I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the following statement telegraphed from Rangoon by the Times correspondent on the 12th inst.:—

"In accordance with the promise made in Parliament peremptory instructions were issued two years ago by the Government of India forbidding the continuance of the barbarous practice of decapitating Dacoits and carrying the head through the country. This order has been openly disregarded. Two heads, each alleged to be the head of Bohkyawah, have been brought into Ayah within a fortnight. The Local Government have taken no steps to enforce these orders, or punish their subordinates for disobeying them;"

and whether he will inquire into the truth of this statement, and, if it be found true, will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent British Administration in Burmah being further disgraced by the practices described?

If the statement of the Times correspondent is true, the distinct orders of the Chief Commissioner contained in a Circular of the 5th of March, 1887, have been violated. The Secretary of State will inquire into the truth of the statement

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, under the Circular, No. 50, of the 15th of September, 1868, which lays down strictly the procedure to be followed in the examination of Assistant Surgeons, any power is given to Dr. Hilson, the Inspector General of Civil Hospitals, Bengal, to reverse the decision of the Examining Committee, and to order further examination, as was done in the case of the three assistant surgeons who had been regularly examined in May, 1889, before Drs. Coates, Raye, Joubert, Mackenzie, and Saunders?

The Secretary of State thinks that the hon. Member must have been misinformed, because the examination of the two assistant surgeons referred to in the question was held, not under the Circular of the 15th of September, 1868, but under the later orders of the 13th of October, 1880. The Secretary of State will be glad to show the Papers to the hon. Member, and if he thinks them of sufficient importance to be produced they may then be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the number of troops now employed in Upper Burma; and what is their number as compared with the population in India and Upper Burma respectively?

The number of troops is 11,000; being ·00004 of the population of India, and ·0022 of the population of Burma.

Is there not practically a large Municipal Army in addition to the troops?

In Burma, as well as in every other civilised community in the world, there are police as well as military.

Are there not police retained independently for military purposes?

No, Sir; the military in Burma are military, and the police are police.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the total cost of the Burmese war up to date?

The cost of the Burmese war up to date is Rx. 4,524,700.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a law has recently been promulgated in the Orange Free State prohibiting, after the lapse of two months, the residence and trade in such State of Indian merchants, British subjects; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I have heard that a law has been passed in the Orange Free State prohibiting residence, except by permission, and prohibiting the acquisition of fixed property there in the case of all Asiatic races, other than Cape Malays, but I have not heard that it has been promulgated. The period of grace in the draft law was 12, and not two months. The High Commissioner, acting under instructions from the High Commissioner, has made, and is making, representations to the Orange Free State Government against the provisions of the law.

I received a telegram late last night signed "Shepstone," from Durban, stating that a law was promulgated on the 15th prohibiting trade and residence of Indian merchants which is to take effect in two months. That is my only ground for putting the question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any complaints have reached him with reference to the alleged unsanitary or unhealthy condition of the King's Cross Branch Office, Caledonian Road; and whether, in view of the fact that it has been closed twice owing to the prevalence of fever, and that there is rarely a full staff of clerks owing to absence by reason of illness, the Post Office Authorities will inquire into the matter?

The King's Cross Branch Post Office was closed in 1881 and 1887 in consequence of the children of the tenants of the upper floors, and of the caretaker respectively, having scarlet fever. In neither case was there any reason to think that the disease was caught in the house. The premises have been specially examined by the Chief Medical Officer to the Department, who reports the sanitary condition to be very fair. The rate of sick absence among the staff has not been above the average. There is at present one clerk absent with typhoid fever, but the cause is not attributed to any defects in the office.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can explain how it happened that Admiral Freemantle, during the recent Anglo-German Blockade on the coast of Africa, hired a small steamer called the Somali, at a cost of £25 per day, costing for about nine months' hire a total sum of £5,000, although he could have purchased the vessel when he chartered her for £4,000; and whether it is true that he has again chartered the vessel for a further period of 12 months at £20 per day, or a total sum of £7,300?

The facts of the case are as follows:—The Somali fully found and equipped was hired at £25 a day from May to October, 1889, and then for three months further to the end of January, 1890, at the reduced rate of £12 10s. a day. On the termination of this period it was found necessary to charter her for 12 months further at an increased rate of £20 a day, the owners having represented that the rate of £12 10s. a day had been accepted under the impression that the Admiralty would purchase the vessel at the end of the first 12 months. The charter up to January 31 cost £5,275, and the second charter, if continued for the full 12 months, will coat £7,300. I am not aware that there was any possibility of purchasing the Somali for £4,000. The first charter included an option to purchase the vessel after 12 months' hire for £12,000.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to irregularities in connection with the last election of Guardians of the poor for the township of Runcorn; whether he is aware that a considerable number of qualified electors received no voting papers; that many mistakes in the distribution and collection of voting papers occurred owing to the fact that the numbers of the houses in any street were not entered on the papers; and that the persons employed by the Returning Officer to assist in the counting of the voting papers were two of his own sons and the Workhouse Master, who had been for many years his own clerk; whether the irregularities affected the result of the election; and whether the Local Government Board made inquiry into the conduct of the election so as to fix the responsibility for and prevent the recurrence of such irregularities?

I have received complaints as to irregularities an connection with the last election of Guardians for the township of Runcorn. At the election five Guardians were to be elected, and there were nine candidates. I am not able to give the precise number of persons who were entitled to vote in the election, but it must have been very large, as one candidate received as many as 946 votes. In communications which I have received from one of the candidates it is alleged that in 37 cases there was a failure either to distribute or to collect voting papers. I have made inquiry as to each of these cases, and find that in some of them a satisfactory explanation has been given. For instance, there are cases where persons had left the house in respect of which they were assessed prior to the election. In others the collectors were unable to obtain an answer when they called with the voting papers. There are other cases in which mistakes have occurred through inadvertence in preparing the voting papers or other wise. It is, however, to be observed that in the public notice which is given of the election the attention of the electors is distinctly called to the fact that if any voter fails to receive a voting paper on the day of the distribution, or if any voting paper is not collected through the default of the Returning Officer, or any person employed to collect the voting papers, the voter is entitled to attend at the place fixed by the Returning Officer, and there personally hand in a voting paper filled up by him. I learn from the Returning Officer that in one case a messenger, who asked for voting papers for certain electors, was informed that if the electors wished to vote it would be necessary that they should attend before the Returning Officer for the purpose. In none of the cases, however, did the elector avail himself of this right. It is impossible for me to say whether the result of the election would have been affected if the persons in the cases referred to had availed themselves of the right to which I have alluded. I have no definite information as to whether or not the sons of the Returning Officer and the Workhouse Master assisted the Returning Officer in counting the votes, but the officer was entitled to have assistance in this duty, and it does not appear to me that there was any objection to the employment of these persons. It is a matter for regret that irregularity should have occurred in any of these cases, but I am not satisfied that there was any wilful neglect, and after full consideration the Local Government Board arrived at the conclusion that the cir- cumstances were not such as to require that the heavy expense of a new election should be incurred.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that doubts have arisen as to the powers of the Boundary Commissioners under "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," to alter the boundaries of parishes; and whether he would have any objection to state, for the satisfaction of Local Authorities, to whom litigation would be a serious matter, whether the Commissioners have any power to detach a portion of a parish lying entirely in one county for the purpose of connecting the detached portions of another parish, also wholly in the same county?

From information which the hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to give me, I find that this question is specifically before the Boundary Commissioners at the present time. He will, therefore, not misunderstand me if I say that I do not think I can, with propriety, express an opinion on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the letter of Mr. Arnold White in the Times of 15th July (page 5), upon "The Invasion of Pauper Aliens"; and whether the aliens arriving by 128 ships out of 261 have not been subjected to the statistical control now being exercised; and, in such case, if he will take steps to ensure that Parliament shall be made fully conversant with the extent to which foreign labour is brought to this country to compete with national labour?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if he will be good enough to ascertain and inform the House to what extent Englishmen go to foreign countries and compete with native labour?

I have no doubt that that occurs to a large extent, but it scarcely seems to bear upon the question upon the Paper, and I am afraid it would not be-possible to obtain statistics. My answer to the question is in the affirmative. My attention has been directed to the letter referred to by the hon. Member. The Returns of aliens arriving by the 128 ships to which my hon. Friend refers, were not subjected to the same statistical control as is now exercised over such Returns, because the ships arrived before the new arrangements of which I have-already informed the House were put in force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the following Papers relating to an increase in the-Military contribution proposed to be levied on the Straits Settlements, namely, the Despatch from the Colonial Office of the 13th December, 1889, to the Governor of the Straits Settlements containing the demand of Her Majesty's Government for an increased Military contribution; the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements in connection with that Despatch; the Governor's Despatch forwarding the Proceedings of the Legislative Council to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; together with any other Papers bearing on the subject which are already in hand, so that the House may have an opportunity of forming a judgment on the proposed action in this matter?

