very well that they set their face against these undenominational Training Colleges, and that in consequence of that the Colleges have been modified within the last few years. Up to the last few years teachers could not go to the Training Colleges without fighting with their ministers and the whole hierarchy of Ireland. I think the hierarchy were right, because they would never have been able to protect denominational education if they had not set their faces against these training schools. Whatever happened was not the fault of the teachers; but the responsibility, such as it was, rested with the Government, who would not allow the model schools to have denominational teaching. The statistics are drawn up in different forms. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will admit that in England the average amount paid to school teachers, including assistants, is £120 a-year, and that in many cases there are residences provided. But in Ireland the school teacher gets on the average, if we throw in the assistants, about £65 a-year. That is an enormous discrepancy, because there is no difference in the cost of living. Perhaps eggs and butter are a little cheaper in Ireland than in England, but everything else is quite as dear; clothes, and perhaps tea, are a little dearer in Ireland. The statistics on which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary chiefly dwelt were somewhat fallacious. He pointed out that the first-class teachers got £101 a-year. I am not sure he included the whole of the first class, because there are two divisions; but if even he included the whole class they form only 13 per cent of the whole of the teachers of Ireland, and out of this number there are many female teachers. There are only 7 or 8 per cent male teachers who belong to the first class. The average salary of a male teacher in England is £120 a-year; there are many who only get £40, £50, £60, or £70—in fact, the great bulk get under £60. Hon. Gentlemen must see that it is the worst possible policy that they can adopt to have 10,000 teachers throughout Ireland who are thoroughly discontented. These teachers are entrusted with the education of the future generation, and yet you do not pay them sufficient to keep them contented. They would be content, I think, if their remuneration were a little lower than that of the teachers of England. The present discrepancy is much too great, and when they see this enormous discrepancy in their position they are, of course, naturally discontented, and I, personally, wonder they are not more so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary rather denied that the Estimate for England has increased much faster than that for Ireland. As a matter of fact, the English Education Estimate has increased very rapidly indeed. In 1874 the sum voted for education in England was £1,500,000, and now it is upwards of £3,000,000; although there has been an increase in the grant to Ireland, there has been no such increase as that. You have been rapidly increasing the Estimate for England, but you have made no corresponding increase to that for Ireland. I do not wish to go at length into the question of administration, though the cost of your administration is much more expensive in Ireland than it is in England in proportion to the population. Our case is that we want a considerable share of the money we subscribe to the Imperial Revenue for education; instead of which you say—"Oh, no; the first mortgage must be for the Army and the Constabulary." The money spent on the Military Forces in Ireland is about £4,200,000; there is no country in Europe—no military country — which pays the same percentage for an armed force as Ireland. I say, spend a little less on the armed force and a little more on education; £100,000 to the National School teachers would be an enormous boon, and would go far indeed to lessen the necessity for a gigantic armed force in the country—gigantic in proportion to the Revenue of the country. What we say is, redistribute the Revenue, and let the first object of your redistribution be an increase of the Irish teachers' salaries, so that they may live decently. I think there is one reason why Ireland, if she were allowed to manage these things for herself, would expect to pay more to the teachers per head of the population, and it is this—England is only twice as big in area as Ireland, but it has got five times its population; secondly, the population of England is more concentrated, and it is easier to collect the children in the schools. I think that if you wish to give equal education in the two countries, you cannot do it as cheaply in. Ireland, where the population is scattered, as you can in England, where the population is concentrated, and where there are greater facilities for the teaching of children. Now, upon the question of sites for residences, I must say the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has not inquired into that subject sufficiently. A great many landlords will not give sites for teachers' residences, or they will raise such difficulties as are tantamount to a refusal. They will not sell the land— that is out of the question, and I do not altogether blame them for that; but some of them will refuse to lease land— at any rate, land in a proper situation. I know that in my own neighbourhood certainly one or two landlords either refuse to lease land for such purposes, or, while not actually refusing, they throw almost insuperable difficulties in the way. I will not bring the charge against Irish landlords that as a general rule they refuse sites—they do not; but still the question is humiliating. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ought to look to this point and see that more residences are built. There are now 71 per cent of the teachers in Ireland without residences, while the proportion in England without residences is very much smaller indeed. I have not seen the figures this year, but I have seen the figures for several years in which the number of free residences in England was enormously greater than that in Ireland. There is only one other point I have to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to. The hon. and gallant Member for the Bow Division of the Tower Hamlets (Captain Colomb) suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he should take over the teachers as State servants, and take out of the hands of managers the power of dismissing teachers; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary saw what a political flood he would bring upon himself if he attempted to grapple with such a question. The whole educational history of Ireland for the last 40 years has been a constant struggle between proselytizing on the one hand and the denominational system on the other. At the present time the system is partly denominational, protected by a Conscience Clause. If you once interfere with the power of managers you open the whole question, and must settle at once whether you are to have Protestant schools for Catholics, or whether you are to have mixed schools, or schools without any religion at all, which the people will never stand in Ireland. At present there is a fairly satisfactory working compromise arrived at in that respect. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is very correct when he says that the school teachers are practically discharged by priests. Now, as to the question of the taking over of local schools by Poor Law Unions, I must say, being personally acquainted as I am with the working of the Poor Law system in Ireland at present, that the Unions do not particularly want to take over the schools. There is no other properly constituted Body in Ireland except the Poor Law Beards; but I do not consider they are very well suited for managing schools. It is perfectly clear that if the Poor Law Guardians do not want to take over the schools, they are not very likely to grant the teachers any increase of salary. In the whole of Connaught there is not one contributory Union. You have already put enormous burdens on the Unions for the registration of voters and half-a-dozen other things, and to ask them to assume a new burden in addition would be very unfair, and would be, in my opinion, the height of folly. I do not see myself that the teachers are very likely at pro-sent to get any great increase of salary unless it comes through the Government, and I think we have a strong claim on the Government simply because we pay such a large revenue to the Imperial Exchequer, and that very little is spent in Ireland that is of any good to the country. Either the State will have to pay more towards the salaries of the National School teachers of Ireland, or they must be left in their present wretched and discontented position. I think that if you want to make the country contented the very first thing you should do is to put the teachers of the young in a decent position. You have always been told this by your own Irish supporters, and I think it is one of the most beneficial uses to which you could put the Irish Revenue.

Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary take up the question I put to him some time ago, and to which he has paid no attention—namely, the question of the Training Colleges?

With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Gal-way (Colonel Nolan), I have to say that his observations about sites I am perfectly ready to meet. But I hope that he, on his part, will feel that a great portion of the difficulties which actually exist in Ireland with reference to the provision of sites for residences of school teachers rests with the slackness of the school managers. If he, on his part, will recognize that difficulty I will see what I can do.

No, no!

I am afraid that is so. The terms given by the Treasury are undoubtedly very good, and it is impossible to admit that the non-provision arises from the fact that the landlords will not give land for sites.

Very largely.

If landlords there be who are unwilling to give sites, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will do all he can to stir up the school managers to take advantage of the enormous pecuniary privileges granted by Parliament, we will do all we can to obtain sites for residences. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will himself deny that the terms offered by the Treasury are generous.

They are not very bad.

Now, I have been very unfortunate in the remarks I have made to the Committee if I have led any hon. Gentleman to suppose that I regard the present state of education in Ireland as perfectly satisfactory, or that it is at the present moment so stereotyped a system and so perfect in itself that I am not prepared to do anything I can to improve it. That is not my belief. All I attempted to show in my previous speech was that at all events if there be grievances as regards the payment of salaries a still greater difficulty exists in England with regard to the payment by the Exchequer of contributions to the salaries of English teachers. I admit that the system of education in Ireland is not one which. meets with universal acceptance. I think that fact can never be absent from the minds of the Executive, and I shall certainly continue to give my best attention to the subject and do what I can to improve the system, especially with regard to the subject of Training Colleges. I am quite aware that the existing system of Training Colleges does not give perfect satisfaction, because it is alleged—and alleged with perfect truth—that the undenominational Colleges have special advantages over the denominational Colleges. It is true, and I admit that it is a subject which do-serves consideration. But it is also true that the denominational Colleges in Ireland, if they have less favourable terms as regards contributions from the Exchequer than undenominational Colleges, they have as favourable terms as denominational Training Colleges in England and Scotland. The denomina- tional Training Colleges in Dublin have 75 per cent of the cost paid by the Imperial Exchequer, and that is all that is paid towards denominational Colleges in England. Therefore, as compared with the Colleges in England the Irish denominational Colleges have nothing to complain of. I perfectly admit that the inequality at present existing between denominational Training Colleges and undenominational Training Colleges in Dublin is a question which has engaged the attention of my Predecessor in Office, and which shall engage my attention; but it is a part of the larger question of Irish education—a very large question if you include in it not merely primary education, but also University education. The subject is one which shall receive my most careful attention. 1 have no scheme to propose to the House, but I promise hon. Members that I will not fail during the Recess to consider the question in all its bearings.

