I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the work of erecting lighthouses on Pair Isle has begun; what is the present state of the works; and when it is expected that the buildings will be finished and the lights shown?

I understand from the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the contractors whose tender was formally accepted on the 23 rd ultimo are now actively engaged in preparing material and arranging for the shipping of it, and expect to commence operations on the island before the end of this month. The erection of the lights will be proceeded with as quickly as possible, having regard to the difficulties of communication with the island.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report of M. Prompt, Administrateurdes Chemins de Fer Egyptiens, submitted to the Egyptian Government on 27th February, 1890, in which he states that, if a railway were made from Khartoum to the Red Sea, and were maintained in working order, the effect would be to stimulate the Soudanese to increased cultivation, and thereby to materially diminish the supply of water available in Egypt; whether he is aware that in 1889, during the month of July, only from 15,000,000 to 17,000,000 cubic metres of water reached the Delta daily, although 25,000,000 metres are required for existing areas; whether this year the cultivation of rice has been suspended in favour of cotton; and whether he will cause to be printed and circulated to Members copies of any maps, diagrams, or documents bearing upon this subject illustrating the proposed area which it is proposed by M. Prompt to develop and Colonise as the result of the scheme recommended by him, and of any papers or maps relating to the Raiyan-Moeris storage reservoir and escape canal projected by Mr. Cope Whitehouse?

Her Majesty's Government are in possession of M. Prompt's scheme, but have not been informed of the estimates referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the question; and they do not deem it proper to submit to Parliament projects which it rests within the discretion of the Government of Egypt to adopt, if they see fit to do so.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Magistrates of Wishaw prohibited an open air meeting proposed to be held at the Cross at Wishaw on 2nd June, and instructed the Constabulary to prevent the meeting from being held; and whether he can state the nature of such interdicted meeting; and under what Statute it was so prohibited?

My attention was called to this matter by the question of which notice was given by the hon. Member for Northampton. The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. The object of the meeting, as described in the posters calling it, was, "Resistance of Compensation. The Duty of the Hour." I am informed that the Magistrates, who are the elected police Magistrates of the burgh, had no apprehension of disturbance, and that this interference was in no way actuated by; the; nature of objects of the meeting or the conflicting opinions of any sections of the community They acted solely because the place proposed was a part of the streets where, in their judgment, a large public meeting could not be held without the ordinary traffic of the streets being interfered with and danger of accident arising. The place called the Cross is simply the point of intersection of two narrow Streets, and even the normal space was at the time Curtailed by a hoarding erected for some building operations. The Magistrates acted in what they held to be their Common Law duty to prevent obstruction in the streets, and they had also in view Section 248 of the I General Police Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862. I am informed that there is a park at a short distance from the Gross, where meetings can be held without inconvenience to anyone, and in the present instance the promoters, protesting against the action of the Magistrates, adjourned to the Good Templars Hall and there held their meeting.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the interdict by which the meeting was prevented, and the notice which was served upon the Chairman? The notice prohibited the holding of a meeting in the open air at the Gross, or in any of the public streets of the borough. Is there anything in the Act of 1862 which gives to the Magistrates such Wide authority as that; and, if not, under what authority do they act?

The primary object was to prevent the meeting being held in a particular place. The place was narrow, and the Magistrates were of opinion that the holding of a meeting there would obstruct the traffic. I do not think that the interdict involved any deliberate intention on the part of the Magistrates to interfere with the right of meeting unless a danger to the traffic arose.

Would not the ordinary course be to allow the meeting to be held and to remove any persons creating an obstruction?

The Magistrates might have taken the course suggested by the hon. Member and waited until the streets were obstructed before they interfered. But they gave persons the option of going to the meeting or refraining from doing so.

Why do they say that the meeting would have created an obstruction? [Cries of "Order!"] Surely I am in order in pressing the right hon. Gentleman for the authority under which the Magistrates acted?

I am not prepared to give the authority. The primary duty of the Magistrates was to preserve the peace.

I beg to give notice that I will put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to lay down the principle that a legal meeting becomes illegal from prohibition by the Magistrates?

I do not intend to lay down any principle of the kind. What I hold is that the Magistrates were quite within their rights in letting the inhabitants know that they would prevent people from standing about and causing an obstruction.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the Essex Militia (3rd Battalion) was assembled at Warley, and sent by train to Colchester and back to Warley, and why the 3rd Battalion did not occupy the camp recently vacated by the 4th Battalion; and what object is gained by the expense involved in sending tents and camp equipments for 700 men from Colohester to Warley and back for the 4th Battalion, and sending the 3rd Battalion from Warley to Colchester and back, instead of occupying the camp at the place of assembly?

The object gained was the instruction of the 3rd Battalion in a large camp with regular troops. The original arrangement for this year was that the 3rd Battalion should train at Colchester Camp, and the 4th Battalion in barracks at Warley, but the drainage at Warley Barracks was found to require attention, and the 4th Battalion was, therefore, encamped at Warley. This was not considered a sufficient reason for depriving the 3rd Battalion of the valuable instruction arranged for it at Colchester.

In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter on the Transport Vote, and move a reduction.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any communication from the India Office or from the Viceroy of India on the subject of Hall Marking; and whether he can now make any statement thereon?

No, Sir; I have not received any communication from the India Office or from the Viceroy on the subject of Hall Marking.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of knowing whether such communications have reached the Secretary of State, because my information is that they have?

I made inquiry, and was informed that none have reached. I will make further communication. The matter is a complicated one, but I have no doubt that I shall receive some communication soon.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to what day he intends to postpone the Indian Councils Bill?

The Indian Councils Bill will stand over until Monday next.

I had intended to ask the First Lord pf the Admiralty about what time he intends holding the forthcoming Naval Manœuvres; how many and what type, of ships are to be mobilised, and whether it is correct that the date has been postponed owing to many of the vessels having to be longer under repair than anticipated; and whether, with the large addition to the Navy of ocean cruisers, ho will consent to extend the scope of the experimental operations to the protection of the leading food and cotton ocean routes, notifying to commanders of British, shipping that they will be expected to avoid, as far as practicable, nominal capture by hostile experimental cruisers? As the noble Lord is not in his place may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can answer the question?

No, Sir; I have no information.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether complaints have reached him that the St. Olave's Beard of Guardians only visit the workhouses under their care once a fortnight; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will see that the order directing Guardians to visit such houses once a week is carried out in future by this Board?

I have not received any complaint as to the times when the workhouses of the St. Olave's Board of Guardians are visited by the Visiting Committee. I will communicate with the Guardians on the subject.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that two men named Edward Marshall and Charles M'Gill have been sentenced by Sheriff Balfour to a fine of £5 or 14 days' imprisonment for killing one rabbit; and whether he will cause inquiry into the matter with a view to the mitigation of this sentence?

The attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to this ease, and inquiry is being made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. G. F. Bowen has been removed from the post of chief clerk and accountant in the Receiver General's Office, Trinidad, where he was in receipt of a salary of £400 a year; that his post was amalgamated with a lower one, and the united office was given to a junior two grades below him in the same Department during his absence, no hint of such intention having ever been given to him until it was done; can he explain why no reason has ever been assigned for passing him over, and that a copy of the Correspondence regarding it was refused; whether the Receiver General is correctly reported to have stated to the Legislative Council that Mr. Bowen was "about to retire," and on what authority he made this statement; whether he is aware that Mr. Bowen was reduced, at less than a month's notice, from a salary of £400 a year to a pension of £180, and that, after waiting for more than a year, the Governor's ultimatum on the subject is a post at £100 a year, with which His Excellency trusts Mr. Bowen will be content; and whether he can see his way to recommend the reinstatement of Mr. Bowen in a post which, with his pension of £180, may give him the equivalent of the salary of £400 of which he has been deprived?

In 1889, as part of a scheme of re-organisation of the Department of the Receiver General in Trinidad, which was approved by the Secretary of State, the office of chief clerk and accountant, held by Mr. Bowen with a salary of £400 a year, and the office of savings bank accountant, the salary of which was £350 a year, were amalgamated into one office, with a salary of £450 a year, which was conferred upon the savings bank accountant, Mr. Bowen being pensioned off. Mr. Bowen was absent on leave when it was decided to abolish his office. He was informed on the 14th March, 1889, of the intention to abolish it, and the abolition took effect on the 1st of May. The reason for not appointing Mr. Bowen to the amalgamated office was that the appointment of the other gentleman was considered more conducive to the efficiency of the Department. It was not considered desirable to furnish him with a copy of the Correspondence. I am unable to say whether the Receiver General is correctly reported to have made the statement referred to in the third paragraph of the question, or, if he made it, on what authority he did so. Mr. Bowen's incomes was reduced from a salary of £400 to a pension of £180. The Governor has been instructed to give him, if possible, another appointment, and I believe Sir W. Robinson has done his best to re-employ him. The salary of the post now offered to him is £150. The Secretary of State hopes it may be possible to find Mr. Bowen a suitable post, the salary of which will raise his income to its former level.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state to the House the number of Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, and Colonels who have been re-called to duty under the age of 55 after their retirement in accordance with the Royal Warrant of December 1886, which empowers him to do so?

No retired officer has yet been re-called to serve, the occasion contemplated in the Royal Warrant not having arisen.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the number of sanitary districts, urban and rural, in which the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, or similar Private Act, has been adopted; whether he has any Reports to show; what is the effect so far, whether beneficial or not, to the public health; and whether it works without friction to the parties interested?

The Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, has been adopted in 481 urban sanitary districts, 337 rural sanitary districts, and 18 port sanitary districts. The Act is in force throughout London, without adoption. Compulsory notification is also in force under local Acts in 56 other districts. The population, according to the Census of 1881, of the districts where there is a system of compulsory notification in force is 19,316,000, the total population of England and Wales being 25,974,000. I have no special Reports on the subject, but I have no doubt whatever that the notification of infectious diseases will have results beneficial to the public health, and I am glad to say that the arrangements have worked to a remarkable degree without friction.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the regulation of the expenditure of the Metropolitan Police rests with himself alone now that the Imperial contribution is permanent and not annually voted; and if all increase of expenditure sanctioned by him is put on the rates of the Metropolis without any sanction cither of the House of Commons, representing the ratepayers, or the representatives of the ratepayer?

