I beg to move—

"That the Order [June 2nd] that the Bill be committed be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection. That all Petitions against the Bill presented Three clear days before the Meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That Three be the quorum."

I have also to move a corresponding Motion in relation to the Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill for legalising certain dues and charges in reference to the Scilly Islands. In making these Motions, I am asking the House to sanction some further inquiry into the circumstances and proposals of these Bills, before the assent of Parliament is given to them. I do not ask the House to refuse them altogether, but only to refer them to a Select Committee, and the reasons which induce me to do so are these: in the first place, the circumstances are exceptional, and not of the ordinary nature of the Provisional Order Bills, such as are passed every day without discussion; and secondly, if I may be permitted to refer to the Motion wich I moved upon the Second Reading of the Pier and Harbour Bill——

No.

If the Government dissent, of course I will not, but I think it would expedite business if I were allowed to do so. I will confine myself, then, to the first Bill, and the reason why I desire that it should be referred to a Select Committee is that it sets aside the principles of legislation which was sanctioned in 1888, and again last year, without an adequate cause. As the President of the Local Government Board objects to my mentioning the second Bill, I will defer my observations in regard to it, until I can bring them more regularly before the President of the Board of Trade.

I only interposed because it is out of order to discuss another Bill now.

This Provisional Order Bill has grown out of the 49th section of the Local Government Board Act of 1888, which was passed with the view of giving a separate constitution to the Scilly Islands, and which provides for the performance within the islands of the duties of a County Council. The spirit and letter of the Local Government Act of 1888 provide that the persons elected to the County Council shall have the right of discharging the duty of electing their own Chairman, and the object of Section 49 of the Local Government Act, and of similar clauses in the Scotch Act of last year, was to provide the same machinery, rights, privileges, and powers for outlying county electors. It is obvious that the Scilly Islands could not be included, so far as local government is concerned, with the County Government of Cornwall, and, therefore, it was necessary to secure a separate and distinct Government for these islands. At the same time, I maintain that the Local Government Act never contemplated what this Bill does, namely, the conversion of the Scilly Islands into a Crown Colony with a permanent Chairman. Shetland and Orkney occupy a similar position to the Scilly Islands. They have been given a County Council, but they have a right to choose their own Chairman, and to arrange their own affairs exactly like anyother county in England and Scotland. It has not been suggested in regard to those islands that any single individual shall have conferred upon him the rights of a statutory chieftain. The Duke of Sutherland possesses an infinitely stronger claim from his territorial rights in Sutherlandshire than Mr. Dorrien Smith possesses in Scilly, but a suggestion to make the Duke of Sutherland the statutory Chairman of the County of Sutherland would have been scouted. All I ask for is inquiry. In the pre amble of the present Bill, at page 4, the lease by which Mr. Dorrien Smith holds the Scilly Islands is referred to, and the rights, "powers," "franchises," and "jurisdictions," which have been handed over to him by the Duchy of Cornwall, and they are specially reserved for Mr. Dorrien Smith under Clause 31 of the schedule. I do not know what the terms of that lease are, and, therefore, I ask for inquiry, in order that we may ascertain whether in any way they confer a right upon Mr. Dorrien Smith to control the electors in the management of their ordinary business, and whether they contravene the rights and privileges which the Act of 1888 confers upon county electors. I shall be told, of course, that the people of the Scilly Islands have not petitioned against this Bill. That is perfectly true; but I venture to think that the House may draw from that very fact some ground for an inquiry into the matter. Certainly the fact is established that the Bill contravenes, without assigning a reason, one of the principles of the Act of 1888. There are one or two matters connected with the history of this proposal which it is desirable that I should mention. When the proposal for giving a County Council to the Scilly Islands was first discussed, the suggestion of Mr. Dorrien Smith was that the Council should not be elected by ballot, but by open Vestry; but the Local Government Board very properly insisted that the elections in the islands should be con ducted on the same principle as those upon the mainland, namely, by ballot. I think it may be inferred that the proposal to make Mr. Dorrien Smith permanent Chairman was meant as a solatium. It is no secret that in the original draft of the Bill Mr. Dorrien Smith desired to have himself called "lord paramount" of the island, and it was only when it was pointed out that that was a title which would be in conflict with the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall that the claim was withdrawn. This shows, to some extent, how these questions have grown up, and I think I have shown, at all events, a primâ facie case for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. It will be said that the inhabitants have not protested against the Bill. Their position is peculiar. Mr. Dorrien Smith is proprietor of the islands, under the Duchy, and his power is absolutely paramount. The people are afraid to oppose his wishes in any respect whatever; but I think the House of Commons, has a right to go into the matter and ascertain what his rights are. In regard to the second Bill, there are one or two questions I would like to put if the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to answer them now; but, if not, I will defer them.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better put them now.

They refer to the Pier and Harbour Bill.

As they are not connected with the subject-matter of the Bill now before the House they had better be deferred.

Then I will conclude by moving the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name.

I should have no wish to complain of the action of the hon. Member in making this Motion, if he could show that there has been any serious departure from the provisions of the Local Government Act. But I must remind the hon. Member and the House that provisions are contained in that Act for dealing' with the special requirements of any district in which it might be necessary to set up a County Council; and an examination into the circumstances of the Scilly Islands showed the framers of the measure that such special powers would be necessary when the time should arrive for establishing a County Council there. It is to meet an anomalous condition of things that such a course has been taken. I cannot help expressing my regret that the hon. Gentleman in moving the Motion, actuated only, as he told the House, by honest and sincere motives for the interests of good Local Government, should have made statements in reference to Mr. Dorrion Smith which, I think, he will find very few people to endorse.

Will the hon. Gentleman pardon me? I did not say a single word that could reflect upon the action of Mr. Dorrien Smith. I most fully recognised his efforts to improve the condition of the people of the islands.

The hon. Gentleman said that representations had been made to him which induced him to believe that the people of the islands were in a state of fear, and that they were unable to represent freely their own case. I leave the House to judge for itself whether that does not imply that the government of Mr. Dorrien Smith is of such a nature as to frighten the people of the Scilly Islands. I must, therefore, repeat my regret that the hon. Gentleman was not able to make the Motion without indulging in an imputation of such a nature against Mr. Dorrien Smith. Section 49 of the Local Government Act says that Provisional Orders shall be, as far as possible, in consonance with the principles of the Act, and that is what the present Order is. Anybody who knows the Scilly Islands and has made himself acquainted with the condition of things there will be aware that it is simply ridiculous to say that the position of the Duke of Sutherland in the County of Sutherland can be compared with the position of Mr. Dorrien Smith in the Scilly Islands. The present Provisional Order has passed through all its forms. The hon. Gentleman says that the fact of there having been no Petition against it ought not to weigh on account of the peculiar position occupied by the inhabitants. Now, every pro vision contained in this Order was laid most carefully before the people of the islands, and every opportunity has been afforded for the presentation of Petitions, and no objection has been raised except by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman has not given any ground for departing from the in variable rule in connection with Pro visional Order Bills, and the point he has raised could be as well dealt with on the Second Reading as in Committee. The rights of the county electors in the Island of Scilly will not be in any way interfered with. Mr. Dorrien Smith is practically the Governor of the islands, and anyone who has taken the trouble to visit them must be satisfied that he has done his best for the interests of the inhabitants and that his rule has been a most beneficent one.