I have also to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government are at present endeavouring to arrange for a more adequate contribution for military defence from those Colonies which are garrisoned by Her Majesty's troops borne on the British Estimates; whether such contribution is required from colonies with a good revenue, which have hitherto paid little or nothing, as well as from those which have hitherto made considerable contributions; whether the rich Colony of Ceylon is resisting the demand made upon it; whether Her Majesty's Government propose to insist on a demand put to this country in the case of Ceylon, Natal, and other colonies which have hitherto contributed too little; and whether the representatives of the tax- payers of the British Colonies will be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion as well as the Colonies?

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on the 19th ult. to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock. As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, Her Majesty's Government have given much consideration to this subject, and have determined that the military contributions of the colonies must be increased where such contributions are inadequate. No demand, except for the present year, has yet been made upon Ceylon or Mauritius, the amount to be claimed being under discussion. No question has been raised as to Natal. An increased contribution has been demanded from the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong.

I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Major Rowley Conway, who is a member of the Board of Conservators of the Rivers Clwyd and Elwy, has caused large stones to be placed in that part of the River Clwyd known as the Junction Pool, which is admittedly tidal and navigable, so as to prevent the netting of it by licensed fishermen; whether he is aware that criminal proceedings have twice been taken by him against the fishermen for netting, and that on both occasions the Justices considered their jurisdiction to be ousted by a bonâ fide claim of right; and whether the Board of Trade will, in the interests of the navigation of the river and of the fishermen, take steps to cause these stones to be removed? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to postpone the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the £1,000 stated to have been paid to Admiral Colomb was made up of £750 from the Admiralty, and £250 from the War Office; whether of the £750 paid by the Admiralty, £500 was paid in January, 1868, in recognition of his services in perfecting the plans of flashing signals for use in Her Majesty's ships; whether the remaining £250 was paid by the Admiralty in 1871, in respect of signals for joint Naval and Military use; whether the £250 paid by the War Office in January, 1871, was on account of signal arrangements for land service only; and what was the total cost incurred for the purchase of Admiral Colomb's signal apparatus supplied to the whole of Her Majesty's ships during the period the supply of the signal apparatus to Her Majesty's Fleet was left in Admiral Colomb's hands, namely, from 1864 to 1888, and what percentage of such total cost do the Admiralty estimate Admiral Colomb's profits to have been?

The £1,000 was made up of two distinct sums of £500 each. The first £500 was on account of the service to the Navy alone. The second £500 was on account of services in perfecting the system of signalling between the Army and Navy, and was charged in equal portions between Army and Navy funds. The terms of the receipts given by Admiral Colomb were respectively—

"In full discharge of all claims connected with the introduction into Her Majesty's ships of his plan of flashing signals, and expenses attendant thereon;"

and—

"In discharge of all claims on Her Majesty's Government on account of signal arrangements for land service, and in respect of a code of signals for joint Naval and Military use."

The total cost of the apparatus purchased by the Admiralty from Admiral Colomb between 1864 and 1888 cannot be definitely stated without a close scrutiny of the old Admiralty ledgers, but the value of the orders given between 1879–80 and 1888–9 amounted to about £6,000. As Admiral Colomb made his own arrangements with the firms who manufactured the apparatus the Admiralty are not in a position to state what profits he may have actually made on his contracts with the Government.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, recently passed, to exempt from House Duty houses with one front door yet with two or more tenements each of less than £20 per annum: and, if so, will he explain why the Somerset House officials and certain Inland Revenue officials in the country state that such houses are not included in the exemption; and whether, as this rendering of the Act would deprive of exemption many thousands of owners of such houses, he will give instructions securing to them what the House intended?

Houses such as those described by the hon. Member would be exempt from House Duty, irrespective of the question whether they have one or more front doors, if they fall within the conditions laid down in Subsection 2 of Section 26 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, namely, that they are constructed for the sole purpose of providing separate dwellings at rents not exceeding 7s. 6d. a week and are approved by the Medical Officer of Health. No such statement as that ascribed to the Inland Revenue officials has been made with the sanction of the Board of Inland Revenue; but the Act has, of course, no retrospective effect, and several applications as regards the year 1889–90 have been refused as not being within the Treasury concession then in force.

I beg to ask the First Lord of 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, he 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?

The date of mobilisation will not be communicated to the ports until the last moment. It has not been postponed on account of the unpreparedness of the vessels for commission. Fifty-six ships and 24 torpedo boats will be employed during the manœuvres, comprising 18 battle ships, four belted cruisers, five armoured coast defence ships, 19 unarmoured cruisers, one torpedo depôt ship, and nine small craft, besides torpedo boats. The proposal contained in the last part of the question is not practicable.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can explain why it is that letters from Edinburgh to Thurso, a distance of over 300 miles, are carried in about 13 hours, while from Thurso to Reay, a distance of 11 miles further, they take an additional 15 hours; whether he is aware that coaches run every day from Thurso to Reay; and whether something can be done to accelerate the delivery of letters. in this district?

The passenger car-for Reay, which carries the mails, leaves. Thurso in the morning and returns the same day. Hence, letters for Reay arriving overnight are necessarily detained until the next morning. The coach referred to could not be made available—the hour at which it runs-being unsuitable for mail purposes. On the whole, the present arrangements seem best calculated to meet the requirements of the locality.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the House sitting hereafter through the greater part of the winter months, he will consider the desirability of providing some protection from the weather in Palace Yard for Members alighting at or departing from the House; and whether he will instruct an architect to prepare perspective drawings of what might be done, and have them exhibited in the House before the prorogation, so as to admit of the other 669 Members of the House, whose comfort and health may be affected, expressing their opinion with regard to it; and, if he will not do this latter, whether there is any objection to a private Member doing it?

A few years ago we did provide in the Star Chamber Court a shelter for Members alighting at and departing from the House of Commons. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has used this shelter, but I believe the other 669 Members mentioned in my hon. Friend's question do avail themselves of it. I do not myself think that it would be well to risk disfiguring the front of Westminster Hall by erecting any further shelter in Palace Yard; but if my hon. Friend or any other Member desires to have such a perspective drawing as is suggested in the question prepared at his own expense, I do not suppose there would be any objection to its being exhibited in the Tea Room.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Standing Order, which gives precedence to private Members' Bills, passed through the greatest number of stages after Whitsuntide, will be altered to suit the new condition of things caused by the earlier meeting of Parliament?

I think the proposal of the hon. Member one well worthy of consideration, and I will undertake that it shall be considered.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that the men sentenced by Sheriff Balfour to £5 fine or 14 days' imprisonment for killing a rabbit were unable to pay the fine, and have been in prison since 12th July; and whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet been able to obtain their release?

The two men referred to failed to pay the fine imposed within the time allowed by the Sheriff. One surrendered himself on Saturday, July 12, and is now in prison, the other has not yet been found. The Secretary for Scotland has inquired into the case, and sees no reason for interfering with the sentence of the Court. The offence was not, as stated in the question, the killing one rabbit, although one rabbit was killed. The accused were found guilty of night poaching, which, by Statute, is severely punishable, not on account of the game destroyed, but from serious dangers to the peace and to life which attend such night expeditions. In the case referred to the circumstances were not favourable, and some violence was used. The penalties imposed were largely within the statutory limits.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that public meetings are held at Wishaw Cross every week of the year, even on Saturdays and Sundays, and that no meeting there was ever prohibited by the Magistrates till the anti-compensation meeting was advertised to be held; and whether he can now state under what Statute the Wishaw Magistrates have power to "prohibit" a meeting "either at the Cross, or on or adjacent to the public streets of the burghs"?

I am not aware whether the statements in the first paragraph of the question are correct. I answered the whole of the last paragraph on Monday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has seen a cable message transmitted from New York, by Reuter, to the Globe newspaper, and dated 16th July, stating that President Harrison, in reply to a Despatch from Lord Salisbury relative to the Behring Sea Seal Fishery negotiations, had stated that he thought it the duty of the United States, under the Act of Congress, to go on dealing summarily with British sealers; if so, will he state whether the message is correct, and the reply of Lord Salisbury; and whether the two Governments have yet arranged a close time for the capture of seals, and when Despatches down to date will be in the hands of Members?

I have been requested by my right hon. Friend to answer the question. Her Majesty's Government have received no Report of such a statement having been been made by President Harrison. The negotiations have not yet been brought to a close. Papers are being prepared as rapidly as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the result of the inquiry into the causes of the recent act of insubordination in the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards?