I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the Vote for Irish Agricultural and Dairy Schools, because I think the farmers of England should know what is being done by the State for agricultural education in Ireland. I gave notice some time ago to move to reduce the Vote of £3,968 by £200, under the impression that I could thereby endeavour to secure that the £200, if deducted, should be given to the Cheshire Dairy Institute; but I found that that was irregular, and therefore I can merely say that I feel strongly that if grants are given by Parliament to Irish dairy schools they should also be given to English ones. The policy which has been pursued towards these schools in Ireland is remarkable, and a great deal of money has been spent on them, more, perhaps, than is justifiable, and I doubt whether at the present time the country get full value for the money, and whether the schools are fully appreciated. The most important and the earliest is the Grlasnevin Training School and Farm, which was started in 1838, and which is described as follows by Sir Patrick Keenan in 1883 in a letter to the Lord Lieutenant—

"The Glasnevin Farm was not designed merely to bring up a race of skilled stewards and practical farmers. Its original and primary purpose, on the contrary, was simply to qualify the ordinary elementary schoolmasters to instruct their pupils in the theory of agricul- tural science; and, where practicable in school gardens and small farms attached to the national schools, to illustrate their teaching by reference to the operations on gardens and farms."

There are also farmers trained at it; but the main object is thus seen to be a Training College to give ordinary school teachers some knowledge of agriculture. About 1850 to 1856 there was a further development of these schools. Parliament spent no less than £115,000 in starting 20 school farms and erecting farm buildings and residences; in the years 1853–4 the Vote for such purposes being £15,500. This policy was not continued, and nearly all these farms, with their costly buildings, were handed back to the landlords owing to the hostility of succeeding Irish Governments. One branch of the education still remains, however, in full operation, for every rural National School is obliged to teach the fundamental principles of agricultural science to the children in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Standards. I find that last year 74,000 children have thus been taught and examined, and of these 45,700 have passed. Now, what is called a result fee is, I understand, given for each child who passes; and, so far as I can learn, this result fee or grant is about 4s. If so, then a grant of about £9,000 is paid for agricultural teaching, in addition to the sum of nearly £4,000 we are now asked to vote. I think the British farmer should know of this, and should know how the money is spent, especially when no such money is voted for England. There is, however, another class of school of which I very much approve, and I should like to see them copied in England. A certain number of ordinary rural National Schools have attached to them small farms or gardens in which the children are taught how to work; and "result fees" or grants are paid for passes in them according, first, to the degree of merit which the cultivation of the little farm or garden evince; and, second, according to the practical powers of the pupils as agents in the working of the farms. Now, good as these are, I fear they are not thriving in Ireland, because in 1881 there were 93 of them, and this year we are only asked to vote money for 70. I regret this diminution, but this, along with other signs, makes me fear either that the money is not properly spent, or that the schools are not appreciated. There are four heads for this Vote. Superintendence takes £650, all of which goes to one man, and I think it is too much. The Glasnevin School gets £3,061, merely, or at any rate chiefly, as a Training College, and I want to know whether the Government really think that money well spent. The Albert Model Farm is the most satisfactory, for, though its expenses are £2,840, it makes an income of £3,333. The Minister Dairy School and the 70 small farm schools get£2,500; but there are receipts from fees in the various schools of £500, and the Munster School makes £1,250. Thus the total grant required is £3,968. When I come to examine the Appropriation Accounts, however, I find that none of these schools have had as many pupils as were expected, and therefore have not spent the whole of the grant. Glasnevin has saved £576, owing to vacancies in several classes, and consequent saving in provisions; for the same reason the Munster School has saved £209 and the other schools £284, whilst at the Albert Farms £168 less was received in fees than was estimated. I consider these facts unsatisfactory, and they justify mo in asking whether the country is getting value for its money. I am strongly in favour of grants for technical schools where it is proved they are well used, and I urge the Government to make some declaration that they will treat England in the same way as Ireland in the matter. In the meantime, I think public attention should be called to these grants, because I am sure that very few persons in England—and even very few hon. Members of this House—know that they exist, and I want some explanation from the Government as to the results that are obtained in Ireland.