I gladly recognise the able manner in which the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) has dealt with this matter; but in regard to the remarks which have fallen from the Secretary to the Local Government Board, I think it is desirable to make it quite clear to the House that there are sufficient grounds for our opposition to the Bill in its present form. The hon. Gentleman has complained of the way in which the hon. Member for East Northampton dealt with the matter as far as Mr. Dorrien Smith is concerned; but, after the ample tribute which has been paid to the beneficent action of Mr. Dorrien Smith and his family in connection with these islands, I think it is unfair to take my hon. Friend to task for his reference to the condition of the people of the Scilly Islands, which is undoubtedly an important factor in the case. The hon. Gentleman twits my hon. Friend with having no support from the people, and he says that, being fully cognisant of what was going on, they had an ample opportunity of petitioning. He aided that, as they have not done so, it is a proof that they are in favour of the Bill, or that they do not care sufficiently about it to oppose it. I must say that the absence of opposition affords proof, to some extent, that the liberties of the people of these islands are scarcely worth fighting for; but I have had letters from different persons living in Scilly which state that the inhabitants are in a state of fear, and believe that any action on their part would result in their being forced to relinquish their holdings and being turned out of the islands. All I can say is, that if the inhabitants are so timorous and so wanting in pluck it will only serve them right if they suffer in future. They will only have themselves to thank, and nobody else. But, so far as the proposal to establish Mr. Dorrien Smith as the permanent Chairman is concerned, that is a matter altogether apart from local feeling. It is a distinct departure from a fundamental principle recognised in the Local Government Act, and I failed to find in the speech of the Secretary to the Local Government Board a single justification for this extraordinary departure from the settled policy of the Local Government Act. The only reason assigned by the hon. Gentleman is that Mr. Dorrien Smith is the Governor of the island—an autocrat on whom the welfare, liberties, and prosperity of these people depend. That, I think, is a strong reason why we should not increase and extend the power of this gentleman by constituting him Chairman of the Council and the future controller of their destinies for all time to come.

List autumn the Local Government Board sent down an experienced gentleman to inquire into all the circum stances of the case. That gentleman took evidence, and the present Bill is the outcome of his inquiry. No doubt there are anomalies in the case, but the Scilly Islands themselves are an anomaly. For my part, I hold that the Government have been wise in placing a clause in this Bill as an incentive and stimulant to the temporary owner of the property to reside amongst the islanders and give them the benefit of his influence and advice. If any man deserves encouragement and support in connection with the Scilly Islands it is Mr. Dorrien Smith. When he came into this inheritance he found the people in a deplorable and impoverished condition. He has encouraged their industry, especially in the growth of flowers, and they are now frugal, industrious, contented, and prosperous. They are not afraid of speaking their own minds, and I know from experience, that if they felt dissatisfaction, neither Mr. Dorrien Smith nor anybody else would prevent them from expressing it.

I have a similar Motion on the Paper in regard to another Bill; but, after the Division which has just taken place, I do not propose to proceed with it. I should like, however, to hear from the President of the Board of Trade why the dues on exported shell fish and flowers are not regulated and controlled by the Provisional Order for which the right hon. Gentleman is re sponsible, and why these dues are left to the absolute discretion of Mr. Dorrien Smith?

It is impossible in the schedule attached to a Provisional Order to schedule every article, but I believe that in this case the schedule has received the approval of the fishermen them selves. If the hon. Gentleman requires further information, and will put a question upon the Paper, I shall be happy to answer it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Treaties, of Commerce concluded in 1862 and 1865 with Belgium and the German Zollverein preclude the conclusion of any preferential commercial arrangement for mutual advantage between the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's. Colonial or Indian possessions, and if these foreign restrictions upon domestic commerce are extended by the most favoured nation agreement to every other foreign State; and in such case if, having regard to the well-known Report of the Privy Council of Canada

"that trade should be as free as practicable between the various portions of the Empire, having regard solely to their own interests, and unfettered by any obligation to treat others with equal favour,"

as also to repeated expressions of opinion to like effect in the Dominion Parliament, and in Australasia, an undertaking can be given that advantage shall be taken of the opportunity afforded by the forthcoming expiration upon due notice of several foreign Treaties of Commerce to denounce and determine such inter-British commercial disability?

I am not prepared to admit that the Treaties to which the hon. Member refers would have, in all cases, the effect suggested in the first part of his question, but he will find the clauses referred to in the Paper presented to the House of Commons, dated 17th April, 1888. (C 5369.) This Paper also includes a Memorandum by Sir E. Hertslet, on the subject. No doubt this important matter will be considered when new Commercial Treaties are about to be concluded with foreign States.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the limited accommodation afforded by the training colleges in the past, and the admitted excellence and efficiency of large numbers of certificated teachers who have been trained outside those institutions, he will amend the nomenclature and cancel the distinctions of Article 73 of the New Code?

I have already had regard to the limited accommodation afforded by the training colleges in the past by undertaking that the change shall not be retrospective, and I have recognised the admitted excellence of that large number of certificated teachers who may not enter a training college, by not allowing the distinction, even in the future, to affect the principal teachers, and I am further willing, so far as the difficulty is one of nomenclature, to amend the terms of the Article, and, to that extent, meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following remarks by the Lord Chief Justice in delivering judgment: in the recent case of "Dixon v. Wells":—

"A practice seems to have risen up of Magistrates' clerks hearing complaints and taking summonses to any Magistrates to be signed, they being ignorant of the case and not knowing whether there is a primâ facie case or not. A looser practice and more likely to lead to injustice I cannot conceive…It may often happen that summonses are issued without any case whatever. I cannot regard a summons so issued in direct defiance of the Act as a summons issued under it."

And whether, especially in the interest of poor persons who cannot pay for professional assistance, he will issue a Home Office Circular to Magistrates' clerks drawing their attention to the matter, and to the observations thereupon of the Lord Chief Justice?

I have seen a report of the case in question. I have consulted the best authority within my reach, and I am advised that there is no reason to suppose the law is not well known which makes the issue of a summons an act of judicial discretion, depending on the nature of the information or complaint laid before a Justice, and incapable of being delegated to his clerk or anybody else; and that it would not be desirable to issue any Circular which either limited this discretion or suggested any other rules than those which follow from Jervis's Act.

I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the rejection by America of certain indigent emigrants recently conveyed to New York by the Cunard Steamship Company, and to that line being required by the United States' Authorities to bring them back to Liverpool; and if he can state the nationality of these persons who are unfit for America, and, in the event of their being foreigners, if their repatriation can be effected, having regard to there being less space in the United Kingdom than in America for superfluous foreign workers? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I will postpone the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the armour-piercing projectiles, which to the amount of £13,080 were last year purchased from foreigners, could have been obtained from Sheffield; if the braid and cloth ordered from abroad, to the extent of £6,367, were unobtainable at Bradford, Huddersfield, or Limerick; and if the wood for £20,654 worth of butts and fore-ends could have been purchased, if not at home, at least within the Empire?