It is difficult to answer, otherwise than in debate, this somewhat argumentative question. Technically, the sum formerly payable as an Imperial contribution no longer appears on the Votes; but an effectual opportunity for Parliamentary criticism is afforded by the fact that the Vote "Police, England, and Wales" still bears the salaries of the Commissioner and Receiver, as well as such other portions of Metropolitan Police expenditure as are repayable from Imperial funds. The control of the ratepayers and the powers of the Secretary of State are neither greater nor less than they were when the Imperial contribution did appear as such upon the Vote. As the law now stands the Secretary of State cannot increase the charge on the ratepayers beyond the statutory maximum of 9d. in the £ of the rateable value of the district. The accounts of Metropolitan Police receipts and expenditure are, by Act of Parliament, fully published to this House every year.

What is the present expenditure? How many pennies in the £?

Not very far from 9d.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the parish of Holy Trinity, Ashton-in-Maker- field, Lancashire, it is intimated that a breadth, or grave, in the churchyard is appropriated "only on condition that no other than the Church of England Service is ever used"; whether this is in accordance with the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to prevent such a limitation of the rights of parishioners?

The Secretary of State has communicated with the incumbent, who states "that in every case the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880 have been loyally and faithfully carried out." It may, therefore, be inferred, though the question is not specifically answered, that no such intimation as is referred to can have been given. I may add that such an intimation would not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be consistent with the object and provisions of the Act of 1880.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of. Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement adopted by a meeting of steamship owners, held1 in Glasgow on the 8th instant, setting forth the unsuitability for the cases of coasting, river, and short sea excursion steamers of the "Rules made by the Board of Trade under The Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Act, 1888,'" presented to Parliament on the 10th ultimo; whether similar representations have been made from other ports,; and whether he will consider the propriety of modifying the rules, with a view of meeting the objections raised?

I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to enforce the Life Saving Appliances' Rules in respect to the coastings Continental, and short over-sea trades, in spite of the objections raised by the shipowners interested, these objections being fully explained in a statement transmitted to Members of Parliament from a meeting held at Glasgow on the 8th July; and whether he will receive a deputation to consider the objections of the shipowners interested?

My attention has been called to the statement referred to by the hon. Members and also to others of a similar nature, and I have carefully considered the representations made. It must be remembered that the Rules in question have been prepared by a Statutory Committee appointed under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Act of 1888. That Committee consisted of three shipowners selected by the Council of the Chamber of Shipping; one shipowner selected by the Shipowners' Associations of Glasgow, and one shipowner selected by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association and the Liverpool Shipowners' Association conjointly; two shipbuilders selected by the Council of the Institution of Naval Architects; three persons practically acquainted with the navigation of vessels selected by recognised Shipmasters' Societies; three persons being or having been able-bodied seamen selected by recognised Seamen's Societies; two persons selected conjointly by the Committee of Lloyd's, the Committee of Lloyd's Register Society, and the Committee of the Institute of London Underwriters, Mr. T. H. Ismay acting as Chairman. The Act of 1888 was the result of the recommendations of a Select Committee of this House presided over by Lord Charles Beresford, and the special representations which have been made from Glasgow and other places are in opposition to the Report of that Committee, which recommended that in one form or other, life saving provision should be made for all persons on board a vessel. The Statutory Committee, to the composition of which I have referred, in the first instance recommended rules of rather greater stringency than those now before the House. But at the instance of the gentlemen from Glasgow and others whose representations have now been received, I called Mr. Ismay's Committee together a second time, in order that they might consider the very points now raised, and after an exhaustive reconsideration of the case, they came to the conclusion that the rules now before House were practicable and necessary in the interests of public safety.; In these circumstances, I do not think it would be right for me to disregard the advice of a Statutory Committee, so composed as I have stated of representative men eminently capable of forming an Opinion on these matters. I am, therefore, not prepared to alter or modify the rules until practical experience has shown that it is necessary.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that in his statement last year he gave ah assurance that in consideration of the prospects held out by the Official Receiver to the clerks engaged in the Bankruptcy Department of the High Court, he Would deal with the Conditions of their service in the recess, any change has been made in the position of the clerical Staff Within the patronage of the several Official Receivers; and Why the clerks, who have proved themselves competent, should not be brought into the regular Civil Service; and whether it is the intention of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade to transact the whole of the business connected with the department of the Official Receiver; and, if so, whether the existing I staff is sufficient for the purpose?

The question of the organisation of the staff engaged in the Bankruptey Department of the High Court was considered by a Departmental Committee upon the recent retirement of Sir-Robert Harding, and in accordance with their recommendation certain members of the existing staff were added to the permanent establishment by their appointment as Assistant Receivers, but it was not deemed desirable to make any general alteration in the terms of service of the personal staff of the Official Receivers In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, the Solicitor to the Board of Trade has taken over and now performs, the duties of the Official Solicitor in Bankruptcy, whose Staff is available for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War Whether he has received Memorials from various medical schools in Great Britain, praying that the recommendations of Lord Camperdown's Committee in respect to rank, titles, and emoluments of Army Medical Officers be carried into1 effect; and whether: he would be willing to include in the Return, which he has promised to present to the House, like Memorials from the colleges and medical corporations of Great Britain?

Yes, Sir; they will be included.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that in 1889 an Act was passed, as a non-contentious measure, amending "The Agricultural Holdings Act (Scotland,), 1883," by enabling references under that Act to be Carried out by a single referee appointed by the Court, he will give his assent to the Second Reading of the Agricultural Compensation Procedure Bill, which makes the corresponding Amendment in "The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act. 1883," on the understanding that Clause 5 of the said, Bill, which deals with another matter, shall be omitted?

I should view with favour the, principle of any Bill which has for its object the, simplification of agricultural valuations f but I am afraid I cannot pledge myself as to the Second Reading of the Bill in question until we have it before us and I am able to gather from the discussion what course the House would be likely to take with regard to the retention or omission of any particular, clause or clauses of the Bill, It is really a matter for the House and not for me to decide whether the Bill is contentious or not.

Is it not obvious that if a Bill of this nature is not taken before 12 o'clock there, can practically be no discussion upon it?

The matter is in the hands of the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he already possesses, or will endeavour to obtain, any information as to the correctness of the following statements in the Daily News of 11th July, that; according to the Official Report, nine persons were killed, and 78 wounded, and three shops and six houses pillaged at Erzeroum on the 20th ultimo; that the Armenian Patriarch has received orders from the Minister of Justice to dissolve the Civil and Ecclesiastical Armenian Councils at Van, and to recall the Bishop to the capital, thereby removing some of the few remaining restraints upon the exactions of the Turkish officials, and the brutalities of the Kurds; and, lastly, that certain Armenian peasants of the village of Alakilesse, in the Province of Sivas, were burnt alive by the police, owing to their inability to satisfy the tax-gatherer's demands, without any punishment of the Zaptiehs ensuing, in spite of the written complaint of the Armenian Prelate of Sivas; and whether, in the event of these reports proving correct, the Government will direct Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople to urge the Porte to rescind the orders issued by the Minister of Justice, and to punish the authors of the outrage at Alakilesse?

A very unfortunate incident occurred at Erzeroum at the date mentioned, when a search for arms was made in an Armenian church and school with the consent of the, Bishop. This was resented by the Armenians, who appear to have been responsible for the not which followed including an attack on their own Bishop. Some shots were also fired on the troops, which took fatal effect upon them, as well as killing the sexton of the church, and in the subsequent collision and rioting the loss of life was greater than stated in the question, some 20 having been killed and from 200 to 300 wounded. The Vali used his best efforts, and succeeded in preventing further misfortunes. Certain recommendations made by the British, French, and Russian Consuls were communicated to the Porte, and representations were at the same time made by the British and French, and it is believed by the Russian Embassy also, and order has been re-established. Her Majesty's Government have no information with regard to the other matters mentioned in the question.

Will Her Majesty's Government take advantage of the presence of Sir William White in this country to confer with him as to the serious condition of affairs in Armenia?

I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will avail himself of the opportunity of Sir W. White's visit to confer with him on this and other subjects.

said: I do not think there is any need for special instructions.

I understand that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has sent in a Report. Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to lay it on the Table of the House?

I have no doubt that Papers will be presented giving Reports of what has taken place, Mr. Clifford Lloyd has carefully reported on all of these cases.

When will the Papers be presented? Will it be before the end of the Session?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, inasmuch as it appears that much of the Correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America, regarding the question of the Behring's Sea Fisheries, has already been published in America, that Correspondence, or any, and what, part of it will be now laid before Parliament; and whether he is in a (position to make any statement regarding the progress of the negotiations upon the subject of these fisheries?

Papers are being prepared, and will be laid shortly; they are rather voluminous. At the present stage of the negotiations it would not be desirable to make any statement to the House.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can explain why the Postal Authorities decline to accept at the halfpenny postage rate invoices and statements printed at foot with the words, "Please remit the above by return of Post," whereas those printed with the words "All remittances should be made by return of Post" are accepted at that rate; and why voters claims forms, with printed instructions at foot "This claim, &c." are also refused at the halfpenny rate, whereas if the instructions wore general that "All claims, &c." the forms would be accepted at that rate; and whether he can see his way to put an end to this system of making different charges in cases which are almost the same?

Such documents as those to which the hon. Member refers are passed at the book-rate of ½., provided they I contain no communication of the nature of a letter, although it is difficult in some cases to decide whore the line should be drawn. I am, however, in correspondence with the Treasury respecting certain alterations which have been proposed in the Book Post Rules, with the view of removing some of the difficulties now experienced.