I am perfectly satisfied that only a very few words of explanation will be necessary to satisfy the English people with the Vote as it stands upon the Paper. I am sure that the English public wish to give every facility to Irish industries, and especially to the agricultural industry. The hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the Ore we Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren), to my intense surprise, has, for the first time in this House, practically made a Motion to reduce the wretched pittance given for the improvement of Irish agriculture. I do think that, for once in my life, I shall receive the support of the Irish Members below the Gangway in resisting that proposal. [Cheers.] The hon. Gentleman has given us figures, but figures are not of much use when in ignorance of the facts. The hon. Gentleman really knows nothing of the subject. These schools have done a great deal of good in Ireland, and have turned out a very useful class of men with a fair knowledge of agriculture, and very great service has thus been done, not only in. Munster, but elsewhere. I can speak of people who have been trained in the Munster schools who, from their thorough, knowledge and tenderness of habit making their butter—

Dairy-maids?

Yes; dairy-maids. They have acquired a thorough knowledge themselves, and they have been able to impart it to the wives and daughters of the small farmers all round. I do not think I shall be asked at this hour of the night to go into particulars on this point. It would take a very long time to do that, but I am quite sure the House will believe me when I say that in this one particular I do not think the House will grudge to help the Irish farmers to the knowledge and use of those things which alone can bring them to prosperity. I cannot believe that any English Member, and I am sure the hon. Member himself (Mr. M'Laren), when he thinks over it, will be the last to press the idea that a very small sum paid for teaching ought to be got rid of because he may not find the system of teaching pursued quite what he expected to find it. I cannot allow this occasion to pass without expressing my deep regret for the lamented death of Professor Baldwin, who has done so much good in the school at Glasaevin.

I wish to say only one word, for, as an English Member and a friend of education, desiring to see the advancement and progress of technical education, I cannot avoid expressing my extreme regret at the language which has been used by the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren). He seems to have an objection to the extent of this Vote, and he says the English people ought to know the manner in which the money is being spent. I wish, Sir, that the English people did know more of the manner in which the money is spent, because they would then see that a fair attempt, at any rate, has been made to do justice to Ireland in one respect. I myself have devoted attention to this matter for many years, and it has been to me a matter of great regret that the attempt to improve technical education in Ireland, as regards agriculture, has not been more successful. But although I do feel that regret, I congratulate successive Governments on the efforts they have made; and although the success has not been complete, still the desire to attain success has been the characteristic of successive Governments. As regards the comparison between the advantages given to English agriculture and the advantages given to Irish agriculture, at any rate in this particular the Irish have a preference over the English. I desire to see technical education extending in Ireland, for I feel that technical education in Ireland is far more important than political agitation in that country; and, holding that view most firmly, I rejoice to see that in this one branch of education—technical education for the greatest industry of the Irish people — namely, agriculture—some small beginning has been made. I extremely regret that any word should have fallen from any Member of this House expressing any sort of grudging spirit against this Vote. I hope the Vote will largely increase, and that these schools will become increasingly useful; and I believe, instead of technical education being confined to agriculture in Ireland, it should be extended over various other fields. In that case the genius of the Irish people will find new spheres of development, and as their industries increase there will be an enlargement of Irish wealth — there will be more labour, more toil, and a corresponding growth of wealth and happiness.