Special negotiations were entered into with a Sheffield firm for the armour-piercing projectiles, but their terms were too high. Trial orders for braid and cloth are in the hands of English manufacturers, but no progress has been made during the last 11 months, so that we cannot at present get these goods in England. As regards butts and fore-ends of rifles, I regret that at present no walnut has been found of suitable quality, except that which is grown on the Continent of Europe.

said: The difference in price of the armour- piercing projectiles obtained from foreigners was £14 each. An attempt was made to secure a reduction of price from English firms, but no satisfactory arrangement was made.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the London County Council dispute the right of ratepayers or electors to inspect Minutes of proceedings of Committees of the Council, notwithstanding "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882," Section 233, which gave the right to burgesses to inspect "the Minutes of proceedings of the Council," which was made applicable to County Councils by "The Local Government Act, 1888," on the alleged ground that proceedings of Committees of the Council are not "proceedings of the Council" within the meaning of the Act; whether he is aware that the bulk, or nearly all of the proceedings of the Council, are by Commit tees of that body, and that such Commit tees may consist of the whole or parts of the Council; and whether the Local Government Board recognise the above construction of the statute to be correct; and, if so, whether it was intended by the Local Government Act that the ratepayers should have no right to inspect Minutes of proceedings and acts done by the Council by delegation to Committees of the whole or part of their body?

I was not aware that the question as to the right of ratepayers or electors to inspect the Minutes of proceedings of Committees of the London County Council had been raised prior to the notice which was given of the question by the hon. Member. I am aware that a large proportion of the proceedings of the County Council are by Committees of that body, but I am in formed that all proceedings of Commit tees which are important are reported to the Council, and that the Minutes containing those Reports are open to the inspection of county electors in London. The view which the County Council have adopted is that the proceedings of Committees of the Council are not proceedings of the Council within the meaning of Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which is applied to County Councils by the Local Government Act, and I am advised that this construction of the statute is correct. The County Council in this matter are in the same position as a Municipal Corporation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was defined to be the eastern boundary of the British sphere of influence south of Zambesi when, that sphere of influence was formerly proclaimed: and whether Ngamiland was included in such sphere of influence?

I understand that my hon. Friend chiefly wishes for information respecting the western boundary. The eastern boundary was the Portuguese Province of Sofala. That on the northwest was, as was stated in the answer of the 13th to Mr. Baumann, only roughly indicated. The question of Ngamiland is under discussion and no opinion can be given.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the salary of the High Commissioner for South Africa at various times since the creation of that office; what proportion of it has been paid by the Imperial Government and Cape Colony respectively; and what is the proportion of such payments, and the total salary, at the present time?

When the High Commissionership was first created the Governor of the Cape, who has always held the appointment, was merely High Commissioner for the tribes on the Eastern frontier. He received £1,000 a year from Cape funds, in addition to £5,000 a year also from Cape funds as Governor. Sir Bartle Frere, who in 1877 was first appointed High Commissioner for South Africa, also received £1,000 a year from Cape funds, as did Sir Hercules Robinson. In 1889 a Cape Act was passed, No. 38 of 1889, increasing the High Commissioner's salary from colonial funds to £3,000 a year. Sir Bartle Frere was paid £1,500 a year as a personal allowance from Imperial funds. Sir Hercules Robinson received and Sir Henry Loch receives £1,000 from the same source. These Imperial allowances were granted in each case upon personal grounds, and do not necessarily attach to the office. The total salary being £9,000, the proportion of the Imperial payments to the total salary at the present time is 1 to 4 if the salary of the High Commissionership is meant, or 1 to 9 if the total emoluments of Sir Henry Loch are meant.

I understand that the result is this, the Colonial Government pays £3,000, and the Imperial Government £1,000.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the increasing difficulty of getting small silver change, such as sixpences, in London; and whether he is aware that, owing to their bulk, and the difficulty of distinguishing between them, the new 4s. and 5s. pieces are most unpopular, so much so that in some clubs the cashiers rapidly accumulate sums of from £20 to £25 in these coins, of which they cannot get rid?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked this question. Yes, Sir, I have heard of the alleged in creasing difficulty of getting small silver change, such as sixpences, in London; but I have repeatedly stated in this House that the Government have no means of increasing the amount in circulation. There are at this moment in the Bank of England 3,760,000 shillings and 3,000,000 sixpences ready for circulation. Any bank can obtain them. Clubs, shopkeepers, or individuals have only co ask their bankers to supply them, and they, in their turn, can set them into circulation. With regard to the second question, namely, the crowns and double florins, I am not aware that they are most unpopular, except, possibly, in clubs. On the contrary, large demands continue to be made for them; £70,000 worth were asked for lately within a very few days. If it is said that the cashiers of the clubs cannot get rid of these pieces, but accumulate them to the amount of £20 to £25, I presume that if they keep a good balance at their bankers, and send them these coins, asking the bank to give them shillings and sixpences in exchange, the banks would not be unwilling to oblige such valuable customers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances narrated in the "Admiralty Surveys Report for 1889," under which last year, at personal loss to him self, Patrick Lamb indicated to the Admiralty Surveyors a rock suspected, but theretofore not located, about 20 miles from Cape St. Mary, Newfound land; and whether, in view of the statement in the Report that

"The importance of the knowledge of its existence will be at once seen when it is remembered that many mail steamers pass this way on their course to the St. Lawrence, and that, though in ordinary weather the largest ship would cross it in safety, the heavy seas of an Atlantic gale, in such an exposed position, would infallibly cause her to strike, with, in all probability, immediate foundering as the result,"

Patrick Lamb has received, or will receive, some reward or distinction for his conduct?

Patrick Lamb has received a reward of £20 from the officer in charge of the survey, in accordance with the in variable practice whenever information is received that leads to the discovery of dangerous rocks, which would otherwise not have been noted on the charts. Many rocks have been noted on the charts in this manner. Each such case is considered on its merits, and in this instance the reward granted was thought to be adequate.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will agree to the Return as to Income Tax (Ireland), which stands on the Paper for to-day?

I have made inquiry, and find that the information cannot be obtained. It is not possible, therefore, to give the Return.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Boards of Guardians in Ireland are empowered, as similar Bodies are in England, to defray out of the rates the cost of supplying the inmates of workhouses with newspapers, periodicals, and books; whether he is aware that the President of the Local Government Board in England has directed that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board shall he instructed, in connection with their visits to work houses, to give this subject their special attention, and to report to the Board as to the views and practice of the Guardians with, respect to such supply; whether he will give, if he can do so legally, similar directions to Local Government Board Inspectors in Ire land; and whether, if the law in Ireland is in this respect different from the law in England, the Government will intro duce a measure for the assimilation of the law in Ireland to the law in Eng land on this subject?

I have also to ask whether any expense incurred by Poor Law Guardians in Ireland for the purpose of supplying reading matter to the inmates of workhouses is disallowed by the Auditors of the Local Government Board; and, if this is the case, whether ho will take steps to have the Rules of the Local Government Board altered in this particular?