No, Sir; in the interest of the Service I must decline to make public the result of the inquiry which has been held.

Is there any statement in the finding of the Court with respect to the allegation that these men have for the last three months been subjected to excessive and oppressive duties?

From the answer I have already given, the hon. Member will see that I cannot say more.

Is there not a long series of precedents justifying such questions as that which stands in my name on the Paper?

What particular officer is responsible for the fact that so important an event as that referred to in the hon. Member's question had not been brought to the notice of the Minister for War at 3 o'clock in the afternoon?

As I have already explained, the Military Authorities were inquiring into the matter during the day. I was busily engaged myself, and so they did not inform me of the circumstances before I was obliged to come down to the House.

Is it true that the Grenadier Guards are to be ordered on foreign service?

I have no answer whatever to give on that subject.

I had intended to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any great amount of extra time has recently been worked in the Clerical Department of Her Majesty's Dockyard, Chatham; whether the regulations provide that, when continuous overtime is thus being worked, the Admiralty should be informed, with a view to steps being taken to remove such strain upon the staff; and whether, in this instance, such information has been received? but, at the request of the hon. Gentleman, I will postpone the question.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that many resolutions have been passed by Farmers' Clubs and Chambers of Agriculture in support of the principle that the tenant of an agricultural holding under mortgage should have the same right of claiming compensation from a fore closing mortgagee as from his original landlord, the mortgagor; whether he is aware that the Chester Farmers' Club unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the honourable and gallant Member for the Wirral Division's (Colonel Cotton's) Tenants Compensation Bill, with the addition of the Amendments of the honourable Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing), to extend the protection in case of mortgaged farms to rights to compensation under the "custom of the country" and for crops; whether his attention has been given to the Amendments put on the Paper in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between both sides of the House at the Second Reading of the Bill to carry out these objects; and whether, having regard to the period of the Session, and to the large number of agricultural tenants of mortgaged holdings, who need this protection, he will either place these Amendments on the Order Paper without delay, or accept the Amendments now standing in the name of the honourable Member for East Northampton?

I am informed that considerable interest is felt in the matter referred to by the question of the hon. Member, though the circumstances out of which the matter arose are very exceptional. The question has received the most careful consideration of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and of myself, but having regard to the difficulties which surround it, I doubt whether it will be possible to carry through satisfactory legislation during the present Session, but the matter is more for the Minister of Agriculture than for me.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the arrangement come to some time ago as to these Amendments. Are we to understand now that Her Majesty's Government are going to offer no aid in passing a Bill giving a protection urgently needed by many tenant farmers?

The hon. Gentleman is to understand nothing of the kind, but owing to the numerous suggestions which have been made by a variety of people it has not been found possible to deal with the question hitherto.

Will it be dealt with this Session?

The hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Then I will ask the Minister of Agriculture if he intends to have the Amendments put on the Paper in time to enable the Bill to be dealt with this Session?

I do not know what the Amendments are which the hon. Gentleman refers to.

I refer to the Amendments drawn up by the Attorney General and agreed to between the promoters of the Bill and myself with the cognizance of the right hon. Gentleman.

At present I have no information to give.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the misdescription of the German Emperor as the Emperor of Germany in the Queen's Speech of the present Session, in the Schedule to the Anglo-German Agreement Confirmation Bill, and in the English version of the Anglo-German Agreement; and whether he will take steps to prevent such misdescription from recurring in English official documents?

The description given in the Anglo-German Agreement was desired by the German Foreign Office, but it is probable that the title of German Emperor will hereafter be used in this country.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that no questions addressed to Ministers are reported in Hansard unless Ministers send their answers in manuscript to the Hansard room; and whether arrangements will be made either to have all answers sent in manuscript to be reported, or to have the answers to questions, which are often very important, reported otherwise?

I believe that the facts stated by the hon. Member are practically correct, but I cannot admit that Ministers are bound to send copies of their answers to the Reporters' Gallery; indeed, it would often be impossible to do so, many of the answers given being unwritten, and there being, therefore, no copies to send. I am strongly of opinion that the reporting of all questions and answers is essential to a proper official record of the proceedings of this House, and Hansard have always shown themselves so willing to meet the requirements of Parliament that I am sure, now their attention has been drawn to the matter, there will be no further cause for complaint.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will undertake that the British Chambers of Commerce shall be consulted before the assent of the Government is given to any modification or surrender of the commercial privileges which we enjoy under the Anglo-Tunisian Treaty of Commerce of 19th July, 1875?

If it should become necessary, under the provisions of the Treaty in question, to enter into negotiations for any change in the existing arrangements, the Government will, of course, take all necessary steps to provide themselves with requisite information as to the interests affected.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Papers relating to Heligoland that were promised on 24th June will be laid upon the Table of the House?

Copies of the Capitulations respecting Heligoland will be laid on the Table and probably distributed on Saturday. We have not at present any other Papers that can be laid before the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to make, before the Second Reading of the Bill for the Cession of Heligoland, a statement regarding the negotiations which Lord Salisbury has stated to be now pending between this country and France on the subject of Zanzibar?

When will the Bill be taken?

Probably on Thursday. I have already answered the question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bryce). The negotiations between the two Governments are proceeding in a perfectly friendly spirit on both sides, and while I cannot now undertake that any statement shall be made with regard to them on the Second Reading of the Bill, Her Majesty's Government will gladly give any information which it may be in their power to afford without detriment to public interests.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the names of the Resident Magistrates appointed since 1st October, 1886?

The names of the Resident Magistrates appointed since 1st October, 1886, are as follows:—Mr. N. L. Townsend, Mr. J. Preston, Mr. O'N. Segrave (since resigned), Mr. C. Roche, Mr. U. Bourke, Lieutenant-Colonel M. S. Tynte, Mr. F. G. Hodder, Colonel H. Caddell, Mr. W. H. Joyce, Mr. G. Shannon, Mr. E. F. Hickson, Mr. J. M'Lean, Mr. H. Bruen, and Mr. G. B. Butler.

How many in all?

Fourteen.

How many have been retired?

None have been retired.

Did not Captain Segrave resign?

Yes; that was so.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that no members of the staff have been retired?

I have not asked for that information, but I will procure it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether officials of the National Board of Education object to teachers being members of the Gaelic Athletic Association; and what is the rule on this subject?

The Commissioners of National Education report that teachers are not prohibited from being members of the Gaelic Athletic Association, unless by reason of such membership they take part in politics, in which event the rules which prohibit the attendance of a teacher at meetings held for political purposes would be violated.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. Patrick Staunton, having appealed from the decision of a Court held at Castlemartyr, County Cork, on the 24th February last, had his sentence increased by one month by Mr. J. Hamilton, the Cork Recorder; and whether the extra month imposed by Mr. Hamilton was given subsequent to the confirmation of the original sentence, for alleged contempt of Court; and, if so, whether Mr. Staunton will be treated during the additional period of imprisonment as a bail prisoner?

I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until Monday.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can explain why the Local Government Board have refused to sanction the bonus of £50 granted by the paid Guardians in the Cork Union to Mr. Cotter, the assistant clerk to the Union; whether he is aware that Mr. Cotter had for some months past a considerable amount of extra work thrown on him, which he performed to the complete satisfaction of everybody; and what are the reasons for refusing the bonus?

The Local Government Board, having considered the amount of extra work thrown upon the assistant clerk by reason of the illness of the clerk of the Union, were of opinion that the merits of the case would be met by the award of a gratuity of £40 instead of the £50 proposed. They accordingly sanctioned payment of the former sum.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire what foundation there is for the suggestion that the refusal of the Lurgan Bench of Magistrates to renew the licence of Mr. Patrick Blayney, after 70 years' uninterrupted user, was grounded on the "unsuitability of the premises;" did the police oppose the application; whether he is aware that the house is one of the largest and most re-pectable in Lurgan, situated in the centre of the town, being three storey, slated premises, with a frontage of 30 feet, a capacious rear and yard, stabling for 30 horses, and an acre of ground attached, all held in fee-simple; and if these facts are substantially accurate, do the Government intend to persist with the Licensing Clauses of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, which would prevent for ever the possibility of Mr. Blayney's licence being renewed because, by a majority of one, a Bench exclusively Protestant held them "unsuitable"?