I had intended to ask the Postmaster General what number of men of the East Central Division were represented by the deputation which he stated waited upon him at: the Generall Post Office on Friday afternoon; whether they were authorised to speak to him in the name of the whole body of their fellow-workers; what were the points they laid before him, and what concessions he promised to them, or is now prepared to make to the postmen as a body? I do not at present propose to put these questions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent article in the Lancet commenting on the fearfully high rate of mortality among the miners of Cornwall, due to the insanitary condition of the mines; and whether he will instruct the Government Inspector of the district to hold a special and open inquiry into the facts, and to report upon the same, with, a view to measures being adopted for their protection?

The Secretary of State has referred the article in question to the Inspector in Cornwall, and is now awaiting his Report. The Secretary of State has had, for some time past, under his consideration the question of amending the law as to metalliferous mines, and a Bill has been for some time in draft having for its object the better regulation of these mines, with a view to lowering the rate of mortality.

I had intended to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a a recent article in the Lancet, commenting on the fearfully high death rate of the minors of Cornwall, attributable to the unsanitary conditions under which they have to work, and whether he will extend the scope of the Reference to the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, with a view to their taking evidence as to how far any improvement of the said unsanitary conditions is prevented by the undue exactions imposed in the form of royalties and rents by the landlords upon the adventurers, and offering recommendations thereon? I will, however, postpone the question until I hear further upon the subject.

I. beg also to postpone the question I intended to ask the Postmaster General, whether he still declines to afford hon. Members who may desire to. visit the Post Office, with a view to seeing something of its internal administration before they are called upon to discuss and criticise it on the Post Office Estimates, the necessary facilities for so doing.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Mathew, as reported in the Times of 8th July, in the case of "Wright and Son v. the Queen's Harbour Master, the Admiral Superintendent, and others," as follows:—

"He regretted the case, it was not the only case, in which those dealing with persons connected with the Crown had no remedy,"

and to the fact that the Jury found for the plaintiffs with damages, and that the learned Judge entered the verdict for the defendants; and whether any steps will be taken in the shape of legislation inconsequence?

As far as I can judge from the somewhat limited report in Times, the case referred to by the hon. Member dose not appear to be in which there is any necessity for, legislation. The defendants, who were public servants, were pot guilty of, personal negligence. They took no part in pointing out the berth to which the plaintiff took his barge, and it seems, to me that the risk was properly borne by the plaintiff, whose bargeman in charge of the barge had seen the, berth and signed the book, stating that he was satisfied with the berth before berthing.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the establishments of the differ But Offices of State at Home and Abroad is empowered to inquire into the numbers, salaries, hours of labour, superannuation, cost of the staff, and the administration, regulation, and organisation of the said Offices whether the Royal Commission is still in existence; and whether if it has not finished its labours, it would be possible that it should extend its inquiries, without delay, to the Post and Telegraph Office?

AS I stated on the 11th inst., Her Majesty's Government consider that the questions which have arisen between the Post Office and its subordinates should be dealt with by the Department, which is quite competent to do so. It is not, in our opinion, expedient or desirable that public servants should be encouraged to look for redress of alleged grievances to the good offices of a third party, instead of to the head of their Department, who is directly responsible to the Government and to this House, Under these circumstances, we do not favour any special reference of this nature to the Royal Commission, which has been engaged on a. most protracted and difficult investigation, for a very long period, and may now naturally desire to be soon relieved of its arduous duties. I should add that the Commission was not appointed, as the instruction will show, for the investigation of grievances, but for the purpose of reviewing the organisation of public establishments, mainly with the view of effecting economy.

Are not the words in the question as to the number Salaries, hours of labour superannuation &c., the exact words used in the instructions to the Royal Commission, and were not the telegraphists almost invited to send in a statement of their grievances?

I think it is probably, but it is an argument against referring questions of this kind to a Royal Commission seeing that the time occupied in such an investigation must be necessarily contracted.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will favourably consider the position of the suspended postmen in the East End of London, some of whom have, been in the Service upwards of 30 years, with the view of re-instating those who, by intimidation were induced to join the Union, as they bitterly regret their conduct in going out with others on Thursday last?

Order, order! The hon. Member is now going into what is mere matter of opinion.

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I can only, say that the mattor in which he is interested shall receive my most careful consideration when a proper time arrives. I should naturally be desirous, if it should prove compatible with the public interest, to re-instate any postmen of good character who can prove that their misconduct was due to intimidation. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Collusion."]

Order, order! If the question had appeared upon the Paper I should have struck out that part which, refers, to postmen having joined, the Union.

said: But I have at the same time to consider the maintenance of proper discipline, and I think it right to add that in view of the disgraceful behaviour since the events of last Wednesday of persons professing to be sympathisers with the postmen who on that day deserted their duty in the Eastern District, I must postpone, while such outrages continue, any consideration of representations made on their behalf.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the new draft of Sub-section 3, Clause 1, of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill will be communicated to the House before the Bill is proceeded with?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to postpone until next week the question which stands in my name, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether; having regard to the desirability of making provision, whenever opportunities occur, for public parks and recreation grounds in the midst of the crowded population of South London, he will consider the propriety of applying the unappropriated monies arising out of the new Spirit Tax to the acquisition, for the benefit of the public, of the Crystal Palace And its grounds, which, it I is believed, the present proprietors would offer to the nation for about £750,000?

I beg to postpone until next week the question of which I have given notice, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will furnish a Return showing the number and objects of Reference of the several Royal Commissions issued since the year 1870, in which the Commissioners were precluded by the terms of Reference from embodying in their Report any recommendations for legislation or otherwise?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, before finally deciding to recommend to Her Majesty the reassembling of Parliament in November, will consider the danger to the health of Members likely to result from such a course, together with the inconvenience which Wilt be caused to Irish and Scotch Members who will have to travel long distances at a most inclement period of the year?

I need hardly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would greatly regret if any proposals which they may feel called on to make for the progress of public business should endanger the health of Members of this House; but there is, I believe, a general belief that Sittings protracted into the autumn are more injurious to health than an earlier meeting in the autumn or winter.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Derry Journal of 9th July, stating

"That the emergency man in charge of evicted farms in the Falcarragh district, accompanied by three soldiers of the Lancashire Regiment, now stationed in Dunfanaghy, visited the townland of Carrowcannon on Saturday evening last, and when they went a short distance beyond the Catholio Church the emergency man drew his revolv^°r and fired fire shots. There was a crowd of little children playing close by at the time, who fled panic striken to the nearest house;"

and whether, as this is not the first instance of such conduct on the part of this man, he will take any steps to prevent a repetition of similar conduct?

It appears that the caretaker referred to fired three shots to attract the attention of a police patrol which was in the neighbourhood, as he observed three soldiers quarrelling. It does not appear to be the case that these soldiers were in his company, nor were there any children or persons in his view except these soldiers. On one other occasion only does this caretaker appear to have discharged his revolver, and that was when attacked by a dog.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. P. D. Kenny, of Birmingham, lately shadowed in Ireland by the police, writes to the Daily News, saying that—

"Politics are no part of his business," denying "that he belongs to the National League of Great Britain," or "that he gave any one authority to describe him as about to attend an Irish meeting," and adding "that there was no reason in fact for the conduct of the police:"

and whether, in view of these statements, he has any further information to communicate to the House as to this case?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that one Patrick Burke, who has for years sat in a street in Tipperary engaged in the occupation of repairing boots and shoes, has been of late and is now being obliged to leave his usual place of sitting owing to policemen standing near him and pretending that he was working for them; that Burke, having removed to an archway near New Tipperary, was again so shadowed by policemen that for nine weeks he got no work, and was obliged to apply to the Poor Law Guardians for relief; that having returned to his former position three policemen placed themselves between him and Mr. P. Fitzgerald, of Tipperary, who wanted to approach Burke on business; whether, when Mr. Fitzgerald sent a messenger to Burke, the messenger was ordered "to get out of that" by the police; and what is the reason for this interference of the police with Burke in earning his livelihood?

I am informed that owing to complaints made to the police by some boycotted shopkeepers that the man referred to in the question while working near their shops took part in promoting the boycotting under which they were suffering, his movements were watched by the police, but that it is not the case that when he removed to another part of the town he was watched. The police at no time interfered with persons talking to the man unless they were obstructing the pathway. They have no information as to the particular incident referred to in the second paragraph, but if a date be given further inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reports in the Cork papers, from which it appears that two brothers, Edmond and David Kent, were at Fermoy fair on 6th instant, engaged in selling some lambs, when a constable came and "shadowed" David Kent for a considerable time; that this man, David Kent, then went and stood beside District Inspector Ball, and followed the Inspector about the fair, he himself being followed meanwhile by the constable; that District Inspector Ball spoke to Mr. Kent, and said, "if you persist in following me I will have you arrested," and that Kent replied that he had been prevented from doing his business by the constable shadowing him, and that if the Inspector withdrew the constable he would not follow the Inspector; if it is true, as reported, that the Inspector thereupon ordered the shadowing constable to arrest Mr. Kent, who was kept in custody from 9 a.m. until 3.30, and then summoned; and whether he can state under what authority was Mr. Kent arrested, and why was he shadowed in the manner described?

The hearing of the charge against the man referred to appears to have been fixed for to-day, and the case is, therefore, so far as I am aware, still sub judice. It would, therefore, be improper for me to enter into a discussion of the facts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to resolutions passed, on Wednesday last, at a meeting of lay and clerical members of the Irish General Assembly, demanding for the Presbyterians a fair share in the Parliamentary representation of Ulster, and also "The abolition of dual ownership in land;" and if he will use his influence with the Government to carry out and give effect to these recommendations?

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not seen a copy of the resolutions referred to in the question of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the sum of £45,000, borrowed by the Galway Harbour Commissioners from the Board of Works, for the pur- pose of improving their harbour, was advanced by that Board after careful examination and full approval of the plans and specifications submitted by Mr. Price, C.E., and the resolution passed by the Harbour Board in favour of carrying out these new works was only carried by a majority of one; if, after an expenditure of £45,000, a deep dock was constructed without an entrance channel, the water in the dock being 10 feet deeper than in the channel outside; and if, seeing that the port has derived no benefit from this expenditure, and as the Board of Works approved of and are responsible for everything that was done in the harbour, the Government will consider the advisability of either expending a further sum to deepen the entrance channel, so as to complete the works as at first designed, or relieve the port from the burthen of this debt?