I have ascertained that there is no enactment expressly empowering Boards of Guardians in Ireland to provide the inmates of workhouses with newspapers, periodicals, and books. When such expenditure is incurred, it is a matter for the Auditor to determine if such shall be allowed. The Local Government Board believe that literature of this nature is usually supplied by private contribution. Inquiries will be made, and there is every desire that the practice in Ireland should be on all fours with that in England.

I beg to ask the Post- master General whether he has considered the Petition presented to him by the inhabitants of Manoo, in the County of Fermanagh, praying for the establishment of a Post Office in their district?

I have considered the Petition referred to by the hon. Member, and I should have been glad to comply with it, but I find that the cost involved in the establishment of a Post Office at Manoo would be out of all proportion to the revenue from the six letters a day to be benefited. Under the circumstances, I regret that a Post Office cannot be opened at Manoo. There are three Post Offices Kish, Edeney, and Lisnaritck, within three miles from Manoo.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state the cause of the delay in granting the sum of £116,000, recommended, so strongly by the Light Rail way Commissioners, and approved of unanimously by the Grand Jury of the County Donegal at the last Spring Assizes, in favour of the Stranorlar and Glenties line; and whether it is a fact that no objection to the proposed line has been received from any quarter? I also wish to ask whether the Government have yet decided on the route for the North-West Donegal Railway line to Falcarragh; and, if not, will he direct a sworn inquiry to be held at Milford or Ramelton, in order that the inhabitants of these towns might produce evidence in favour of the proposed line from Letterkenny viâ Ramelton, Milford, Carrigart, Creeslough, and Dunfanaghy?

I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have decided to give the Donegal and Killybeg Light Railway Company a free grant under "The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889," for the construction of their rail-way; and, if so, whether a similar grant will at the same time be made to the line from Stranorlar to Glenties, in the same County of Donegal, opening up the congested district of the Barony of Boylagh; whether the last-mentioned line was recommended by the Com missioners appointed under the said Act; and if, under the circumstances, the Treasury will give at least equal facilities to the Glenties line as to the Killy-beg line?

I can under stand the desire of hon. Members and their constituents to know whether light railway schemes affecting their districts are likely to be aided under the Act of last Session. I would point out, however, that the Treasury and the Irish Government are engaged in negotiations and deliberations under quite novel and somewhat difficult circumstances. The fact is, there are more schemes than money, and, therefore, it is necessary that we should proceed very cautiously, in order to select the best schemes, and those which will best meet the requirements of the districts as a whole.

We have vainly endeavoured to extract some idea as to what month in the coming year it will be possible to get an answer to this important question. The Government have now had nine months to consider the matter; how soon next, year may we expect an answer?

I hope within the limit of the time mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman to be in a position to give a favourable answer. I am afraid that the answer I have given must cover the other questions upon the same subject which stand on the Paper. Various schemes have been under consideration in regard to West Donegal, but none has yet been authorised.

Is it true that there is a considerable amount of friction between the Irish Office and the Treasury on the subject; that the Irish Office take one view and the Treasury another?

I do not like to suggest that that question is in the nature of a fishing inquiry, but there is no ground for it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of the Government Inspectors with reference to the Cork Lunatic Asylum, and to the discussion thereon at the meeting of the Board of Governors on the 10th instant; whether it is the fact, as stated by one of the Governors, that the Asylum was built to accommodate only 500 inmates, and that the number of inmates is now 1,000; whether the Inspectors reported that the Asylum had reached the utmost limit to which it should be allowed to grow, and that every effort should be made to decrease the number of inmates; and whether the Government propose to take any action either as to this portion of the Report, or as to the complaints made in the Report as to want of cleanliness and proper sanitary arrangements in the establishment?

It is a fact that the Cork Asylum was originally built to accommodate only 500 patients. But since then, from time to time, very considerable structural additions have been made, though not to an extent sufficient for the accommodation of the present number of inmates which at the beginning of this month was 1,038. The Inspectors did express an opinion to the effect indicated in the third paragraph. The Inspectors' Report is under the consideration of the Government.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the jurisdiction exercised by the English Courts under the Judicature Rules of 1875 over defendants domiciled in Scotland or Ireland was taken away in 1883; whether a similar jurisdiction is still exercised by the Irish Courts under the Irish Judicature Rules of 1877 over Scotchmenand Englishmen; and whether, if so, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have the Irish Court Rules assimilated to the English Rules as regards jurisdiction over persons domiciled outside of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts?

The power of the English Courts to order service of a writ on a defendant resident in Scotland or Ireland would appear to have been abridged in one particular class of cases only by the Rules of 1883, namely, in actions for the breach of contract, which, according to the terms thereof, ought to be per formed in England. No similar restriction was made by the Rules of the Irish Court, but by the 33 rd section of the Irish Judicature Act it is enacted that whenever application is to be made for leave to serve a defendant resident out of the jurisdiction

"the Court or Judge to whom such application shall be made shall have regard to the amount or value of the claim or property affected, and to the comparative cost and inconvenience of proceedings in Ireland or in the place of the defendant's residence, &c, and no such leave is to be granted without an affidavit giving the necessary information on those points."

I am informed that the Irish Rules are at present under revision by the Judges of the Supreme Court, who have the whole question of the Rules of Court for that country under their consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has sanctioned the employment of the Forces of the Crown for the eviction of 46 families on the Stewart and Swineys estates, in the Falcarragh district of the County Donegal; whether any of the evictions have yet been carried out; whether he can state the total number of persons who will be rendered homeless by the eviction of these 46 families; whether this district is one comprised within the congested districts proposed to be dealt with by a Bill now before the House; whether any of these people have been the recipients within the past year of relief in the shape of seed potatoes; and whether, under all the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that eviction at this time of the year will deprive these families of the crops now in the ground, and thereby deprive them of their only means of subsistence during the coming winter, the Government propose to take any steps to avert the danger of famine to these people during the coining winter?

With respect to the inquiries in paragraphs one and four, I beg to refer to my reply on these points to the question put on the subject by the hon. Member for South Donegal on the 9th inst. Up to June 14, 25 of these evictions had, I understand, been concluded, and it was expected that five more would have been carried out that day. The Report before me does not show the number of persons comprised in each family to be evicted. I am in formed that none of these people have been recipients during the past year of relief in the shape of seed potatoes, neither are there any crops planted on the farms from which they have been evicted, nor is there any reason to expect famine as suggested in the question.

Protection has been applied for and granted in respect of the execution of eviction decrees in the case of certain tenants on the Olphert estate, where the Plan of Campaign is in operation. I am in formed that these tenants have not been the recipients of relief for their families, or of seed to crop their land in the last 12 months.

Is it true that an old woman of 80, who was unable to make her way outside, was treated with brutal violence?