I am informed that the foundation for the statement as to the ground upon which the Magistrates refused the application for a transfer of the licence in question is the fact that that ground was publicly announced in Court. The police did give notice to oppose the transfer on the same ground, but as some structural alterations were subsequently made they left the question as to the sufficiency of these alterations to the Magistrates. The house is not one of the largest and most respectable in Lurgan. It is represented to be a small, low, three storey house. It has not a frontage of 30 feet. Its total frontage including the doorway is only 13 feet. There is an adjoining open gateway into which an objectionable side-door opens. The open gateway and yard at rear are common to all the tenants. It had not stabling for 30 horses. On the contrary, it had no stabling accommodation available heretofore, but stabling, it is stated, has now been provided to a small extent. The ground referred to as being attached consists of an open unfenced potato garden situated at a considerable distance from the house, and approached by a mere right of way. The statements in the question, therefore, do not appear to be substantially accurate.

Do the Government intend to go on with legislation at present, which will have the effect of preventing a man who has been improperly deprived of his licence from ever obtaining a chance of a renewal?

As that is a question which relates to the construction of the Bill, I think it ought to be put to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury.

The opposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has practically compelled me to withdraw my Bill, and if the Government persist in their licensing proposals in reference to Ireland without affording an opportunity for renewal to a man who has been deprived of a licence upon special grounds, I shall certainly oppose them as strenuously as I can.

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 Constabulary Authorities report that David Kent was not shadowed, or in any way interfered with, while engaged with his brother in selling lambs. But, upon his subsequently leaving the place where the lambs were and proceeding through the fair, his movements were watched, as the police had reason to believe, from previous actions of the man, that he would endeavour to prevent the sale of some lambs belonging to a person boycotted for taking an evicted farm, and in connection with whose boycotting David Kent had, on a former occasion, been convicted. The District Inspectors did, after warning Kent twice, order his arrest, his conduct being such as to interfere with the officer in the discharge of his duty. He was detained in custody until the arrival of the Resident Magistrate, who was at once telegraphed for, and who remanded him on bail. The case has since been heard in Court, and it appears that Kent was discharged on giving an undertaking not to so offend again.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the constable prevented the sale of the lambs, and that the Magistrate declared the course he took to be highly improper? The buyer went up while the bargain was being made, and the buyer walked away, thus producing the very effect which the Chief Secretary so strongly condemns, of preventing a man from earning his living.

Those alleged facts are not before me.

May I ask why, if it was illegal for David Kent to follow Mr. Ball, it was legal for the constable to follow David Kent; also under what law, common, statute, or otherwise, is it legal for a constable in plain clothes to dog and tread on the heels of any man while the man himself may not follow the constable's superior officer?

I gave a very full answer to that question some days ago. In my opinion the following a constable in plain clothes, who is performing detective duty, from place to place, and pointing him out as a constable, may be carried to such an extent as to amount to the offence of obstructing that constable in the performance of his duty.

There is no question in this case of a constable in plain clothes. The man followed a constable in uniform.

No.

I wish to point out that the Government are obliged by statute to take down the evidence in writing when the case is heard. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving an account of what took place from his own speculations or has he the depositions before him?

No, Sir; I am not giving my own speculations, but I have answered from the best information I could obtain. There has been no time to get the depositions.

Then the right hon. Gentleman has given an answer of a purely speculative character, without knowing what the evidence was?

No, Sir. I stated that I had before me a Report of what occurred in Court. I stated also that I had not seen the depositions. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further he had better put down a question.

I fail to see what time is required to obtain a copy of the depositions. The Petty Sessions clerk could copy them out in 10 minutes [Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think I know nothing about my daily work. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have made his statement from the sworn evidence.

I have stated that the Court only discharged Kent on his undertaking not to offend again. That was an admission on his part that an offence had been committed. I do not know what the entry in the book was, but I will inquire.

The matter will come up in Supply to-night, and the Irish Members expect to gather information upon it from the answer to the question.

May I ask the Attorney General whether all the information he has given to the House upon the subject is not derived from District Inspector Ball, and whether that officer is not a man against whom a Coroner's Jury returned a verdict of wilful murder?

I have no information from Inspector Ball.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. J. F. Gibbon, an American gentleman travelling in Ireland, was shadowed by the police, when visiting the town of Tipperary, on 12th July; whether the police constables persisted in listening whenever he conversed with friends in the street; and for what reason Dr. Gibbon was so beset?

I am informed that the gentleman referred to was not shadowed. It appears that he spoke to Cullinane, who was shadowed, and it may be that upon that foundation he formed the erroneous impression that he was shadowed himself.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Hayes, of Portumna, on leaving his house on Sunday the 11th of May, to attend evening service, was shadowed by Constable Murphy, who, when Mr. Hayes met two of his friends and stood to speak to them, stepped in between the three men, and ordered Mr. Hayes who was smoking at the time, to stop doing so; that, upon Mr. Hayes' refusal to obey the order, and telling the constable that if he did not like the smoke he could easily get rid of it by walking away, he was arrested, brought to the barrack, searched, and £87 found in his pocket; that, although Mr. Hayes told the police he had sent on 15 cattle to the fair of Woodford, which was to be held on the following day, and requested that he should be brought before a Magistrate that evening, or early in the morning, so as to allow him to attend to the sale of his cattle, his request was refused, and he was kept in custody until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, and lost the sale of his cattle; whether Constable Murphy is the-same man against whom both Mr. Fahy and Mr. Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions, held at Gort, for false arrest: can he explain how it happened that, although Mr. Hayes was arrested on the 11th of May, the matter was allowed to drop until Fahy and Morrissey had obtained decrees against the constable; whether he has seen that it was proved at the trial that the constable had taken several pints of porter before he arrested Mr. Hayes, and that, after a full hearing, the case was dismissed; and, if so, what compensation is Mr. Hayes to get; and what action he proposes to take in reference to the constable?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question until Monday. I have not yet received information upon it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what Irish Poor Law Unions were administered by Vice Guardians, during the years 1886, 1887, 1888, and 1889, or any of those years?

The Unions, administered by Vice Guardians during the years 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, have been as follows:—New Ross, Belmullet, Swineford, Ballinasloe, Athy, Dungarvan, Ballyvaughan, Portumna, and Cork.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now communicate to the House the information obtained in his further inquiry as to the incidence of the Beer and Spirit Duties, and whether he intends to present a Supplementary Estimate; whether he proposes to transfer this Session, as contemplated by the Land Purchase Bill, the charge of £5,000 for improving the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland from the Irish Local Taxation Account of the Estimates; and whether he intends to legislate this Session to secure to Ireland in the present financial year the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 to which she is entitled?

With regard to the first question—namely, as to the incidence of the Beer Duty—the inquiries which I have made result in a remarkable agreement with the figures on page 4 of the Return of May 7 last. That Return gave the duty on beer exported from Ireland to England in 1888–9 as £190,000. The actual figures for 1889–90 have now been carefully examined and taken from the bills of entry for the Port of Dublin. The value of the duty paid on beer exported from England to Ireland is, as near as possible, £190,000. With regard to the duty on beer exported from England to Ireland I have learned nothing to show that the figure of £35,000 was under the mark. Here is the difficulty—that there are neither official nor commercial Returns, as the exports from English ports to Irish ports are not entered or tabulated by the Customs. I am still making inquiries, but it seems that the amount of beer sent to Ireland from England is not likely to be larger than, and is possibly inferior to, the amount given in the Return in question. Regarding foreign spirits no record was previously kept of the parts of the United Kingdom where they were consumed, but a system has now been established for following them up similar to that pursued in the case of home spirits. The few weeks during which it has been in operation show no ground for believing that the calculations in the Return of May 7 were incorrect, but the time is too short to afford any really fresh knowledge. So far, then, as my investigation has proceeded there is nothing to change the figures submitted last May, so that there is no question of Supplementary Estimate at present. I do not propose to legislate this Session for the transfer of the charge of £5,000 for improving the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland from the Irish Local Taxation Account to the Estimates. There is no reason for doing so till the Land Purchase Bill is passed. With regard to the last question, legislation will not be necessary to secure to Ireland the contribution of £40,000 referred to by the hon. Member, but he may take it as certain that I will introduce a Supplementary Estimate to secure this sum to Ireland during the present financial year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspectors of Lunatics have made any report on any death of Christopher O'Connor in the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, what is its purport?