I must ask the hon. Member to put the question to-morrow. I have not yet been able to obtain the information.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received a resolution or memorial from the Town Commissioners of Kilrush, County Clare, in reference to the extension of Cappa Pier; and, if so, will he state his intentions respecting it?

No, Sir; I cannot find that any memorial or resolution has recently been received at the Treasury about Cappa Pier.

In reference to my next question on the Paper, I wish to say that this is not the question which I handed in to the Clerk at the Table, and I protest against the mutilation of my questions in this manner.

Order, order!

Well, Sir; I withdraw my question, and will put it to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the loss suffered by the taxpayers by the slaughter of the cows in the Phoenix Park under the Pleuro-pneumonia Order; and will cattle in future be prevented grazing in the park, and sheep, if necessary, used to eat down the grass?

I regret to say that the net loss incurred, owing to the slaughter of cattle in Phoenix Park, was £3,129 10s. since January 1, 1890. This sum is a charge on the £20,000 provided in the Act of this year to compensate the owners of cattle slaughtered tinder Pleuro-Pneumonia Orders in Ireland. I may mention that, in allowing the cattle in question to be admitted to the Park, the Board of Works acted in consultation with the Verterinary Department. The Park is, at present, grazed by sheep, and this will probably continue for some years. I have given orders that no further cattle shall be admitted into the Park until there has been some change.

Until when?

Until there has been a change. As I have stated, the compensation is provided under the Pleuro-pneumonia Act.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can now state what decision the Irish Government have come to with regard to the recent Report of their Inspectors, as to the overcrowding of the Cork Lunatic Asylum, and the necessity for additional accommodation for the inmates?

The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums report that the additional buildings now in course of construction at the Cork District Lunatic Asylum will provide accommodation for 409 patients, which will then give a total accommodation in that Asylum for 1,209 patients.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any moneys are due to the Board of Public Works, Ireland, on the farms from which Messrs. James Leahy, Jeremiah Nugent, and Michael Donovan have been evicted at Castleisland, County Cork, and of which Mr. Thomas Henry Marmion is now inoccupation: if moneys are due on them what are the amounts, and what steps have been taken, if any, to recover them?

I shall feel obliged to the hon. Member if he will put the question to-morrow. The information supplied to me is not as full as I should like to give to the House.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, at the Dundalk Assizes, on Saturday, 5th July, in a case where two persons named Brady and Hughes were charged, convicted, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment for larceny of lead from the Imperial Hotel, Drogheda, when his Lordship stated in effect that Patrick Byrne, at whose instigation the load was stolen, should be charged with the offence; and will he direct a prosecution against Byrne?

This case will, I have no doubt, be referred to me in the ordinary course; but I have not as yet received the Papers.

I wish to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has seen a paragraph in the Echo of Saturday, headed "Moonlighting by a Policeman," which states that Constable Palmer had been convicted of smashing the windows of two houses, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment, but that the District Inspector said there would be some difficulty in finding him because he had left the country, upon which the Magistrate made an observation as to the conduct of the police in allowing the man to escape. If the statement is true will inquiry be made into the conduct of the police; and will the Return presented to the House contain a Return of outrages committed by the police themselves?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the number of rank and file in the 1st Cardiff detachment, which at the close of the last volunteer year on 31st October, 1889, was 115, has now fallen to 60, and that between that date and the 1st of July, 1890, 58 have resigned, and only three recruits have been enrolled; whether he is aware that the number of rank and file in the 2nd Cardiff detachment, which on 31st October, 1889, was 324, is now less than 260, and that the resignations since that date do amount to upwards of 90, and the recruits to 26 only; whether it has been reported to him that the average attendance at the parades in uniform of the Cardiff detachment is now about 50, as against an average attendance of the two detachments combined last year of more than double that number; whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Colonel commanding the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Welsh Regiment, at the parade of the Cardiff detachment on the 16th of June, expressing surprise at the muster being such a small one, and stating that, unless the attendance at drills improved, he would have to reduce the strength of the detachment from six to four companies, and also to the announcement on parade within the last fortnight that the Officer commanding the detachment will pay 2s. 6d. to each member of the detachment for every recruit introduced by him; and whether, in view of the fact that the 3rd Volunteer Battalion of the Welsh Regiment consists of 23 companies stationed in 10 towns in the Eastern portion of the County of Glamorgan, accupying an area measuring 25 miles in length, and that the Colonel Commandant resides at a distance of 24 miles from the headquarters of the Battalion, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the old system, and divide the present very large Battalion into two Battalions?

The hon. Member has considerably over-stated the case, but the Cardiff companies are undoubtedly suffering from a deficiency of recruits. The average attendance on parade of the Cardiff detachment is reported to be over 100. The number of resignations is always greatest between November and January, and is partly due to the migratory character of the population; of those referred to in the question, the majority occurred before the amalgamation of the two Cardiff detachments. It is true that the Colonel lives 24 miles from Cardiff, but he is within easy reach by rail, and lives in the centre of a large population, from which a great proportion of his men are drawn. Reports from the Authorities on the spot show the battalion generally to be in a high state of efficiency—there being more efficients this year than ever before—and, in my opinion, no sufficient cause has been shown for abandoning a system which, on the whole, is working extremely well.

said: If the Tithe Bill is withdrawn it will be withdrawn after 12 o'clock, when the Order is reached. The Employers' Liability Bill will be withdrawn either to-night or on some future day. There are on the Paper notices of Amendments to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill, and if it is opposed the Bill will not be proceeded with.

Will the Savings Bank Bill be proceeded with?

I understand there is very little opposition to that measure.

There is a very considerable 'amount of opposition to it.

, in whose name an Amendment stood on the Paper to substitute the number 72 for 21, said: The Motion which was made the other night contained two propositions—(1) that none but Scotch Members should sit on the Committee; and (2) that all the Scotch Members should sit on the Committee. The Lord Advocate described it as a fantastic proposal, but I see that the right hon. Gentleman has now accepted the first proposition. There is one name—that of Sir C. Dalrymple—which is not that of a Scotch Member, but if the hon. Baronet is not a Scotch Member he is a Scotchman. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding to criticise the composition of the proposed Committee, when.

said: Order, order! The Standing Order only permits a short statement on a Motion of this sort.

May I suggest that the Government should have put the Motion down at a time when every hon. Member could have expressed his opinion?

I am not permitted by the Standing Order to allow anything more than a short explanatory statement.

The Motion ought to have been made after 12 o'clock.

I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

No hon. Member can move the Adjournment of the Debate.

I take it, Sir, that you must put the names separately?

No doubt.

I understand that my Motion is in order.

Yes.

Then I beg to move it.

During the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I intimated, on behalf of the Government, that while we assented to the measure going before a Select Committee, we expressly reserved the right of the Government to influence the composition of the Committee. The hon. Member now proposes that in place of a Committee of 21 members there shall be a Committee of 72. Immediately after the Motion was carried to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, the hon. Member proposed that the Committee should consist of the whole of the Scotch Members, and the present proposal is really a repetition of the rejected Motion. I hold that the course the Government have taken is thoroughly defensible. We have a precedent in 1888. Then there was the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill before the House, and it involved a considerable amount of detail. It was referred to a Committee of 25 Members, of whom four were English Representatives. Three of these were, however, of Scotch nationality, and the other one was an Englishman sitting for an English constituency. If it is said that this Committee ought to be a microcosm of the House in the sense of representing the various nationalities, the argument is at once reduced ad absurdum, because then a Committee of 21 Members should only include two Scotch Members. I can only repeat that in this matter we are following in the footsteps of our predecessors. We hold that as this matter is one requiring special local knowledge there should be a large infusion of the local element on the Committee.

Order, order! It is my duty to point out that the hon. Gentleman has spoken quite as long as the Mover of this Amendment.

I now propose to substitute for the name of Sir C. Dalrymple—

Order, order! It is not competent for the hon. Member to move without notice the insertion of another name, although he may move to omit any particular name.

I beg, then, Sir, to move the omission of the name of Sir C. Dalrymple, and I do so as a protest against the constitution of the Committee. While only 20 per cent. of the Liberal Scotch Members are to be on the Committee, 75 per cent. of the Conservative Scotch Members are to be placed on the Committee, which I hold ought more fairly to represent Scotch opinion in this House.

I hope my hon. Friend will not propose this Amendment. The hon. Member whose name he proposes to omit is a Scotchman, though it happens that he is not a Scotch Member. He is, however, only an English Member by accident. I think that the proposed Committee accurately represent the ordinary ratio of the various parties in the House.

On Friday night, when the moment of 12 o'clock intervened to check a somewhat heated Debate, hon. Members opposite were making a violent attack on myself, based upon the alleged inequality of treatment in the cases of Captain Eyre, Justice of the Peace, Mr. Kirnan, and Mr. Clarke. It was alleged that while these three gentlemen had been surcharged by an auditor of the Local Government Board in respect of relief afforded out of the poor rates to evicted tenants, proceedings against Captain Eyre had been taken under a Statute, purposely with the view of enabling him to evade payment. The hon. and learned Member for Longford said that whilst Mr. Clarke had been imprisoned in reference to a surcharge of £5, Captain Eyre, against whom there was a surcharge of £40, had got off scot free; and this, although both gentlemen wore charged on the same day and before the same Magistrate. I desire to point out that the trials did not take place on the same day, and that Mr. Clarke was subsequently tried under a different Statute, in consequence of the failure of the proceedings which had been instituted against Captain Eyre. I was told on Friday night by the hon. and learned Member for Longford that I ought to be ashamed of myself, and that my action as a Minister was disgraceful, and much more in the same strain, until he was called to order by the Chairman. In the case of Mr. Kirnan an accusation equally injurious to the Administration of the Local Government Board was made. The facts of the case are that Captain Eyre was surcharged in January, 1887, before I occupied my present post as Chief Secretary, and Mr. Kirnan was surcharged at the same time, and was tried under the same Statute. The proceedings against both were identical, and the payment was obtained from either of them. Mr. Kirnan and Mr. Clarke were subsequently surcharged last year, and were tried under a different Statute because of the failure of the earlier proceedings against Captain Eyre and Mr. Kirnan. The Committee may now judge upon what basis wild and reckless accusations are made against the Irish Government and against myself, and what reliance ought to be placed by hon. Members sitting on the Government side of the House upon statements made by hon. Members opposite. The episode is, in my opinion, interesting, as illustrating the sort of justification for accusations which it is thought proper to hurl across the floor of the House in most excited tones.

Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, when I find that I have been led into an inaccuracy, I beg to tender him a full expression of my regret. I hope the example which I, not a long-descended man, set will not be lost on the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir, I too desire to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having made a statement which turns out to be inaccurate. Whilst I apologise to him fully for the inaccuracy of the information supplied to us in this particular instance, yet I do not think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is well founded, because, out of the many charges hurled by Irish Members across the floor of the House, on this occasion alone has the Chief Secretary proved us to be inaccurate. I call the attention of the House to this fact, and to the length at which the right hon. Gentleman addressed it on this solitary triumph. I admit in the frankest way that on this occasion he has triumphed over us. But what about the hundreds of other cases in which we have brought the most damaging charges against the Irish Executive? They were accurate and could not be denied. If they were capable of denial why did the Chief Secretary not deny them as he has done in this instance? I apologise in the fullest way and without reservation for having made the statement that the Local Government Board, of which the Chief Secretary is the head, proceeded against two individuals on the same day under different Statutes. I would venture to direct the attention of the Committee to the great importance of this case, quite apart from that charge. Admitting now that we were wrong and misinformed, and that the Board did not commit the outrage of proceeding under different statutes, there still remains the extraordinary circumstances of the imprisonment of the man for signing the relief book of the union. I ask the President of the Local Government Board of England whether he knows of any case in England in which a Guardian of the Poor has been put in prison for signing the relief book, and not paying surcharge? I am informed that surcharging is not at all an uncommon thing in England, and will the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any case in which a man has been thrown into gaol for three months because he has not paid surcharge? If he can state that he will certainly rescue the Chief Secretary from a difficult position and render him substantial help. If he cannot do so I ask whether it is fair that this man, Timothy Clarke, should have been kept in prison for three months, to the ruin of his business as a cattle dealer, for nonpayment of a small surcharge? I am informed that Kirwan was prosecuted at the same time as Eyre. He was also prosecuted a second time, and the Friend who supplied me with the information simply confounded the two prosecutions. On the second prosecution Mr. Kirwan was thrown into prison for a month for non-payment of surcharge, and treated as an ordinary prisoner. Clarke was not treated as an ordinary prisoner, but as a first-class misdemeanant, I believe. I would invite the President of the Local Government Board in England to give the law and practice here in regard to this matter.

The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to state whether or not any imprisonment takes place in England for neglecting to comply with an order of the Local Government Board with regard to surcharge. I have not known, during the time I have held the office which I now hold, anything of the kind requiring to be done. The Local Government Board have, undoubtedly, in my time made surcharges, but they have been paid.

Are there many instances in which the surcharges have not been paid for a long time? Has the right hon. Gentleman ever known a man thrown into prison for not paying?

I have answered the question, that I cannot say what has been done. During the time I have been President of the Local Government Board I have not known of anyone imprisoned for non-compliance with an order for surcharge by the Local Government Board. More than that I cannot say. The surcharges have, of course, been paid.

The question is whether surcharge is not dealt with differently in different cases. I will tell you what occurred in Cork. The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum was surcharged by the Castle Authorities, and for upwards of two years the money was not paid. But the Chairman of the Cork Lunatic Asylum is a Conservative—a high Tory of the city of Cork. The Dublin Castle Authorities, I would point out, imprisoned a Nationalist, but let off their Conservative friends. I would like the Chief Secretary to pay attention to this matter, and to answer it if he possibly can. Is it not the fact that Mr. Morgan and some of the members of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum were surcharged and allowed time to pay?

Sir, I ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is not the constant practice in England to remit surcharges in certain cases, and to allow long periods for payment; whether it is the practice, in the case of a poor struggling man, to pounce down upon him, and to put him into gaol for a number of months simply because he has not paid the surcharge?

The Local Government Board can remit surcharges on two grounds—legal and technical—in which the circumstances are such as to justify remission. There is no disposition, of course, to press unnecessarily in regard to the time at which the surcharge is to be paid.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a statement as to the amount of the surcharges remitted by the English Local Government Board within the last three years?

If I can, Sir, I shall be glad to give any information I can when the Vote comes on.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly ask one of his clerks, before the Local Government Vote is disposed of, to say whether any person has been imprisoned in England for surcharge?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also, if convenient, give a Return of the number of cases in Ireland where surcharges have been made, and whether they have been remitted or not?

I cannot make any statement with regard to facts in Ireland.

Why not?

Because I have no knowledge whatever of them.

Could the right hon. Gentleman not refer to his friend the Chief Secretary?

It is not in my Department.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he intends to pursue with regard to the Nationalist Press in Ireland?

Order, order! The discussion is on the Local Government Board Vote, and unless the hon. Member is going to speak of the Nationalist Press in relation to that Vote he will be out of order.

The point I wish to raise is this. By direction of the Local Government Board the ordinary advertisements of the Carlow Board of Guardians, under the Labourers' Act, have been refused to the local Nationalist paper, and given to the local Conservative paper. As a matter of fact, the Nationalist paper has 10 times the circulation of the Conservative paper. I have a letter from Mr. Condon, owner and editor of the Carlow Nationalist paper, in which he says—

"Some time ago it became necessary to publish official advertisements relating to the Labourers' Act in Carlow Union, and although the Guardians of the Union, who have to pay for such advertisements, expressed by formal resolution their wish to have the advertisement published in the local Nationalist newspaper, as well as in the Conservative organ, the Local Government Board refused to accede to their wishes."

Now, I wish to know whether Local Boards are to be prevented from having their advertisements published in the Nationalist newspapers? I ask what is the reason of this? Is it on the ground that the proprietors or editors of some of these newspapers have been, or may still be, in gaol as criminals, that they are not allowed to have these advertisements? If so, I beg to say that Mr. Condon was not in gaol for any offence under the Criminal Law Procedure Act; he was confined under the Act we have been discussing, namely, that of Edward III., and because he refused to admit that he was a criminal, and to ask for bail, he was practically told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—"I will do all in my power to prevent your earning or your obtaining your ordinary means of livelihood." Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that mean and petty action of that kind will tend to allay public feeling against the Government in the districts where these things are done, or in anyway aid the cause of law and order? I would here remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Condon was confined for two months in gaol for having reported a speech made by myself, a speech which was published without note or comment. It was said that a school was boycotted on that occasion owing to that publication, and that it was boycotted in order to lead to the amalgamation of two schools in the same neighbourhood, so as to enable them to get the grant; but I am glad to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the schoolmistress of the second school is going next week to America, and that we shall be without both schoolmaster and schoolmistress for a short time to come. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman docs he want anything more of the same kind? I would also draw his attention to the fact that on the occasion of Mr. Condon's trial it was sworn that his paper did not reach the locality referred to until the Monday following the day of its publication, at the end of the week in which it was issued, that the school was boycotted on the Tuesday, and that the circulation of the paper had nothing directly or indirectly to do with the boycotting. I also put it to the Committee, whether a journalist who merely reports public events, and has had nothing to do with the matters charged, has any right to be treated by the right hon. Gentleman in the paltry and vindictive spirit which has been displayed towards him.

I would remind the Committee that last Friday evening I brought this very question under notice, but that, owing to the peculiar facility the right hon. Gentleman has for overlooking things which are important to the issues involved, and passing on to other matters to which his sublime attention is more congenially directed, he did not allude to the case reported in the Cork Examiner to which I then referred. I pointed out that the editor of the paper had expurgated his offence, whatever it may have been, and now it has been explained that the offence consisted merely in the refusal to give bail. There were two cases—those of the Cork Examiner and the Cork Herald—which I brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentle- man. They are two papers published in an important city in the south of Ireland—a city having 80,000 inhabitants—these papers circulating over the province of Munster, and having been boycotted by the Local Government Board, so that the advertisements of the Cork Union were confined to a Conservative paper, owned by friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and circulating only among a few select people in the south of Ireland. This is not only unjust to the boycotted newspapers, but also to the people who read them, as well as to the contractors who send in tenders, because they do not see the advertisements in the papers they read. I say that this complaint applies not only to the Local Government Board, but to the Fisheries Board, and all the other Boards and Departments under the management of the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless we are constantly seeing the right hon. Gentleman turning up his eyes at the boycotting which prevails in Ireland. Why, Sir, we can point to documentary evidence showing that orders are issued by the Boards in Dublin under the management of the right hon. Gentleman that the advertisements are to be given only to those papers which are of the political colour the right hon. Gentleman approves of. At any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought at least to accord to us the courtesy of noticing the complaints we make, and not to con fine himself to the making of sensational speeches on those points that are really of no great importance, while he entirely overlooks and passes by matters that are of very much importance, and upon which we are anxious to obtain information. Under these circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the speech of my hon. Friend.