I have no Report that confirms that statement, but I shall be glad to inquire.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a scheme for the future administration of the Lady Burnett School, Banchory, sanctioned 24th February, part of which is to provide additional accommodation; whether he is aware that there is a public school within half a mile, with accommodation for 340, with an attendance of only 160; whether the School Board of Banchory has been consulted by the Department before this expenditure for additional accommodation was sanctioned; whether, with one exception, the whole members of the Banchory School Board are opposed to the extension of the Lady Burnett School as unnecessary and wasteful; and whether, in the circumstances, any steps will be taken to remedy the evil complained of?

I am acquainted with the scheme for the administration of the Lady Burnett School. The additional accommodation for which the scheme makes provision, consists of a class-room, the necessity for which was repeatedly urged by Her Majesty's Inspector, not in order to increase the attendance, but in order to provide for the satisfactory teaching of the numbers actually attending. The endowment was under private Trustees, and the Department could only approve of a scheme with their assent, and on their initiative. The School Board had no control whatever over the funds of the endowment, nor any share in the management of the school. The objection of the School Board was known to my Lords only after the scheme had been approved. My Lords do not think that the additional accommodation ought in any way to interfere with the public school, but they are now in correspondence with a view to restricting the attendance at the Lady Burnett School to girls and boys under a certain standard, so as to prevent such interference.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the captain, officers, and the crew of the Nesta, which was run into and sunk by H.M.S. Surprise, obtained, as their proportion of the amount paid by the Admiralty £162 in respect of their claims of £1,083 17s. 10d. for lost effects; and whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty can allow some further compensation to these men?

The total sum paid by the Admiralty by way of compensation for the loss of the Nesta was £8,250, or the maximum amount claim able under the "Merchant Shipping Act of 1862." This sum was paid to the owners and they distributed it as they thought right. No further compensation can be paid in this case, as I think ample compensation has already been paid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an old soldier, named Michael Stanley, who, having served in the Crimea in 1854, and after wards in India during the Mutiny, in the 3rd European Light Cavalry, was after wards sent to British North America and Jamaica, where he contracted fever and ague, from the effects of which he is still suffering; whether he is aware that Stanley is deaf and unable to work, and has spent most of his time during the last few years in the workhouse; and whether he has applied to the War Office for his deferred pension, and has been refused; and, if so, on what grounds?

Stanley did not fulfil the conditions entitling a soldier to a deferred pension, but his case is being referred to the Chelsea Commissioners in order to ascertain if any thing can be done for him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the delay which takes place in the offices of the Land Commission; if he is aware that a letter addressed to the Secretary is hardly ever answered under three weeks, or a month; that copies of fair rent and other orders and of valuers' and Sub-Commissioners' Reports cannot be obtained without prolonged delays; that the Land Commission have now a printed form of circular in which they apprise persons requiring such copies that, owing to press of business, a long delay must elapse before they will be ready; and whether some additional clerical assistance could be provided?

The Land Commissioners report that no delay which can be avoided occurs in their offices, and that the statements in the second paragraph of the question appear to be made under some misapprehension. They state that, as a rule, copies of documents are furnished within a few days after applied for, and that only in exceptional circumstances have any delays occurred. At times as many as 1,000 requisitions are received within a few days, in which case the circular referred to is issued. It does not state that "a long time must elapse," but that a little time may, before the application can be complied with. Any exceptional influx of business of this nature is met by the clerical staff working over time, and I am not aware that there is any necessity for the course suggested in the last paragraph.

Have the Land Commission made application for additional clerical assistance?

I think not. I do not gather from the Report that they deem the staff inadequate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland "whether the office of doctor to the police at Kilconnell, New Inn, and Woodlawn Police Stations (County Galway), held until his death by the dispensary doctor (Dr. Deely), has now been divided, Dr. Rutherford being appointed to Kilconnell, Dr. O'Farrel to New Inn, and Dr. Leonard to Woodlawn; why Dr. M'Merney, who succeeded Dr. Daly as dispensary doctor, and who applied to be appointed police doctor, got neither of the three stations, though he lives within two miles of each of the three, whereas Dr. Rutherford lives at Ballinasloe, eight miles from Kilconnell, Dr. O'Farrell at Loughrea, 10 miles from New Inn, and Dr. Leonard at Athenry, 18 miles from Woodlawn; whether there is any question as to Dr. M'Merney's qualifications and capacity to discharge the duties of police doctor; whether he is aware that frequent com plaints have been made recently as to the irregularity of the visits of Dr. Rutherford, who holds the appointment of visiting physician to Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum, that Dr. O'Farrell is the son of a local Crown prosecutor, and has never previously held any public appointment, and that Dr. Leonard is over 70 years of age; and why the ordinary practice of appointing the dispensary-doctor police doctor, till recently a rule of the force, has been departed from in this case?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are as stated in the first three paragraphs, except that Dr. Leonard resides at a distance of only 12 miles by train from the place mentioned. The public service will not be served by discussing the qualifications of individual candidates. No complaints have been received as to the appointment of Dr. Leonard, who is not over 70, but only 61 years of age. Dr. O'Farrell, for the last two and a half years, has been a Constabulary Medical Attendant. The rules referred to in the last paragraph were abolished in 1883, and no such rule is now in existence.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman interfere, and see that a doctor living on the spot is appointed?

I do not see why I should interfere with the Constabulary Authorities in the exercise of their discretion.

Was not Dr. M'Merney passed over because he is a Nationalist?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true, as reported in the Cork papers, that summonses were last week issued at the prosecution of District Inspector Ball, Fermoy (County Cork), against Patrick Keefe, Thomas Kent, William Kent, George Mulcahy, John Fuohy, Patrick Walsh, John Donovan, and James Donovan; if he can state whether these prosecutions are brought with the approval or sanction of the Irish Law Officers; and whether ho is aware that of the above named defendants two of them, namely, Thomas and William Kent, are at present confined in Cork Gaol for offences arising out of the alleged boycotting of a farm in connection with which these summonses are now issued?

I under stand that the legal proceedings referred to are still pending. It would therefore not be proper for me to make a statement on the subject.

Why did the police institute these prosecutions instead of the owner of the farm who was entitled to do so?

I have no in formation on that subject. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper I will ascertain.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the clerks of Licensing Magistrates are compelled by law to keep a register of the names of the owners of the freehold of licensed premises, and of the persons to whom licences have been granted; and, if so, whether he will cause a Return to be prepared of the owners and occupiers of licensed premises in each city, municipal borough, and Petty Sessional Division respectively, in England and Wales?

I suppose the hon. Member to refer to the register provided for by Section 36 of the Licensing Act of 1872. That register does not necessarily show the name of the freeholder. A Return such as the hon. Member suggests could be obtained only by applying to all the clerks to Licensing Justices throughout the Kingdom would take a long time to obtain and present, and would, in my opinion, be of doubtful utility.

Might I call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that Clause 6 of the Bill we are now discussing turns upon the compensation to owners, and Amendments have been put down dealing with the case of the occupier? How can the House fairly discuss this question as between owner and occupier unless the Government furnish us with the information which is in their hands as to owners and occupiers? On a recent occasion I asked the First Lord of the Treasury this question, and showed him the very Return we are now asking for in connection with Sunderland.