I must protest as strongly as I can against the speech which my hon. Friend the Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren) recently made with regard to this Vote. The hon. Gentleman has got it into his head that under this Vote there is something like a scandal concealed, and he has assumed the extraordinary attitude that because Englishmen do not see fit to vote away a sum of money every year for technical education in agriculture in their own country, therefore Irishmen should be deprived of this very small sum that is annually voted. There is not a sum in the whole of the Irish Estimates which is turned to better account than this. There is not a sum of money which, for its amount; does so much good as this very small sum, and all I regret is that this sum, instead of being £4,000 a-year, is not nearer £400,000 a-year for the general support of agriculture. I may seem to exaggerate; but it would cost the people of Ireland fully that sum each year to teach agriculture properly and insure agricultural improvement and development. It is all very well to say that agricultural education in England is totally independent of the State. That is because the people engaged in it are able to afford to take the money from their own pockets, and to instruct each other fairly well. If you turn to Continental countries you will find that, in proportion to the Revenue, the amount of money spent in this way in such countries as Switzerland and France is much more than the sum of £400,000 would be in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Laren) has made some reference to what happened before the Select Committee on Butter Substitutes which sat upstairs, and he suggested that the evidence did not intend to show that the Cork School—the Munster Dairy Farm —was giving value for the money spent upon it. I think there is no evidence directly from that body on the point. Still, the evidence that did come before the Committee tended to show that the amount of value given by that institution was fully in proportion to the amount of money spent on it. I will not go into the evidence; but it showed, to my mind, that the people educated in the school were able to show people in Cheshire, who are supposed to have great skill in dairy pursuits, their business in some respects. Under these circumstances, the people of the Munster Dairy Schools cannot be said to have failed altogether. Reference has been made to the Glasnevin School, and I am sure that every Irishman who takes an interest in the material progress of the people of Ireland will thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) for expressing regret at the somewhat premature death of Professor Baldwin, who has been of enormous service to the general body of persons interested in agricultural education. The success achieved by the Glasnevin Farm is entirely due to the efforts and to the enthusiasm of Professor Baldwin, extending over a long-series of years, as head of the school. Sir, I regret very much that this sum, instead of being so small, is not very much larger, and I trust that the Government of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a Member will, during their term of Office, try to take steps not in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for the Crewe Division but quite the contrary, and see if they cannot increase the number of these schools on the model of the Albert Farm. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that some of these schools were built at considerable cost, and have fallen into disuse and become the property of the landlords. I lament that that should be the case; but I believe that if the Government made the attempt they would carry these model schools through in spite of all opposition, and the people would be glad to take advantage of them. They are sorry that advantage was not taken of them before, and I am sure they would not let them fall into disuse again.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny). At the present moment, the teacher who teaches us butter-making in the Cheshire Dairy School is a pupil of the Munster Dairy School, and we owe our gratitude to that institution for sending us such a teacher. I am quite sure the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren) did not entirely intend what he said. I am sure that all he meant or intended to convey was that as the Munster Dairy School, and agricultural education in Ireland generally, was encouraged by the State, so similar institutions should be encouraged in England — that there should be State aid given to similar schools and dairy institutions in this country. I know that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, and I am sure that is what he intended to convey.

We have had again a blast and counter-blast regarding all the advantages extending to the country to which I have the honour to belong which it is said are not granted to England. That is all very well. Why not grant them to England, then? At the same time we have had the counter-blast of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), which was just merely an expression of that cheap sympathy which we can relish and judge properly in Ireland over the Munster Model Farm. It is very easy to pump up any of these cheap expressions of sympathy which are given to the people of Ireland. What is the total amount of this grant? Why, the total amount of the grant for agricultural establishments this year is £9,051, as against last year's Vote of £9,436. But these people lose sight of the fact that these agricultural schools are made to be self-supporting to a great extent, and there is a set-off of £5,083 this year as against £5,485 last year. So that the total amount of this Vote which we have this wonderful amount of talk about is only £3,968 this year as against £3,951 last year. It is simply absurd that so much valuable time should be wasted over such a question.