The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums report that they have addressed the Board of Governors of the Richmond Asylum on the subject of O'Connor's death, who have appointed a special meeting, on the 22nd instant, for the purpose of further investigating the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Monroe, re "King's Estate," in the Dublin papers of 4th July, dismissing Mr. Matthew Weld O'Connor from the Receivership, and commenting strongly on his conduct in allowing four tenants to be sued for £27 2s., rents they had already paid, and surcharging him therewith, and with other sums, amounting to £181 13s., "verified" by Mr. O'Connor to have been spent on police huts and emergency men: whether Mr. O'Connor is a Magistrate for the three counties of Longford, Cavan, and Meath, and will be retained in the Commission of the Peace; whether he has observed that Judge Monroe also condemned the conduct of an under agent, named Francis Cooke, of whom his Lordship remarked that his form of receipt was "a curiosity," but

"Did not feel at liberty in holding on mere suspicion that Cooke had been guilty of perjury and fraud;"

whether Cooke is barony cess collector, process server, and summons server in Longford or Leitrim; will Government take any steps to have him removed from these positions; will a secret inquiry, under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Precedure (Ireland) Act, be held to obtain evidence to prosecute Cooke in case that existing already is not considered sufficient; if not, is the suspicion of "perjury and fraud" con- sidered insufficient to ground such inquiry; and is Cooke the same person who was tried for shooting a girl in Mohill, and got off on the plea of self-defence?

I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to this question when down some days ago, so far as it relates to the case of Mr. O'Connor. With respect to the case of Cooke, he appears to hold in the County Leitrim the positions mentioned in the fourth paragraph. As, however, such appointments are not made by the Irish Government, they have no power to consider the propriety of his continuing to hold them, or otherwise. There does not appear to be any ground for the course suggested in the sixth paragraph. In the absence of any positive direction from the Judge, the proper course would appear to be for the aggrieved party to make complaint on oath, whereupon the necessity for criminal proceedings would be considered. Cooke had on a former occasion been returned for trial as stated in the last paragraph, but the Grand Jury found "No bill" in the case.

Is not the estate in Chancery, and, if so, is it not the Court of Receivers who are the aggrieved persons? Seeing that the Judge suggests a suspicion of perjury and fraud, is it not a case for a prosecution?

I will make an inquiry into the facts of the case.

I will repeat the question on Monday.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the proposal made last year in the Dublin Hospitals Bill of the Government, and the fact that the Bill has not been pressed forward this year, as promised, the Government will take steps, pending a permanent settlement of the question, to effect the purpose of the Bill by distributing the amount of the annual grant among the several Dublin hospitals, according to the relative extent and value of public service rendered?

Although it has not been possible to introduce a Bill this Session, I hope that some agreement may be arrived at as to details, &c.; a Bill may be introduced next Session. In the meantime I do not think it would be possible, seeing that the present system has been in existence for more than 30 years, to make a reapportionment.

I think it is quite possible, and I would suggest the propriety of passing a Vote in bulk, without defining the amount to be appropriated to the different institutions.

I understand that a Bill is absolutely necessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the fact that since the introduction, this Session, of a Bill containing provisions for transferring the collection of certain local rates to the Corporation of Dublin, Robert Henchy and William Perry, to the office of the Collector General of Rates Dublin, have been retired, by the Lord Lieutenant, upon pensions of £311 0s.1d. and £40 respectively, chargeable to the city of Dublin; and Robert J. Henchy (son of the before-mamed Robert Henchy), Robert M. Richardson, and William Welsh, have been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to the staff of the Collector General's Office, at salaries of £170, £130, and £110 respectively, mainly chargeable to the city of Dublin; can he state what were the salaries, ages, and terms of service respectively of Robert Henchy and William Perry; why two warrant officers were appointed in place of one retired; what were the occupations of Robert J. Henchy, Robert M. Richardson, and William Welsh, before their appointment to the Collector General's office; whether they were recommended by the Collector General, and their appointments declared to be requisite; and whether he is aware that Mr. Richardson and Mr. Welsh are 50 years of age, and will he explain why they have been appointed at such an age to offices bearing a right of pensions chargeable to the funds of the city?

Mr. Robert Henchy's pensionable emoluments as a collector in the Collector General's Office consisted of poundage, bonus, and salary, the average of which, for the three years preceding his retirement, amounted to £466 10s. 2d. His age at time of retirement was 68, and he had a service of 37 years. Mr. Perry had emoluments, consisting of salary and poundage, amounting to an average of £240 a year. His age was 65, and he had completed 10 years service in the Collector General's Department. Two warrant officers were appointed in place of one (Mr. Perry), on the recommendation of the Collector General. In connection with Mr. Perry's retirement the Collector General reported that when Mr. Perry was appointed in August, 1879, he was required by Mr. Byrne, the then Collector General, to appoint a deputy, whom he paid out of his income as war-pant officer. The Collector General reported that for some time he had thought it would be necessary to make a change in that department of his office, and that the proper course would be to appoint two warrant officers, one for the south and the other for the north side—the emoluments of the two not to exceed the £240 a year heretofore paid to the one officer, who had to appoint and pay a deputy. Mr. Robert J. Henchy assisted his father in the general work connected with the collection of rates, and was employed as a temporary clerk in the Collector General's Office. Mr. Robert M. Richardson was the deputy warrant officer employed by Mr. Perry. Mr. W. Welsh was secretary to a club. They were recommended by the Collector General, and the appointments declared to be requisite. Both gentlemen are, I believe, 50 years of age. There has been no regulation laid down as to the age for warrant officers. Both these gentlemen have been informed that they can only hold their appointments while they are able actively to carry out the duties. They will not be entitled to pensions till they have completed 10 years' service, and then only to 10–60ths of their emoluments. Mr. Richardson's temporary service will not count towards pension. An additional sixtieth would be added to the pension for each additional year's service after 10.

Can the right hon. Gentleman cite any precedent for the appointment of persons of 50 years of age to posts which carry a high rate of pension, and does he consider it decent of the Irish Government to make changes involving charges of £300 for pension and £400 for salary upon the City of Dublin at a time when the decision of Parliament is being sought by a Bill on this very question?

I am not aware of the circumstances relating to the appointments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and must ask for notice of the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware—has he not appeared by his agent, Sir Richard Wyatt, before the Committee on the Bill, and by counsel? Surely he must be aware of his own action.

I am perfectly cognisant of the action taken by the Irish Government with regard to the Bill before the House. What I said I was not cognisant of were the details relating to the appointment of these gentlemen.

At the very moment we were seeking the decision of Parliament on the future of this office, does the right hon. Gentleman justify the Irish Government in interfering and making appointments which will throw charges amounting to £700 a year on the City of Dublin?

My reply to the question as to whether the course which has been taken in this matter was proper or improper is, that it is not one on which I should be asked to give an opinion if I say I am not acquainted with the details of the action of the officials in this case. I must ask for notice of the question before being asked to give a judgment upon it.

As the right hon. Gentleman instructed Sir Richard Wyatt to make the allegation both before the Commons' Committee and the Lords' Committee, that if the Dublin Corporation got this office into its hands it would use it for political purposes and prevent Conservatives getting votes, I will ask whether Mr. Welsh, who has just been appointed, is not the Tory agent on the revision of voters' claims in the City of Dublin; and is it decent to put a pronounced partisan of that kind into an office connected with the franchise?

I must have notice of that question.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill relating to Heligoland will be taken? I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to Malta and the mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons. That is distinctly a question for discussion on the Colonial Vote, on which it is understood we may ask for information or make any remarks we have to make. I hope he will be able to hold out a prospect of an early day being fixed for that Vote. The question I have referred to is of great interest to the Irish Members, and it would be hard upon them to be kept waiting for the discussion to come on.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to say on what day that Vote will be taken. I hope it may be possible to complete Irish Supply to-morrow, and, in that case, we shall be in a position to forecast the course of public business. On Monday I shall be able, probably, to state when we shall take the Colonial Vote.

After what hour will the Votes in Class 4 not be taken, and what will be the business on Monday?

Class 4 will not be entered upon after 11 o'clock unless with the concurrence of hon. Members. In regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, the subject he referred to can be raised, not on the Colonial, but on the Foreign Office Vote. On Monday the Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and the Second Reading of the Census Bills will be taken.

The Irish Members have shown that they do not desire to delay the Irish Votes, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make arrangements for continuing the Irish Votes on Monday, as on Friday the Secretary to the Treasury will have to make an important statement on the subject of Light Railways.

Her Majesty's Government have set apart a fortnight for the Irish Votes, and other business must be proceeded with on Monday.

What is proposed to be done with regard to the Reformatory Schools Bill and the Industrial Schools Bill?

I have already stated that if those Bills are opposed it will not be possible to proceed with them this Session. As several notices of opposition appear on the Paper, I fear they will have to be postponed until next Session. The responsibility for the postponement must rest upon those who have given the notices.

Will the Chief Secretary consent to postpone the Report of Supply on the Land Commission Vote? I refrained from discussing the land purchase branch of the Land Commission yesterday, in order that the Vote might be taken, though I might have talked it out. Under these circumstances, I will ask the Chief Secretary not to take Report of the Land Commission Vote until such time as a reasonable opportunity for further discussion might be available.