I have pointed out to the hon. Member that the Return could only be made with great difficulty. If, however, it is possible to get the information in time for the discussion it shall be done.

I shall be very glad to show the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the register kept by all clerks to the Licensing Justices.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any money, and, if so, how much, has been expended in Ireland up to the present time in pursuance of the policy of the Government, announced by the Member for South Paddington, when Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House in 1886, and of the Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works which was made the same year; and whether the Treasury are committed to any expenditure in pursuance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and, if so, to what extent and on what works, and when are the works likely to be commenced, and if the construction of the line from Galway to Clifden is included in any such expenditure?

It would not be possible for me to give a precise answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question. Such information could only be given after very careful inquiry, in answer to specific heads of inquiry. I presume, however, that the hon. Member desires to know whether a railway from Galway to Clifden is to be made. I am not able to answer this question at present, beyond saying that such a line is within the list of those scheduled by the Government, and I hope it may be found possible to make satisfactory arrangements for the making and working of such a line.

I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give some exact answer to the question. These questions are put down day after day, and we are unable to extract any answer from the Government. Surely it is possible to say how many millions of money have been spent upon public works since that celebrated declaration of policy.

Has a single shilling been spent on works?

It is not possible for me to give any accurate information on such short notice on a question of this kind. There might be a difference of opinion as to whether certain expenses are in pursuance of the policy of the Government announced in 1886. I am perfectly willing to give any information that I can if the hon. Member will put his question in a form which can be answered.

Has any money at all been expended? That is a specific question.

Yes; I certainly can say that some money has been expended in connection with the preparation of certain schemes for drainage in Ireland. The Bills were introduced last Session, but the Government were unable to pass them.

Has there not been an expenditure on the drainage of the Suck?

A Bill has been passed authorising the expenditure of a contribution of £50,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at some coal mines in York shire the deductions made from the coal getter's wage, under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," Section 14, Sub section 2, are often in excess of the amount actually paid to the check-weigher; and whether he will instruct the Inspector of Mines to inquire and report as to the disposal of any surplus?

So far as any information has reached me, I gather that at the request of the men employed at certain collieries in Yorkshire, the owners have been in the habit of making certain deductions from the wages of the men, which have been handed over to the treasurer of the men for the purpose of paying the expenses of the checkweighor as authorised by the Coal Mines Regulation Act. With regard to any surplus moneys arising out of such transactions, that is a matter to be dealt with by mutual arrangement between the owners and the men, and is not one in which I have any power to interfere.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a body of people, who had assembled in New Tipperary on Wednesday last, and had lighted a bon fire to express their joy at Mr. O'Brien's marriage, were charged and batoned by the police, who extinguished the fire and carried off a flag which the people had set up; and, if so, on what grounds they acted? I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, on the occasion of this charge, when the police batoned these people, they struck two women; whether, on the flagstaff having been thrown down into the fire, a woman who was endeavouring to extinguish it was struck by a policeman; whether it it is true that a policeman presented a revolver in the face of a man who was standing inside his own hall-door; and whether the flagstaff, having been re-erected by the Nationalists, has been again cut down by the police?

With regard to the various supplementary questions, I shall be glad to give the hon. Member any information if he will put them on the Paper. I may say, however, that I gather that the flagstaff the hon. Member alluded to was not in the same place as the bonfire, but in another part of the town. With regard to the question on the Paper, lam informed that fires were lighted in the public streets and caused obstruction. It is not the case that people were charged and batoned; as a matter of fact, no batons were drawn by the police.

Did the Local Body of Town Commissioners raise any objection to the celebration?

I do not know that they did, but I imagine the police in the ordinary discharge of their duty would not wait for such a representation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that is the common practice to light bonfires at night in country towns in Ireland, and can there be any obstruction of the streets when the entire population of the town, without exception, are parties to the lighting of the fire?

Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of brutal treatment merely for the purpose of putting out a bonfire?

I cannot regard as brutal the putting out of lighted bonfires in the public streets. Of course, if the entire population are engaged in having an evening round the bonfire, it cannot be said they were incommoded by it. But there may have been persons in the town who were not parties to what was going on.

Were not the bonfires lighted after dark, when all traffic was ended?

I do not know what the practice may be in country towns in Ireland, but certainly the practice in England is to light bonfires after dark. But traffic in England is not ended after dark.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been in an Irish country town?

Was not the reason for the police putting the bonfire out that it was lit in honour of Mr. O'Brien's marriage?

No, Sir; I think not.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is lawful for Parochial Boards in Scotland (should they deem it expedient) to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain in poorhouses in Scotland, and to allow him a suitable remuneration, or whether it is illegal to appoint as chaplain any person other than a clergy man of the Established Church?

There is no statutory provision on this subject; but I am not prepared to say that it would be illegal for a Parochial Board to remunerate a Roman Catholic clergyman for his attendance on inmates of that persuasion in cases where the number of such inmates is considerable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 23rd ultimo, two policemen named respectively Gurry and Linane, followed Mr. John Cullinane, Mr. R. Prowen, and Mr. B. Gill into the shop of Mr. J. A. Carew, of Tipperary; that when they retired into an inner room they were again followed by the policemen; also when they proceeded upstairs to the private drawing room, on the invitation of the proprietor, the policemen followed, and burst in the door which had been closed against them, and remained in the room for the time of 25 minutes against the protests of the proprietor of the house, using insulting language; and by what authority do the police follow these gentlemen, and had they any warrant for breaking open the door of the house?

The two police men referred to entered the house because Cullinane is a man who is actively engaged in organising boycotting and other illegal practices in the district. The shop referred to is a public house. The police did not enter into any private room, but that part of the house which is open to the public. They did not burst in any door, neither was any insulting language used by them.

On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman state that Mr. Cullinane is actively engaged in organising boycotting in that district?

He is not only engaged in illegal practices, but I believe he is the paid agent for these purposes of an Organisation with which the hon. Member is connected.

What reason has the right hon. Gentleman for stating that Mr. Cullinane is the paid agent of an organisation engaged in boycotting?

Reasons which I believe to be adequate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state them to the House?

I will now ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether com plaints have reached him that on the 7th inst when Mr. Gill, Mr. John Kelly, Mr. 0. B. Dalton, and Mr. Cullinane stood on the street of Tipperary to ask Mr. Ronan, Chairman of the Town Commissioners, how his sick child was, two policemen named Gurry and Linane stood between them and remained there in spite of those gentlemen's protests; that when they went into the shop of Mr. Ronan to pursue their inquiries, the police tried to force their way in against the protest of Mr. Ronan's relative, Mr. Kernick, to whom they said, "How dare you talk to us, you puppy;" and subsequently they followed, using such language as, "We are in nice company now," "Don't mind that class," "Go on Jack, we know you," "Get on Gill, we know your character;" and if he can state how long it is intended that these gentlemen shall be thus followed by the police?

The Constabu lary Authorities report that the con stables mentioned were following Mr. Cullinane in consequence of the active part he is taking in organising boycotting and other illegal practices in the districts. The police state that they did not interfere with the conversation, nor is it the case that they attempted to enter the house, as alleged. They also state that no protest was made to them by any of Mr. Ronan's relatives, and that the language attributed to them is without the slightest foundation.