I do not desire, on behalf of the Nationalist Press of Ireland, to claim any favour from the right hon. Gentleman; but they do claim justice, and the ratepayers also demand justice, at the hands of the Government. This boycotting of the Nationalist Press not only works unfairly for the newspaper proprietors, but it also operates unfairly towards the people who pay the rates of the country. I will give the Committee an instance of this. There was an important meeting in the county of Dun- garvan not long ago convened by the Local Government Board, and Inspectors were sent down. The meeting was advertised in two of the local Conservative papers, not half a dozen copies of which ccirculated in that county, or in the neighbourhood of Dungarvan. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why a matter which intimately concerned the ratepayers of that district was not advertised in the papers which circulated there, and he said he understood that the proprietors of those papers had been guilty of breaking the law, and that the Government did not intend to insert any of their advertisements in those papers. Now, the guilt of these persons amounted to this—that they had inserted in their papers reports of the so-called suppressed branches of the League. I think, Sir, the proceedings of the Local Government Board with regard to surcharge afford a good illustration of the way in which Irish grievances are attended to by the Government. They are never tired of telling us that the grievances of the Irish people, when brought forward by their Representatives, will be attended to. On this question of surcharge we have again and again asked that the same law as is applied to England shall be applied to Ireland, namely, that there should be some kind of appeal; but, although the Government acknowledge the principle to be correct, they have done nothing to put it in operation in Ireland. In our country the auditors are appointed, not because of their fitness for the office, but because of the hatred they bear to the Irish people, and these gentlemen have no hesitation in surcharging the Nationalist Guardians, while the ex officio and Conservative Guardians are allowed to go scot free. I was surcharged in this way myself, and it so happened that Sir Robert Paul, my predecessor, had signed cheques for similar payments in previous years, but had escaped surcharge. When, however, he saw that I was so surcharged, Sir Robert Paul came forward, and by some pressure which he brought to bear, I was not forced to pay the surcharge. While I am on my feet I wish to draw attention to another matter which has been repeatedly brought forward in this House. I allude to the system of sending aged and infirm poor back to Ireland, to end their days there, after they have spent the best part of their lives in this country. For my part, I should be happy to approve of any arrangement which would enable these poor people to end their lives in the country from which they have been expelled; but I would point out that the question is an important one locally—

This subject is not under the control of the Local Government Board of Ireland.

But we are in the habit of writing to them and receiving communications from them upon it. At any rate, you have the power in this country of sending paupers who may be of Irish parentage, but who have been out of Ireland nearly half a century, over to us to be supported by us, and although we have in our unions a great many English poor, we have no right to send them over hero. Of course, if you, Sir, consider that this question is not appropriate to the subject of the Vote under discussion, I will not proceed with it, but I think some reference should be made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Irish Press question, and the reason why he refuses to insert advertisements in those papers which are published and have the largest circulation in the districts affected.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member, that the Government are bound by the statute, and the alteration he desires is an alteration which it is not within the power of the Local Government Board to bring about. With regard to the action of the Local Government Board respecting advertisements in the papers in Ireland, I have only to say what I think I have said on one or two preceding occasions, namely, that the principle which governs the Irish Administration in this matter is simply that Government advertisements ought not to be sent to papers which habitually break the law.

Who decides that?

Those who send the advertisements. Politics are not regarded as long as newspapers do not break the law. I do not know that I have anything to add to that, and I think the Committee in general approves of the broad lines of the policy laid down by the Government in the matter.

We do not accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as in any way satisfactory, and I think the Committee will see in this matter an apt illustration of the unfairness with which Nationalists are treated by the officials of Dublin Castle. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman lays down the principle that if any newspaper in any part of the country is punished for any offence against the law that newspaper is never again to receive a Government advertisement. The Government Departments, as I understand, do not farm out these advertisements as a matter of justice or favour to one paper or another in any of these three kingdoms. By certain statutes the Government Departments are bound to give notice to the people of certain things. They are bound, as a simple ministerial duty, to send the advertisements to those newspapers which do reach the people. If not, they are not giving notice to the people, and in spirit, if not in letter, they are breaking the statutes. It is a monstrous thing that gentlemen in the Local Government Board Office, who do not profess to be able to exercise judicial functions, should take upon themselves, the task of judging what is and what is not an offence against the law of the land. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will admit that some newspapers in the north of Ireland have, from time to time, broken the law. I suppose he will admit that the Belfast News Letter has called upon people to break the law. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that, under these circumstances, that newspaper ought to get the Government advertisements? I suppose there are scores of newspapers in these three Kingdoms that have committed the offence of criminal libel. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that not one of these papers is a fit receptacle for Government advertisements, or does he draw a distinction between one sort of offence and another? I suppose the distinction the right hon. Gentleman draws is that a criminal libel is an offence against the law of the land, and a conspiracy under the Crimes Act is an offence against the law of the right hon. Gentleman. Very often, for simply giving the people of a district a plain account of what had happened in the district, an Irish newspaper proprietor is branded by the Local Government Board as a person unfit to receive a Government contract. The action of the Local Government Board is simply and solely a bit of political persecution. It is contrary to the spirit of the law under which the Board act, for, by giving advertisements to papers with little or no circulation, they do not give that notice to the people which they are bound by law to give. Now, Sir, who are the gentlemen on the Local Government Board who are laying down these principles? There is an interesting publication called The Financial Reform Almanack, which gives the relationship of Members of this House with Members of the Upper House. I should like to see the principle of these Returns applied to the Local Government Board. I do not want to see the relationship to Members of the Upper House especially given, but I should like to see established the relationship between the different officials and members of the clique who have the supreme command in Dublin. You have a member of the great family of Morris, a member of the distinguished family of Gibson, and a brother of the gentleman who is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he has been, from time immemorial, the Conservative candidate for the City of Limerick. You have numbers of men who have obtained their posts simply because they are related to people who are in authority. And now, having got their posts in this way—for services as Party hacks, or for the services of their brothers as Party hacks—they purport to exercise and to assume a judicial function in deciding which newspapers in Ireland are fit to receive Government advertisements, and which are not. I maintain that that is preposterous. It is another matter which shows the intolerance of the clique who really rule Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, by one title or another—sometimes as Chief Secretary, sometimes as President of the Local Government Board—is supposed to rule Ireland, but he does not do so. The actual control of the Administration is not with the right hon. Gentleman, but with the various hacks who do the things that the right hon. Gentleman has to defend in this House. I desire to call attention to the action of an auditor of the Local Government Board in allowing an improper payment by the Grand Jury of the County of Cavan, under circumstances in which no such payment would have been allowed had it been made by a Representative Body on which Nationalists were in the majority. It may, or may not, be known to this House that there is a difference in the mode in which the expenses of children sent to Reformatories and children sent to Industrial Schools in Ireland are paid. In the case of Reformatories, the Grand Jury or the Urban or Municipal Authority, as the case may be, is bound to pay the cost of the maintenance of the children; but in the case of Industrial Schools the Local Authority has an option. It may, if it likes, contribute to the support of the children, but it is not obliged to do so. Now, in the county of Cavan, although the vast majority of the cesspayers are Catholic, there is a Protestant majority on the Grand Jury, and for 16 years in succession it has absolutely refused to pay a farthing for Catholic children in Industrial Schools, on the ground that there is a Standing Order of the Grand Jury against payments for children in Industrial Schools. For eight years out of the 16, however, in spite of continual protest, the Grand Jury made grants to Protestant Industrial Schools. I consider that that is a scandalous instance of bigotry and intolerance. That is not all. Year after year the Grand Jury entered this payment to Protestant Industrial Schools in the published abstract of presentments as if it were a payment to a Reformatory. The entry ran "The Meath Protestant Reformatory" so much. The Auditor of the Local Government Board must have known that there was no such thing as a Meath Protestant Reformatory. He must have known it, for he had to audit payments in different parts of the country to the Meath Industrial School as an Industrial School time after time.

In what year was this?

This has been done for eight years. The improper audit occurred in every one of the eight years. The Grand Jury have not passed any such presentment this year owing to the attention which has been drawn to the subject in this House, but the improper payment was improperly allowed in the year last past. I do not make any charge against this Protestant Industrial School, as I happen to know that the managers discharged their duties satisfactorily and sent in the forms in a straightforward way, describing the institution as an Industrial School. The Grand Jury, however, falsified the Return, putting down the payment as if made to a reformatory. That is a fraud, and should have been prevented by the auditor. What is an auditor for if he is not to stop a fraud of that kind? If the Town Council of the city of Dublin were to perpetrate such a fraud we should have the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) on every platform throughout the Kingdom, denouncing the intolerance of the Irish Catholics. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to say a word or two in condemnation of the intolerance and fraud of the Cavan Grand Jury, although they are amongst his own supporters.

As the right hon. Gentleman has not risen to explain the remarkable incident referred to by my hon. Friend, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to explain how the Irish Local Government Board discharges the extraordinary duty cast on it of acting as censor over the Irish newspapers, finding out which of them keeps the law, and which of them breaks it. I say that as this censorship over newspapers by the Local Government Board affects the fortunes and properity of a great many Irish newspapers, we are entitled to further information from the Chief Secretary. We have it from the right hon. Gentleman that the Local Government Board, instead of having regard to the circulation of a newspaper and the fitness of the medium for the advertisement before it gives an advertisement, endeavours to find out, as the right hon. Gentleman says, whether the newspaper "is breaking the law or not." I want to know how they discharge that function? In what way do they proceed to ascertain the facts? Do they keep a file of the newspapers and submit it to their legal adviser? They have a legal advisar—a distinguished Irish lawyer— and I want to know is it on his advice that they act in discharging this important function? I have always thought that it is for the Courts to decide whether or not the law is broken, but that old maxim, like a great many other old maxims, does not hold with the present Government of Ireland. I say we want some little further information. We want to know whether—say in the case of the Cork Examiner or the Cork Herald—where they are accused of having broken the law, an opportunity is given to the editor or proprietors of being heard in their own defence. I apprehend not. We know it is said these papers are not loyal, but, notwithstanding that, I submit that the proprietors should have some right of appeal when the Local Government Board undertakes to decide a legal issue. These are the extraordinary incidents to which the Minute of the right hon. Gentleman, which, we have heard of for the first time to-night, has given rise. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman comes down to this House and declares that instead of dealing with the questions of Poor Law and out-door relief, the Local Government Board go into investigations as to how far the Criminal Law of Ireland has been observed or been broken, we are entitled to some information as to the lines, upon which the Local Government Board proceeds.