I cannot at present say more than that the Report of this Vote will not be taken to-night.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the Land Commission is to hear the Irvinestown cases in Enniskillen, instead of at Irvinestown, in view of the great inconvenience which the change will cause to the farmers of Irvinestown, who will have to travel 18 miles to Enniskillen in order to have their rents fixed?

The Land Commissioners state that the Chairman of the Sub-Commission referred to reports that, at the request of the solicitors for the landlords and tenants, the Sub-Commission arranged to take up such Irvinestown cases as could be conveniently heard at Enniskillen in that town, onthe22nd, 23rd, and 24thinstants, provided both sides agreed to appear there on these days, and with regard to any such cases which could not be conveniently heard at Enniskillen the Sub Commission announced their intention of taking them up on some later day at such place as the hearing could be more conveniently held.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Edward Atthill, of Advarney House, Ederney, County Fermanagh, who was arrested and lodged in Sligo Gaol on a charge of forgery, is a Magistrate for Fermanagh; and, if so, is he to be allowed to retain the Commission of the Peace?

I am informed that Mr. Atthill was not arrested on a charge of forgery, but was imprisoned for contempt of Court. The Report before me does not show when this occurred; but if the matter has not been already before the Lord Chancellor I have no doubt it will receive his consideration.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in what class can be found the Vote for the Ulster King at Arms and the Knight of St. Patrick.?

In Class VII.

Why are they not in the same class as formerly?

Because in the rearrangement of the Votes it was found convenient to put several of these small Votes together.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether the Irish Census Bill will provide for ascertaining the exact proportion the loyal minority in Ireland bears to the whole population?

And will he consider the desirability of including in the Census Returns statistics showing the number of evicted tenants?

I am afraid I cannot do anything of the kind.

If the Irish Members were to insist on discussing in anything like detail all the complaints they have to make against the Divisional and Resident Magistrates whose salaries are included in this Vote, there would not be much probability of the First Lord of the Treasury realising his anticipation of concluding the Irish Estimates to-morrow. I propose to allude briefly to one specimen of these Removable Magistrates. I want to call attention to the conduct of an ex-Indian official, Colonel Caddell, whose only qualification for his office is his churlish insolence to every one who addresses him. For nearly nine months this gentleman has been ruling in Tipperary with as much unbridled power as if he were a Turkish Pasha. He is one day commanding the police when dispersing a meeting, and the very next day sitting in judgment upon their conduct. Colonel Caddell was one of my Judges at Clonakilty. On that occasion I was cross examining a police note-taker, named Garvey, who had taken bodily out of a newspaper my speech and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Cork, but swore that he had taken them down while they were being delivered. Garvey's evidence was so evidently perjured that, though my hon. Friend was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, the Government never dared to meet the case in a Superior Court, and the sentence on my hon. Friend has never yet been enforced, although I myself went through four months' imprisonment on the evidence of this policeman. I was cross examining this policeman when Colonel Caddell came to his rescue and said that if the man had copied the speech correctly from the Freeman's Journal it was the newspaper, and not the witness, that I should accuse of perjury. That is a sample of Colonel Caddell's intelligence; he failed altogether to appreciate the difference between a man swearing that he had taken a note of a speech and copying it from a public newspaper. He did not know the difference between a newspaper reporter taking a note honestly for his paper and a police shorthand writer stealing that report and swearing it was his own note. That is a fair specimen of Colonel Caddell's intelligence, but I am glad to say that the condition of this gentleman's liver has a great deal more to do with his government of Tipperary than his intelligence. Here is another illustration of the double function Colonel Caddell fulfils in Tipperary, first as a policeman, and then as a Magistrate—

"Constable King appeared on the table to prosecute Miss Hogan and Mrs. Nunan, and John Hennessy, William O'Brien Street, for groaning at the police on the day the evicting party knocked down Mr. O'Brien-Dalton's mill. Mr. O'Dwyer, LL.D., appeared for the defendants—"

What is the date?

The date is the 15th February last. It is the case of two ladies, Miss Hogan and Mrs. Nunan, respectable shopkeepers in the town, who were prosecuted for groaning at the police, but that is not the point I am on. Mr. O'Dwyer, their solicitor, called Colonel Caddell's attention to the fact that he (Colonel Caddell) had been in command of the Police Force upon the day in question, and asked him would he undertake to adjudi- cate in the present proceedings? Colonel Caddell replied that on the occasion referred to he was acting ministerially, and that in the present instance he was acting judicially. Here you have a distinct and naked claim, which he has repeatedly enforced, on the part of Colonel Caddell—that Colonel Caddell the Magistrate can sit in judgment upon Colonel Caddell the policeman and his subordinates. The people of Tipperary are expected to reverence the law that is administered by such an insulting—I do not hesitate to call him so—jackanapes as this gentleman who, when a clergyman addresses him in the streets of Tipperary, sticks out his tongue at him, and who has never to this day apologised or explained—I invite the Chief Secretary to explain it if he can—the indecent, filthy language which he addressed to a respectable poor young girl in Youghal who was at the time in the custody of his policemen. This is the sort of thing that goes on every week, almost every day, in Tipperary, and it is into the hands of persons like Caddell—I venture to say again, an ignorant, insulting, and incompetent little tyrant—it is into his hands that the peace of Tipperary and the lives of a whole community have been committed for the last nine months. Let me give another specimen of the conduct of this Magistrate. It was Colonel Caddell who superintended, and is responsible for, the outrage that was perpetrated over poor Michael O'Dwyer's grave; and we are not going to allow that outrage to pass without reminding this House and the English people of it again and again. The Chief Secretary complained the other night that we repeat our charges. Well, Sir, we do, and we will; and we will not only repeat them in this House, but we will repeat them from end to end of England, and I rather think the right hon. Gentleman's complaint is not so much against us as against the English constituencies, who have repeated again and again their verdicts upon those charges. It is not surprising that their verdicts are beginning to be a little monotonous to the right hon. Gentleman. But what are the facts of the outrage in the graveyard at Tipperary? Mr. O'Dwyer was one of the most respectable men in the whole town—a splendid young man about 30 years of age. He was under a notice of eviction by Mr. Smith-Barry. His little baby had died a short time before, and his wife was on the point of death. He was being buried, and actually, while the coffin was being brought out of the church in Tipperary, a body of policemen came up, and posted on the gates of the church a proclamation signed by Colonel Caddell proclaiming the funeral as an illegal assembly. The town was crammed with policemen that day. Huge bodies of them armed with rifles moved about in the funeral procession, and a force of them galloped to the head of the procession—shadowing the dead. When we came to the graveyard we found Caddell and a body of policemen drawn up outside it, and they stood there while that solemn ceremony was going on, Caddell with an insulting smirk upon his face. He was not satisfied with that, and, acting on his orders, a body of policemen rushed into the graveyard and forced their way within a few feet of where the coffin was lying. These policemen had not the common decency to take off their spiked helmets while the funeral service was being performed. They remained there throughout, the people being maddened and outraged by their presence, and the moment there was a word of protest uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for East Tipperary, instantly the police note-taker brought out his note book and took down what was said. I want to know is it possible to imagine any proceeding that was better calculated to wound and to outrage the deepest and the dearest feelings of the people than the conduct which I have described? Because the people are so patient, we see what use is made of their patience. The very same thing happened at the grave of my poor Friend Matthew Harris, the late Member for East Galway. The police then again forced their way into the graveyard, stood by the grave, took a note of what was said there, and I believe that was claimed to be a perfectly proper proceeding on their part, because the people did not take the ruffians by the neck and throw them out of the graveyard. But the police pursued poor Michael O'Dwyer beyond the grave. Three or four days after his interment, when his wife had struggled up to open the shop, the first person who came into it was a policeman with a notice that he meant to oppose her licence at the next Sessions—that is say, the police would try to deprive her of her only means of livelihood simply because she had refused to supply an emergency man when he was brought into her shop by some policemen with the deliberate purpose of entrapping her into a refusal. Because she would not facilitate Mr. Smith-Barry in provisioning his garrison in Tipperary the poor woman, broken-hearted as she was, is told by the police that her last means of livelihood are to be taken away from her. That is only another specimen. I could give hundreds and thousands of them if necessary. I ask any Member on either side of the House how long he would be prepared to tolerate such a state of things? I venture to say our people would be the veriest slaves and hounds, and should be justly considered so, if they did not loathe the law and order that is associated with men like this Caddell. The only reply we get in this House when we mention these things is that crime is common in Tipperary. I venture to say that the only crime in Tipperary is that which is encouraged by Caddell and his policemen. A struggle has been going on in that town now for 12 months, and two vast estates have been cleared, and I defy the Chief Secretary to name one single act of bloodshed that has been committed by the people. I could name acts of bloodshed on the other side, and I venture to say there never was a people—and they a hot-blooded people—who conducted themselves so crimelessly, so peacefully, and so marvellously in the face of insults like those this man Caddell has heaped upon them day after day. And what is the result? You have achieved the maximum as regards outraging the people's feelings, and you have accomplished only the minimum as far as your own purposes are concerned. This condition of affairs in Tipperary, if it were not so horrible in many ways, would be downright ridiculous and disastrous. For nearly nine months Colonel Caddell has had at his back about 130 policemen and 600 or 700 soldiers. He has absolutely limitless power both as a police bravo and a Police Magistrate under the Crimes Act. He has done all that a man could do—all that I verily believe a demon with all his ingenuity could do—to exasperate the people into riot and disturbance, and what is the result? At this moment the combination against which you are in vain fighting, and the legality of which the Chief Secretary was practically obliged to acknowledge the other night, is as firmly rooted as the Rock of Cashel. Notwithstanding all the horrible shadowing that has been going on, Colonel Caddell has not succeeded in establishing a single successful prosecution for boycotting. Although priests are dogged from day to day, and every prominent man is dogged by policemen, I venture to say the only thing he has succeeded in has been acquitting policemen who jostled men they were shadowing, and in punishing men who remonstrated with the police. At this moment he is an utter failure in Tipperary, and still he is allowed to remain there, day after day, as a constant source of outrage and insult to the whole community. I only wonder that he has not been actually promoted for his services in Tipperary. He is the best of all types of the Resident Magistrate, who is promoted actually in proportion to his brutality to the people of Ireland. There is scarcely a man who has so distinguished himself who has not found the results in speedy promotion. There is Mr. Cecil Roche. I saw him beat with a stick a man in Tralee, who had the temerity to salute me, and he afterwards gave him three months in gaol. His salary has been increased by several hundred pounds since, and I am told that at this moment he is indignant because more has not been given to him. I am also told that there has been a good deal of indignation and heart-burning on the part of Caddell, because he has not been promoted to a Divisional Commissionership. All I can say is, if these are the sort of men the Government have pinned their faith to, we need not object except for the sake of the unfortunate people who are subjected to their outrages. These men are doing our work. They are exemplifying the hatefulness and the impossibility of the present system of government in Ireland, and all I can say is we have not the least objection that you should choose such instruments in Ireland so long as you carry on a system of coercing and oppressing the Irish people. It is quite another thing how these proceedings will be regarded in England, and I venture to say the longer you continue this system in Ireland the surer you are, in the first place, to cement our Union in Ireland and the combination of the Irish tenants; and, in the second place, to meet condemnation here where you fear it most.