Cannot the constabulary be instructed to keep away 10 yards or so, which would prevent their hearing the conversation?

There is no desire to make the following by the police unnecessarily disagreeable—quite the contrary; but if conversation, organising, and boycotting are permitted in the public streets, the following would be rendered useless.

Are we to under stand that the instructions to the constabulary are that they are to keep within earshot?

I should think that depends on the character of each case.

When the right hon. Gentleman stated that the police did not interfere with the conversation of gentlemen in Tipperary, did he mean that with a policeman stationed on his right hand and another on his left a gentleman's conversation is not interfered with?

I do not think I made the statement suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I said that no un necessary interference was intended.

Is it left to the discretion of the policemen to decide whether they shall remain within earshot of those whom they are following?

I should think not; I imagine that those who give the constabulary instructions would take notice of the particular circumstances of each case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question?

Were specific instructions given to the Police Authorities to shadow my wife and another lady in Cashel, and to detail men to walk side by side with them?

I only lay down general lines of policy in the matter. With regard to the last paragraph of the question on the Paper, of course these gentlemen would not be followed if they gave any indication whatever that they proposed to abstain from boycotting.

If affidavits are sworn to the effect that the language stated in the question was used by the police, will the right hon. Gentleman take notice of it?

I will take notice of any matter to which my attention is called.

I will ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has been advised by the Irish Law Officers of the Crown that the police are legally entitled to follow about persons against whom they have no warrants, and against whom no proceedings whatever have been taken?

I apprehend that the manner in which the police are carrying out their duties is perfectly legal.

That is not what I asked. Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that this course is legal?

If the right hon. Gentleman means to ask whether I have, in a formal manner, obtained the opinion of the Law Officers, I must remind him that it is contrary to the universal practice to make public the confidential reports of the Law Officers. But if he means to ask whether I have taken pains to satisfy myself that the course pursued by the police in Ireland is legal, I have so satisfied myself.

That was not my question. I am aware that it is not customary to give the House the confidential opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, but it is customary to tell the House whether the Law Officers have been consulted.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to ask whether I have had a case stated for the opinion of the Irish Law Officers?

Yes; that is my question.

I have not had the opinion of the Law Officers on a case stated, and it is not usual to have a I case stated unless there is some doubt as to the legality. I have taken pains to convince myself that there is no doubt, and, therefore, I have not made a formal request to have a case stated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the instructions issued to the police on the Table of the House?

Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, it depends on the facts of each particular case what course is pursued, and I appre- hend that there is no general regulation covering the peculiarities of each case.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he had given such instructions?

The right hon. Gentleman stated he had himself given general instructions. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will state what those instructions are?

I am responsible for the general course pursued by the constabulary in Ireland, and I have no desire in any way to minimise that responsibility; but I am, naturally, not consulted as to the particular course to be taken by particular constables in proceedings with regard to particular individuals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman add to his general instructions a direction to the effect that the constables are to keep out of ear shot. That is a most vital question?

No, Sir. I am desirous of limiting as far as possible this method of dealing with crime, and I shall be most glad——

You have no right to call it crime.

And I shall most gladly take advantage of any presumption that may arise in favour of any individual who is shadowed; but, having in view the terrible suffering produced by wholesale boycotting, I can not undertake altogether to dispense with it.

I will ask whether Mr. M'Crae, of Dundee, has been shadowed from Newbridge to Clongorey, and whether the rigid hon. Gentleman has any reason to suspect Mr. M'Crae of crime?

I have never heard of Mr. M'Crae. It may argue myself unknown.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state to the House in what manner this shadowing operates to prevent boycotting?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will order the police in Ireland to discontinue the system of shadowing individuals? In asking this let me express a hope that as the right hon. Gentleman admits himself having directed this system, he will, after the Debate that has taken place, order it to be discontinued?

I do not know that I can do more than repeat the answer I have just given. No individuals are "shadowed" in Ireland unless they are known to be actively engaged in promoting boycotting and intimidation, or other crime. I am desirous, as far as possible, of limiting this method of dealing with crime, and will most gladly take advantage of any presumption that may arise in favour of any individuals so shadowed; but, having in view the terrible suffering produced by wholesale boycotting, I cannot undertake altogether to dispense with it.

Then I say it is a brutal and abominable outrage, and if there is bloodshed it will rest on your head.

The right hon. Gentleman said he would gladly take ad vantage of any presumption in favour of the people who are shadowed. Will he also take advantage of the English presumption that every person accused of crime is innocent until ho is proved to be guilty?

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that these people will not repeat the crime?

The right hon. Gentle man has no right to charge us with having committed crime.

Order, order!

continued to address the' House, but the uproar was so great that what he said did not reach the Reporters' Gallery. He was, however, under stood to say:—The right hon. Gentle man has accused men of crime who are as innocent as the right hon. Gentleman himself is of crime. I ask him whether he will stand up and apologise to me for what he has said?

The right hon. Gentleman ought to apologise.

Order, order!

He must apologise to me.

The hon. Gentleman is committing a breach of order which, in his excitement, possibly he has not noticed. But I am bound to point out to the House that when I rise it is customary for hon. Members to resume their seats. I was only going to ob serve that this series of questions are taking rather an argumentative form, and are really becoming a sort of Debate which gives rise to great excitement.

Balfour should not tell lies.

If I am at all responsible for producing the condition of heat in which the House finds itself by the character of my answers I greatly regret it, and I will substitute for the word "crime" the words "boycotting" and "intimidation" I have no doubt as to the description that should be applied to those offences; but as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not consider those offences to be crimes, I will substitute the words themselves.

With regard to this new method of shadowing, which the right Gentleman says is for the purpose of preventing intimidation, I will ask him whether lie proposes to apply it to the land agents who are suspected of putting pressure on tenants under threat of eviction to agree to buy under the Ashbourne Act.

I should be glad to stop intimidation in Ireland by whomsoever or on whomsoever. With regard to the statement that "shadowing" is a new practice, I understand that it was largely indulged in by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he was Chief Secretary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lay on the Table an account of the cases in which the practice was indulged in by his predecessors?

I will consider it.

As the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the word "crime," perhaps he will find it consistent with good taste to apologise for the insult offered.

I did not with draw the word "crime." I stated that the offences against which this practice was used were largely boycotting and intimidation. I consider these to be serious crimes, but I was unwilling to beg the question by the use of a particular term.

I may ask whether, in view of the extraordinary excitement manifested by the Front Opposition Bench on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman or the Home Secretary can state whether this shadowing was not indulged in after the disturbances in London two years ago; and whether, on that occasion, the Front Opposition Bench gave tongue at all?

I rise to order. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gill) has several times accused the right hon. Gentleman of telling lies.

I am not aware of such observations made across the floor of the House, but if they were made, I should consider them as being highly un parliamentary; and, in the interests of order, if any further information is desired I appeal to the House that it may be asked for in the form of regular questions, so that conduct which is improper and unbecoming may be avoided.