In answer to the hon. Members I would say that no judicial functions are undertaken by the Local Government Board. As President of that Board I am directly and solely responsible for the principles laid down as regards the granting of these advertisements, and if blame attaches to anyone it attaches to me. I contend, however, that no blame attaches to me or to anyone else. I think that the Board would be going beyond their duty, and beyond what is just, if they were to consider the political complexion of any newspaper. I quite admit that general principle, but it would be equally absurd to expect them to give these advertisements to papers which they cannot conceal from themselves are in the habit of violating a perfectly well-understood law.

What law?

The law of the land. I do not believe that advertise- ments have ever been refused in a case where it could be seriously contended that the law had not been broken by the newspaper in question. No such case has been or can be adduced. If anyone thinks that this is being done in the case of a paper which has not broken the law—if they will bring it to my notice the matter will be examined into and full justice done.

No answer has been made to the criticisms of myself and my hon. Friends. If the proprietors of papers have broken the law, what is the branch of the law against which they have offended? Is it murder, or forgery, or any other of the numerous offences which find a place under the wide and sweeping term "the law of the land"? Let us take the case of the Cork Herald or Cork Examiner. What branch of the law has the proprietor of either of these papers broken? Yet they are subjected to this mean and contemptible device of boycotting. Another branch of the law is criminal libel. Is that the particular branch of the law of the land which the Irish newspapers who are refused Government advertisements have violated? It is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "The newspapers have been violating the law of the land," unless we are told what branch of the law of the land it is they have been violating. If the proprietors of the papers I have named have been guilty of illegality how is it that no member of their staff has been prosecuted? We all know that the Chief Secretary is a firm upholder of law and order, and would not allow illegality to go on for years and years without taking some steps to vindicate it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot regard the mean and contemptible device of stopping advertisements as the best means of vindicating the law. If the law has been broken, why does he not prosecute the proprietors of these newspapers? The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the officials of the Local Government Board undertake to hear and determine in camera the question whether newspapers have broken the law. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me in what manner the 'Cork Herald or the Cork Examiner have broken the law, and why, if they have broken it, proceedings have not been taken against them?

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few plain questions. The first is whether the rule he has laid down that no paper, the proprietor of which has committed a crime, is to get Government advertisements, is applicable to every crime? Does it apply to the crime of libel in England as much as to the crime of conspiracy or the publication of meetings of suppressed branches of the League in Ireland? Has he considered, with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the English Local Government Board, whether the same principle is to apply to advertisements issued by the English Board? If it is to be applied to both countries, we in Ireland will have no special ground of complaint. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman lays down that the rule shall only be applicable to Ireland, I want to know what becomes of his promises of equal laws for England and Ireland? I should like to know also how the right hon. Gentleman is giving notice of events of which he is bound to give notice in districts where the only newspapers with any considerable circulation are papers which, according to his theory, have broken the law? Is he going to publish official newspapers for the purpose of bringing the advertisements before the public? And if the right hon. Gentleman deigns to answer these questions, he might also give some reply as to the case of religious intolerance which I brought before him, and which, owing no doubt to inadvertence and not to intentional discourtesy, he has omitted to mention.

A surprising statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a short time ago. He said that no question of politics entered into this matter. That reminds one of the statement that no question of religion enters into Jury-packing. If no question of politics enters into the question, how is it that everywhere throughout Ireland, since the right hon. Gentleman has been and before he was at the Irish Office, the only newspapers that have got the Government advertisements are the Conservative papers? We know that in every department of Dublin Castle the officials discuss among themselves what are the politics of the various newspapers, and in every case, unless there be special reason to the contrary, we know that the fact of a paper being Nationalist or not decides the question whether it is to get the advertisements. It is utterly ridiculous and preposterous to pretend the reverse. We know that the question of politics enters into the matter of giving advertisements, and we shall not hesitate to express our opinion here with regard to it on every possible occasion. The thing has been aggravated, and the injustice and scandal have become perfectly flagrant under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asked for a case in which advertisements have been refused to a newspaper that has not broken the law. There is the case of Mr. Condon, the proprietor of the Carlow Nationalist. He was merely asked to give securities for good behaviour, and, as has been admitted in this House, that is not even a punishment. It was not alleged chat he had broken the law, and he has not broken the law since, because if he had, I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would have prosecuted him under his Coercion Act. Then there is the case of the Leinster Leader. What crime his that paper committed that it should be deprived of all the Government advertisements? It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to ride off on State platitudes and generalities, by saying that no man is deprived of an advertisement who does not break the law, when he knows that, as a matter of fact, the assertion is completely without foundation.

When the right hon. Gentleman expressed surprise at the suggestion that politics were taken into consideration in deciding in what newspapers these advertisements should be inserted, he seems to have forgotten the admissions which, since he has been a Member of the House, has been more than once made from that Bench. Some years ago, the distribution of advertisements was looked upon as one of the spoils of office; for with the event of a new Government, a new list of newspapers to which the Government advertisements were to be given was drawn up in every large public Department. It is only within comparatively recent years that the system was abandoned in this country, and a general approved list of newspapers, irrespective of politics, to which Government advertisements were given, was adopted and sanctioned by the Treasury. The system which used to be recognised in this country, and is now abandoned, is still in full force in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says he is responsible for what he calls the principle involved in the Minute; but he went on to say that the Local Government Board had full discretion in the matter. It is with a very large amount of discrimination and discretion that the principle involved in the Minute of the right hon. Gentleman is applied in Ireland. It is applied in such a way that a considerable number of narrowly circulating newspapers are kept in existence. There are a number of small papers in Ireland which could not continue without the subsidy which is given to them by means of public money, partly through the Local Government Board. But I object to the passing of this Vote without distinctive challenge on wide grounds. The Local Government Board is charged with the duty of looking after the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman justifies the dismissal of the Cork Board of Guardians and their displacement by three salaried officers on the ground that the Board neglected their duty. My charge against the Local Government Board is that it neglects its duty as a Board. Its administration is not only of an autocratic but of a very selfish character. One would suppose that the chief care of the officers of the Local Government Board was to secure themselves in the salaries which they draw, and that the duties which they are supposed to discharge are matters of a very slight importance in comparison. Of the £39,000 or £40,000 which is asked for £31,000 is set down for salaries. If the Local Government Board in Ireland had discharged its duty to the poor people their condition would be very different. One of the well recognised and fundamental principles of the Poor Law administration in this country is proper classification and separation of the inmates of the workhouse. I invite any one to inspect some of the workhouses in the West of Ireland. There he will find there is no classification whatsoever worthy of the name. It is perfectly true that there is a division of the sexes. The adult males are separated from the adult females, but the playground used by the children of both sexes is also used by the insane females. The Local Government Board has had its attention directed to the point year after year for the last 10 years, and yet the same bad system continues. Take the case of the food of the people. There is a Return in the Library of the House, which I moved for some years ago, and which sets forth the amount of food and its kind in each of the unions in Ireland. The quantities shown in that Return are startling. I have had a rough analysis or commutation made of the amount of nutritive elements in the quantities of food allowed to the poor people, and I am assured by competent medical authorities that the supply of nitrogen and carbon in the bread and milk allowed is not sufficient to keep an adult person in normal health even without any labour at all. The people in the workhouses, especially in the West, are kept on so low a scale of diet that it is marvellous how they continue to live at all. The condition of the people is deplorable, not only in regard to food and want of classification, but also in regard to the life they lead in these institutions. To see men wandering about aimlessly and hopelessly unoccupied from morning to night is something shocking. You have Inspectors whose duty it is to see to the condition of these people. What have these Inspectors ever reported about the want of occupation? Not a word. Another branch of the Poor Law administration is the supply of medicines to the poor. In this Vote you ask for salaries for Medical Inspectors. I should suppose one of the elementary duties of these Medical Inspectors is to see that the medicines are what they ought to be. I submit that that is an absolute impossibility, at any rate in some cases. I hold in my hand a list of the prices which one Board of Guardians have recently accepted as contract prices for the supply of drugs to the workhouses, and also a list of the prices charged for the same articles at the Apothecaries' Hall, where the prices are regarded as trustworthy and standard. For spirits of ammonia the Apothecaries' Hall charge 3s. a lb., but the drug is supplied to the Board of Guardians in question at 1s. per lb. Camphor linament is charged for at the Apothecaries' Hall at the rate of 2s. 8d. per lb., but it is supplied to the Guardians at 8d. per lb. Cod liver oil is supplied by contract at 2s. 6d., whereas at the Apothecaries' Hall the charge is 6s. Mercury pills cost 2s. 8d. per lb. at the Apothecaries' Hall, but under contract the charge is 10d. per lb. The charges in the case of ointment are respectively 2s. 6d. and 1s. The fact is that what the contractor supplies are inferior or spoiled articles which are of no value whatever for remedial purposes. Connected with this matter is another: the places at many of the dispensaries in which the drugs are kept are quite unfitted for the purpose. Many of them are exceedingly damp, and the Local Government Board Inspectors seem to take absolutely no notice of the condition of the places. Even when the drugs have lost all their virtue they are dispensed. Again, I would like to say a word as to the removal of paupers of Irish birth from Great Britain to Ireland, while there is no corresponding relief for Ireland in the case of English people who have got into Irish workhouses. What is the use of the Reports made upon this subject if the Government is never to be moved. Over and over again the Local Government Board has reported upon the extreme grievance on this particular point under which Ireland suffers. The Chief Secretary has admitted the grievance in this House within the last month. The Attorney General for Ireland has admitted the grievance, yet we have a continuance of it. The grievance has been removed in England and Scotland, but Ireland is still left to suffer in the matter. In a workhouse in my own constituency there is a family of persons. There are five children, not one of whom was born in Ireland; and yet, because the father happened to be born in Ireland—he was employed in Deptford—the wife and these children, who were left in Glasgow, were transported to the charge of the Letterkenny Union. The injustice of that is recognised by the Government, but they decline to bring forward any measure to put a stop to it. The poor of Ireland are utterly neglected by the Local Government Board. For the reasons I have mentioned I cannot allow this Vote to pass without any challenge. I, therefore, beg to move to reduce Item A by the sum of £2,000.