This subject of the Irish Magistrates has been frequently and fully brought before 'the House. We have proved on many previous 'occasions that the personnel of the Irish Resident Magistracy would be a disgrace to any Government in the world. It has been shown, I regret to say, and no one has attempted to contradict it, that successive Governments—and I do not blame the present Government more than its predecessors—have made it a custom to appoint to these most important posts in Ireland men with absolutely no qualifications for the position; men not only without any experience of civil administration, but the whole course of whose lives has been such as to unfit them for the delicate task which they have to perform. I am speaking now from the point of view of the Chief Secretary himself. We have Returns before the House in which the antecedents of all these gentlemen are set forth, and as well as I can remember now, and I have not the Returns by me, three- fourths of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland are retired military men; and when we look into the personnel of the remainder, we find that with few exceptions there is little more to recommend the civilians than the military men. We find for the most part that they are broken-down "ne'er-do-wells" of county families in Ireland, whom their relatives will not support, and who are utterly unable to make their own way in the world—men of no education or knowledge but of hunting, shooting, fishing, and hare coursing. On one occasion an interesting collection of letters fell into our hands at an auction in Dublin, letters of application to the Lords Lieutenant, in which the most ludicrous reasons were set forth as justification for their application for appointment as Resident Magistrates. Well, the result has been the appointment of men with no sort of qualification for the duties and difficulties of the position. I intend to explain fully the reasons why we Irish Nationalists think the office of Irish Resident Magistrate is an office that ought not to exist under any Government, and I will explain that in a few minutes. It must be admitted by all sections that the duties under a Coercion Administration are of a peculiarly difficult and delicate character; and that, in order to secure the due discharge of those duties, even from the point of view of the Chief Secretary and his supporters, men should be selected who are well experienced in civil administration, trained, and who may be expected to restrain their temper with rigid self-control under difficult circumstances, and who are somewhat versed in the Criminal Law. Now, I need not go at length into the matter, for I do not think it is contended that these qualifications are in any considerable number of cases possessed by the present occupants of the posts of Resident Magistrates. It is a scandalous condition of things. There is not a man on these Benches, nor do I think there is an Irish Representative opposite, who has not witnessed the scandalous behaviour of these men at Petty Sessions. I recollect perfectly well, before the late agitations arose, in my own district in East Mayo a Resident Magistrate, a retired Army Officer, who was in the habit of drinking too much; and I know that day after day he attended the Petty Sessions Court under the influence of drink, and frequently he did not attend at all. There was no remedy. I have watched the unfortunate people coming in with their solicitors from a distance, for there was at that time no solicitor in the town. I have seen them waiting for hours, losing their time and their solicitors' fees, and no Magistrate came. When on the Bench his bearing, his language, was that of a fishwife. I remember a case brought before him in which a tinker was charged with stealing a donkey; and in an altercation which took place, it was difficult to understand from the language used which was Magistrate and which was tinker. I am referring to a considerable number of years ago; but this is a case that came within my personal knowledge, and he occupied the Bench for a number of years. For a quarter of an hour re- criminations were exchanged between the Magistrate and the tinker, police and people standing by and regarding it as the ordinary method of administering justice. This same Magistrate, travelling to a country station one wet evening, found that there was only one car at the station, which had been secured by a commercial traveller. The Magistrate ordered the commercial traveller to get off the car, which the man refused to do. The Magistrate then ordered the two policemen who usually attend at stations to drag the man off the car, and this they proceeded to do, and in doing so broke the man's leg. The man was ill for six months, and the Magistrate had to pay £100 compensation. Bat, after this, this Magistrate was still allowed to occupy his seat on the Bench and administer justice. I only mention this to show the kind of men whom the Irish people in the past have had to go for justice.

Will the hon. Member give the date of this occurrence?