As shadowing has been customary in the case of deputations sent over to Ireland from England will the right hon. Gentle man take care that in the case of the other deputations, against the members of which no offences are alleged, there shall be no renewal of this practice?

I think the noble Lord is mistaken in supposing that the deputations have been shadowed. I rather think too much importance has been attached to their proceedings.

subsequently rose and said: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and express my regret for not resuming my seat. I was labouring under very groat irritation at the time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps he proposes to take upon the definite and categorical charges of misconduct, violence, and cruelty advanced against members of the Irish Constabulary Force on duty at Cashel, on Tuesday the 27th ultimo and succeeding^* days, by the Cashel Town Commissioners, in a Report of that body, an abstract of which was forwarded on Friday last to him? I may say that I have received a telegram from the Town Clerk of Cashel saying he can produce persons to give evidence who took no part in the meeting, and also adding he is authorised to state that the Commissioners whose names are not appended to the Report were from home when the signatures were affixed, or they would have signed it.

I have not seen the Report of the Cashel Town Commissioners to which the hon. Gentle man refers; but I am obliged to his courtesy for sending me an abstract of it. I do not know that it is necessary for me to give any answer to his question beyond that which I gave in answer to a similar question put by him on Thursday last. But I would point out to him that in two, at least, cases of alleged violence on the part of the police the name of the con stable incriminated appears to be known. Under these circumstances, it is open to the persons aggrieved either to bring an action or to prosecute. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has before him papers relating to the alleged action of the Member for East Tipperary, and is considering whether there is evidence requiring him to institute proceedings against him. It is possible, therefore, that there may be legal inquiry bearing upon the Report of the Town Commissioners, on which they will be able to give evidence upon oath.

Is it not the case that when such an action was brought the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Exchequer Division and changed the venue to the North of Ireland?

In connection with this disturbance, has any person been treated in hospital or infirmary either in Tipperary or Cashel?

Have not 16 or 17 specific charges of misconduct been made against the police by the Commissioner of the town? I should like to draw attention to the facts of one charge, namely, that strange policemen, who were imported, had their numbers re moved from their uniforms so as to prevent identification. Does not this show collusion between individual con stables and the Government?

I understand that some eight constables imported from Waterford did have their numbers removed. In boroughs the police are numbered. I cannot say I think the proceeding was wise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that his views are communicated to the officer responsible for the act?

He will see my answer in the Press. As to the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I will make inquiries. So far as my know ledge goes, nobody has had to remain in hospital.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police officers in Ireland, like himself, affect not to read the newspapers?

If actions' are brought against the police will the Government defray the cost of the defence?

And will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Bench trying the case shall not be packed with his Removables?

I imagine the cases would go before a Jury, and not before Resident Magistrates.

But do the Government intend to bear the cost of defending the police?

I cannot answer that question without notice. Probably, if the prosecutions were successful, the Government would not. The ordinary course will be pursued.

Will the Government undertake not to pay the cost of defending the police?

I can only repeat that the ordinary course will be pursued.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the money for the erection of Central Police Barracks in Belfast was voted; when the agreement with the Corporation of Belfast for the site was completed; and whether the work of erection has yet begun; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

Funds are provided in the Estimates for the current year; but have not yet been voted. The agreement for the acquisition of the site has not yet been completed, and as possession cannot be obtained till the 30th November next, the works cannot be begun.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a pattern maker named Barton, till recently employed in the Woolwich Arsenal, was discharged on the 3rd June, at one day's notice, on the ground of alleged slackness of work, without any extra pay or other compensation; how long had the man been employed in the Arsenal; did he, in the course of his work, receive severe injuries, which caused the loss of two fingers of his left hand, some 13 months ago; is it not the practice that when men have to be discharged for slackness of work at the Arsenal those who have met with accidents are by preference retained; whether, after his accident, a foreman sent for him and requested him to sign papers debarring him from receiving compensation for his injuries, and on the man asking what compensation he would receive that information was refused; what time was allowed him for deliberation or consultation with his friends as to whether he would be well advised in signing for or against compensation; did the fact that this man took the chair at a meeting in support of Mr. Martin Edmunds, the Liberal candidate for Woolwich, and formed a Union of Arsenal Labourers, constitute an offence in the eyes of the Arsenal Authorities; and whether he will now consider Barton's case, with a view to his re instatement or compensation for the injuries he has received?

The pattern maker, named Barton, was discharged as stated with other men, after a service of one year and eight months. Thirteen months ago he lost the little finger of his left hand. There is no rule as to the retention of men who have met with accidents. Barton was discharged in a necessary reduction as one of the men with shortest service, and therefore least claim to be retained. At the time of his accident he was, according to custom, called upon to decide whether he would continue on his then rating or accept a reduced rating and have his case put for ward for compensation. He was given the remainder of the day for decision. As to this, I may perhaps explain that if a man continues able to earn his full wages the Treasury will not regard it as a case for compensation. The fact of the man taking the chair at a political meeting was not even known to the authorities in the Arsenal. It is not considered that Barton has any claim on the Department.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the invitation of a Member of Parliament by Post Office employés to assist them in their deliberations at a meeting other wise legitimate will constitute a breach of the Rules of the Service?

As I have stated more than once, one of the conditions on which I relaxed the Rule respecting meetings concerning official questions outside the Post Office buildings, was that they should be confined to Post Office servants, and to those Post Office servants only, who were directly interested in the matter or matters to be discussed. I must leave it to the hon. Member's own intelligence to decide for himself whether it would be in accordance with this condition to invite a Member of Parliament to attend.

As the right hon. Gentlemen's answer precludes hon. Members from attending these meetings, I beg to ask whether he proposes to take any action against some two or three hundred Post Office officials, whom I had the honour of addressing at the Southwark Radical Club last night?

I must ask for notice of that question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state what hon. Member or Members it was, and when he alleges that they at any meetings incited Post Office employás to contravene the Rules of the Service?

I do not remember making any such statement. I said that I hoped I might rely on the co-operation of hon. Members not to do such a thing.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether civil processes for damages have been issued by Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., against District Inspector Ball and Sergeant R.I.C., Currabeha, Fermoy, in which the defendants are charged with assaulting and wounding the plaintiff; and whether, since plaintiff announced his intention of proceeding by civil bill for the assault, he Las been served with a summons for having obstructed the police?

As legal proceedings are pending it would not be proper for me to enter into details of the case, though I may say that the Report I have received does not agree with the allegation in the question.

Is this man to be kept in gaol in order to prevent him proceeding with his case?

No doubt every facility would be given him.

Is this one of the cases in which the Government will defend the police?

The point is this This person was assaulted by the police, and he took proceedings in order to vindicate himself. The police retaliated by prosecuting him. Now, I ask what are the dates of the respective proceedings?

The hon. and learned Member knows he can easily ascertain the dates for himself.

Has this man been served with a summons under the Crimes Act?

I cannot say. I will ascertain.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire land whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence between the Grand Jury of the County of Cork and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on the subject of the nomination by the Grand Jury of representatives on the Board of the District Lunatic Asylum?