There are one or two points in connection with this Vote I desire to refer to. Colonel Speight is the Inspector of the Board told off to attend the Cork Union. Upon the occasion of his visits to the City he always frequents the most Conservative places. He takes up his quarters at one of the Conservative Clubs in the City, and dates his letters from there. It would be much more decent if an official paid by all parties took up his quarters at a more fitting place. The salaries of four Medical Inspectors are asked for in the Vote. I cannot help thinking one Medical Inspector could do all the work. What is the use of engaging four Medical Inspectors who all live in Dublin, and only leave that city upon very special occasions indeed. It is ridiculous to draw such salaries for medical inspection. I can speak with emphasis from my own experience when I say that usually when these Inspectors come down to a locality their work is practically nil. They have nothing to do. They come as a matter of form and ceremony, and they sit in a chair by the Chairman of the Board for half-an-hour, and then they go back again, having done their duty for that day. I am really convinced that two if not one Medical Inspector would be sufficient for all the Poor Law business. Then, again, there are the Engineering Inspectors and the Assistant Engineer Inspector. What their duties are I scarely know, for we never meet them anywhere. I am happy in the acquaintance of one of these gentlemen, and I know that he has a fair salary, and that he has other business. Two of these Inspectors get £600 between thorn and their expenses being paid, but it is simply ridiculous that this money should be paid for doing no work. I cannot but think that if some inquisition were made into these Estimates we should find that many of these salaries are simply means by which return is made for services rendered to the Government or the Tory Party in the past, and there is ample verge for largely cutting down expenditure. Certainly, I am at one with my hon. Friend who has moved in this matter. I know that a number of these gentlemen are enormously overpaid, with little or nothing to do. I can only speak now as an ex-Poor Law Guardian, for my occupation is gone, the right hon. Gentleman having suppressed our Board, but I can say that during a four years' attendance on the Cork Board I do not recollect the attendance of an Engineering Inspector, and the only occasion when I have found one at work was recently at Limerick. Something certainly ought to be done in the way of retrenchment under this Vote. With two Inspectors drawing £300 each I do not think it can be necessary to appoint a temporary Assistant Engineering Inspector at £100. I am convinced that this Vote covers a great waste of public money, money which is simply paid away for the purpose of keeping Toryism alive in Ireland. It is a feeble and unsuccessful attempt too. I sincerely hope that full light will be thrown upon this matter, and that the English people will come to understand it.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

I think the system under which this Vote is left to be explained and decided by the Secretary to the Treasury is a very injurious one to the very important interests which are dealt with in Ireland by the Board of Works. The Secretary to the Treasury is, from the nature of his position, unable to devote that attention to questions connected with the Irish Board of Works that might be expected from officials on the spot, and we always feel that in pressing him for information, that although we have to acknowledge his uniform courtesy and his willingness to do the best he can, yet that his good intentions do not cover his failure to deal with important subjects in a manner to which they are justly entitled. The responsibility of the Treasury, of course, in reference to matters connected with public works is great and important. I do not criticise the right of the Treasury to be represented on this Department to the fullest extent, but I think that an arrangement which practically leaves the whole care of this Department to the right hon. Gentleman, and the defence of its work and proceedings to him, is most faulty and not entirely to the advantage of the Board of Works, preventing a satisfactory result being arrived at. The Government of Ireland is a government by Boards. We are the most be-Boarded country in the world, and instead of having all these Boards represented by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to the Treasury, we require, at least, two or three Ministers whose duty it should be to deal with the important subjects that come under the consideration of Parliament in connection with these Boards. This is especially true as regards the Board of Works, the Government Engineering Department for Ireland. Ireland is a country which requires greater attention, greater knowledge, and capacity in an Engineering Department than any country with which I am acquainted, owing to the backwardness of its resources, the total want of development of industrial works, and other circumstances, with which the Committee have been made familiar from time to time. We have a very good illustration of the want of attention and want of knowledge on this Board in what has not happened,—we have had no introduction or explanation of this Vote. This is a Vote for £37,000 for the salaries of this Government Engineering Board, to which is entrusted such important matters as the direction and construction of sea harbours, piers for fishery purposes, the issue of loans to tenants under the Land Act for the improvement of their holdings, and, further, the direction, to a very large extent, of the policy involved in the construction of Light Railways in Ireland. Yet we have had not a word of introduction or explanation from the Chief Secretary or the Secretary to the Treasury. I should have thought that on the occasion of introducing this very interesting subject, a subject which the Chief Secretary has specially marked as his own, the discussion of the expenses of this Engineering Board, which has for its duty the superintendence of these works for the improvement of the industrial resources of Ireland, upon which the Chief Secretary counts so much, we should have had some general statement as to the work of the past 12 months. But we are left absolutely to pass the Vote without any explanation or information as to the current year, except such as is contained in this small paper which has boon issued. We are without information on these three important subjects, to which I have alluded, the erection of fishery piers, loans to tenants for the improvement of their holdings, and the intention of the Government as to the construction of Light Railways and Tramways in Ireland. Now, I am not myself competent to go into any of these subjects, for the simple reason that I am without information. I know something of the Board of Works in times past, I know something of its failures in reference to particular works that have come under my knowledge, but again and again we have complained strongly of the total absence of information with which we are asked to approach this Vote, cither from documents or statement by the official charged with getting the Vote through the House. With regard to the question of Fishery Piers and Harbours, of which I shall have to say something in detail by-and-by, I want to say generally that I think it would be most desirable if the Chief Secretary would obtain some information for the House before next Session, so that we may know what we are about. Ho has placed in the Land Purchase Bill a clause of a very vague and nebulous character relating to fishing in the West of Ireland, of a skeleton character, which I suppose is intended to be filled in, and I earnestly hope that in the interval before we have this Bill before us, he will take steps to inform himself and this House as to the capacity of the Irish coasts for the development of sea fisheries, and as to the necessity which exists for the extension of work begun in 1883, and for which a sum of £250,000 was voted by Parliament for fishing piers and harbours, how far the work has been successful for the object in view, how far the money has been properly spent. I would suggest that he should appoint a Royal Commission for obtaining this information, by evidence taken on different parts of the coasts, so that when we meet again Parliament may have a record of the work of the Department. I would also suggest that proposals for this subject should be kept apart from other matters in the Purchase Bill, and dealt with free from political excitement and prejudice. The development of sea fisheries in Ireland is a matter of enormous importance to the country, and it is an object upon which Imperial money might be advantageously laid out, judiciously and after suitable inquiry. A proposal of the kind might result in benefit to the country and satisfaction to this House. It is a subject removed from Party politics, and one which, if the Government obtained full and necessary information, might well be dealt with in the coming Session. With regard to the Board of Works, and its failures from an engineering point of view, I regret, I exceedingly dislike, to be obliged to attack by name any officials in Ireland connected with the Board, and I do not propose to do so on the present occasion. I desire to hurt nobody's feelings, but I state, as a fact which has been abundantly proved, that the Board of Works has failed, both in design and in execution, with regard to the works entrusted to its care, and the money of Parliament has been scandalously wasted in a fashion which, as regards those instances which have come under my knowledge, appears to me most extraordinary and unreasonable. It is impossible to suppose that the mistakes of the Board are entirely due to ignorance, and I am driven to believe that the incapacity is due to a want of care on the part of the permanent officials, who are directly accountable to none, who have no representation in this House, and who, from long habit, have become careless as to the result of their actions. They simply sit in their office, make proposals, and draw plans, without any regard whatever to the actual local conditions, which ought to be considered before any engineering works are undertaken. I would instance two cases, with which I am well acquainted, as examples of the statement I have made as to incapacity or negligence in fulfilling the first duty of an Engineering Board. Let me take the example of Arklow Harbour, in County Wicklow. For the improvement of the fishery pier there Parliament in 1882 or 1883 voted a sum of £35,000. The result of that expenditure may be indicated by stating that where, according to the Admiralty charts, there was a depth of 20ft. of water at low tide before the expenditure, there is now only a depth of 4½ft. So your £35,000 have been spent in diminishing the depth of water at the entrance of the harbour by 15 or 16 feet, or at the rate of something over £2,000 for every foot shall owed. I believe this is the result going on all round the coast to a greater or less extent. It has certainly been the case with regard to the Harbour of Grey-stones, another example in County Wicklow. This harbour, before the expenditure of £13,000, had a depth of five or six feet at low tide, but a pier was built out into the sea, and the result has been to turn what was before pretty safe anchorage for small coasters into dry land. But, as I say, we are without information as to the expenditure of £250,000 upon fishery piers and harbours, of which Greystones is one. The Board of Works takes very good care not to give us this information in this Return of four pages put before us. They deprive us of the means of checking the conclusions they come to that the works are in good order, and that they have fulfilled the objects for which they were erected. The Return issued by the Board states that they have built 39 harbours and nine boat slips. The depth of water at low spring tides at the pier heads is given, but in 33 out of the 48 works the ground is dry at low spring tides at the heads of the piers. In eight of them there is a depth of from two to four feet, in eight a depth of from four to six feet, four from six to eight feet, one from eight to 10 feet, four from 10 to 12 feet, and one from 12 to 14 feet. So that out of the total number there are only 18 of sufficient depth to admit the ordinary class of fishing boats. In 33 there is no water at all at low spring tides, and in eight only a depth of from two to four feet, so that in 41 cases, the works are perfectly useless for the purpose for which they were projected. The Committee ought to be informed what is the state of things before more money is spent, and I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to mention some of the practical advantages which the fishermen and boatowners have gained by these works. So far as my information goes, the practical advantage is non-existent. There is too much reason to fear that this large sum of £250,000 has gone the way of the rest of the expenditure entrusted to the Board of Works in past years in works to a large extent useless, and often mischievous. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

Before I put this reduction, I must point out that this is a Vote for the personnel of the office of the Board of Works, on which it is perfectly relevant to discuss the organisation and administration of the office; but there is a special Vote for the works themselves, and, therefore, to examine the details of the works, would not be relevant to the Vote.