It took place about seven years ago. I do not present it as more than an illustration. The facts are admitted and well known in the district. I only mention it to show the scandalous system which was allowed to go on, and it is to be charged against all Administrations—not only the present—that this scandalous system has been allowed to grow up and form an integral part of Irish government. All Administrations I say, must share in the blame. And now I come to what I consider to be the fundamental blot, or, at all events, one of the fundamental blots in the Irish system of Resident Magistrates, such as I do not know is to be found in any free country in the world, and which, even if the personnel of the Irish Resident Magistracy were beyond question, beyond all blame, would condemn the whole system. It is this: that you have in Ireland a system under which police officers act as Magistrates. Now, I ask any hon. Member, any Englishman, what would he say if in any district a police officer were to sit on the Bench and decide cases in which the police acted as prosecutors? And, unhappily, the objection is very much stronger in Ireland than in this country, because in Ireland the number of pro- secutions instituted and originated by the police is infinitely greater than in this country, owing to a variety of unhappy circumstances. I need not now go into detail. Summonses and prosecutions that in England would be left to private initiative are instituted by the police in Ireland, and this makes the position still more intolerable, that a man who as executive police officer directs a prosecution, should then climb on to the Bench and act as Judge in the case. First ho orders the prosecution, and is through his subordinates a party to it, and then he decides the case. We have heard a great deal about recent disturbances at Cashel and Tipperary. They are of the same character as many previous disturbances in Ireland. But they serve excellently as an illustration of the complaint I am now about to make. It is terrible that such things should be done in the name of justice as are now being done in Cashel and Tipperary. What happens? Caddell orders the charge by the police, and then he is found sitting on the Bench to decide between the police and the persons who complain against them. Take what happened to myself. I was standing talking peaceably to a friend in the Square of Tipperary when Colonel Caddell ordered the police to charge and baton. The police did not obey orders by batoning the people. But suppose any of these policemen had struck me, what would have been my redress? The Chief Secretary would have told me that I had a legal remedy against the policeman if I could identify him. And where would this policeman have been tried? Before the police officer who ordered the charge. Could you have a more grotesque travesty of justice? Here is another example of the principle which obtains in the administration of the law in Ireland. A man was charged with assaulting an officer who was shadowing him. The charge was that he had shoved the officer off the path. I venture to point out that it is exceedingly necessary, if you have such a system of shadowing as that which now prevails in Ireland, that the assault should be very clearly proved. When an officer walks so closely behind the person shadowed as to kick his heel, while another constable touches his shoulder, it may easily happen that the action necessary to escape the kicking of the heel and the touching of the shoulder is construed into assault. In the case tried before Colonel Caddell, three civilians, against whose character there is no accusation, swore there was no assault, yet Colonel Caddell, who had ordered the shadowing, called upon the men to find bail. And, therefore, Mr. Morgan Hay, who had gone into the town of Tipperary to transact some business, was sent to gaol for six weeks. That is an illustration of what goes on in Ireland. The police are ordered to adopt a certain course of proceeding, and if a policeman alleges assault in the course of that proceeding he is supported by his superior officer who tries the case. So long as such a system as that prevails you cannot expect the people of Ireland to respect law and order. I want to say this with regard to Mr. Caddell. I have had a good deal of experience of Magistrates and policemen during the agitation in Ireland, and I must say that some of them are gentlemanly and self-restrained. But there are others against whom Irish Members have frequently had occasion to bring charges in this House. Of one, Captain Plunkett, I will say nothing now, as he is dead. Of another, Captain Segrave, I may remind the Committee that when a charge was made against him he was enthusiastically defended by the right hon. Gentleman. There was the fatal day at Mitchelstown, and when I stated what occurred between me and Captain Segrave the right hon. Gentleman defended him. We raked up the antecedents of Captain Segrave, who was compelled to return to that obscurity from which he ought never to have emerged. Captain Segrave's character was so abominable that even the Chief Secretary had to give him up. If necessary, we shall go into the past of Colonel Caddell. I do not like such a method of warfare, but if we are to have scoundrels and ruffians, dragged from the purlieus of society, placed in the seat of justice, we shall be compelled to resort to it. I shall apply myself to the career of Colonel Caddell, and if his record is as foul as that of Captain Segrave, he will have to leave the Bench. There are men sitting on the Magisterial Bench in Ireland who are not fit to be in decent society, and whose record is such that they would not be admitted to any club of gentlemen if it were made known. Rather than see murders and outrages committed upon our people by these dissipated and disreputable wretches, I will rake up their past history, in order to relieve the Irish people of their intolerable presence. I wish now to call attention to what may be described as rather a shady trick of the Irish Executive. I have over and over again called attention in this House to the gross irregularities of the provisional Magistrates in Ireland. The Chief Secretary did not approve of regularising these provisional Magistrates The Government promised that that payment should be recognised by Statute, but they have not kept their word, and I want to know why they pledge themselves to introduce legislative measures and break their pledge? I suppose it is because they dread the discussion of any such proposal, and it is exceedingly likely, after the experience they have had, that they do not wish to excite further discussion with regard to their policy on matters of this kind. Everybody knows the unpleasant experience of the late Mr. Forster, and the proposal he brought forward, which was supposed to be a device intended simply to meet a tremendous emergency. In order to meet that emergency, Mr. Forster started the idea of decentralisation and division of responsibility, by means of a system of Divisional Magistrates, a system which I contend could not be applied for a single hour to any other country in the world. What happened? Why, that the system, which was intended to meet a grave crisis, became the regular system of the country, and continues to be saddled with all the additional cost and inconvenience it entailed. The recommendation of the Controller and Auditor General was that those payments should be made by Statute, and the Government, although they pledged themselves to carry out his suggestion, have broken that pledge, and have got round the Auditor General by calling the Divisional Magistrates Executive Officers. That is an idea unworthy of a Government. The Auditor General objected to the payment of these three gentlemen as Resident Magistrates, because, under the Act of William, the maximum salary of the Resident Magistrates was fixed at £750 a year, and the Government, instead of passing a fresh Act creating fresh officers, go to the filthy archives of Dublin Castle, and rake out some musty precedent which enables the Irish Executive to appoint Executive Officers provided the Government pay them. They cease to call these men Resident Magistrates, and describe them as Executive Officers, whom they keep ranging in the air, ready to do anything the Government require; they get the Lord Chancellor to make them Magistrates, and they pay them £1,000 a year as Executive Officers. A more monstrous way of evading the Auditor General was never heard of; and the conduct of the Government in this respect is most disgraceful and must be protested against. Under the present system the Government have placed a superior officer in every district of Ireland, giving him absolute control over all the other Magistrates, who are actually dependent on him for their children's bread. Let us consider how this system works. Some time ago the Government made an appointment which, for brazen-faced indecency, passes anything I ever heard of. I allude to the appointment of Mr. Cecil Roche. Who was Mr. Cecil Roche? He was a briefless barrister utterly unable to make a living at the Irish Bar, and, like many other adventurers, at the Election of 1886 he cast in his lot with the Unionist Party. Briefless barristers and needy adventurers in Ireland generally do cast in their lot with the Tory Party, because all the pickings they hope to get come from that side. Mr. Cecil Roche came over to England and perambulated the country making speeches in the interest of the Government; speeches in which he was prominent for the violence and the vigour of his vituperation. He denounced the Nationalist Party in Ire-land in the most horrible language, although I must admit that sometimes we use strong language ourselves, only there is this difference between us, that if I make use of vigorous language I cannot go to the Bench and send my opponent to gaol for six months. Well, what did the Government do? Mr. C. Roche had distinguished himself by this sort of conduct, and I am informed that on one occasion he stated that "when Hell was frozen over he would go down and fight the Parnellites on the ice." Well, when the Election was over he did not go to fight the Parnellites on the ice of frozen Hell, but he got a much more comfortable place, and obtained an appointment under which he was enabled to send the Parnellites to gaol, so that they might experience the effects of hard labour and the plank bed. I regard it as a most disgraceful thing that a man, for going round the country and denouncing the Parnellite Members, should, in something like six months, be placed upon the Magisterial Bench and empowered to send to hard labour and the plank bed men infinitely more respectable than himself. That, Sir, is the historical Mr. C. Roche, and his history is a most scandalous one. Well, let me point out the connection between his appointment and the appointment of the Executive Officers. We have all heard of Colonel Turner, who found Mr. Cecil Roche so utterly unscrupulous and unreliable for the purposes of the Government that he practically used him as a "walking gallows." I may remind the Committee that there was a historical character, a man of great height and physique, standing well over 6ft. 3in. in his stockings, who used to dispose of the rebels by putting a rope round their necks and hanging them over his shoulders whereby he acquired the name of the walking gallows. Mr. C. Roche was used as a facile instrument and unscrupulous tool by Colonel Turner; wherever a case was to be disposed of in which it was essential to secure a conviction Mr. C. Roche was sent. Can anything more indecent be imagined than a system like this, where, in case the Local Magistrates can not be relied upon to adjudicate in certain cases, another man is to be imported from a distance, because he is known to be a thorough-going hater of the Nationalist Party. But this system does not end with Mr. C. Roche; unfortunately, it is being pursued throughout the whole of Ireland. I remember that when I was on my trial the Government would not trust the Magistrate of the district, Mr. M'Carthy—he was too honest a man; they, therefore, imported an ironclad Magistrate, who was an Orangeman of the deepest dye, and made him Magistrate for my district simply in order that I might be tried by him. [Cries of "Name."] The name was Harris, and he was a blackguard, and the reason he was placed upon the Bench was that he was as Orange at heart as he could possibly be. I say that such a system is infamous, and can have no possible justification. I will endeavour to point out to the Committee the work which Colonel Turner does. He was the Executive Officer for Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. As Executive Officer he had the means of life of every Magistrate in the district under his control. I know he could not actually dismiss a man, but I know there is not a Magistrate who does not tremble in his shoes before him. Colonel Turner was sent down to a district greatly disturbed on the agrarian question. His sympathies were strongly with the present Government, and, indeed, Colonel Turner's sentiments are of the most convenient character. When Lord Aberdeen was in Dublin Colonel Turner was an enthusiastic Home Ruler. He even declared in the presence of a friend of mine that if he were an Irishman he would have been a Fenian. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite went over to Dublin Colonel Turner became an equally enthusiastic Unionist. That is a very convenient form of conviction for a man to have. When he went down to take charge of this disturbed district, surely common sense and decency would dictate to him an attitude of the strictest impartiality between landlord and tenant. What did he do? He went down into Clare and took up his abode with the chief and most unpopular agent, Mr. Stacpoole, as that gentleman's guest, dining at his table, driving round in his carriage or car, and he had actually the indecency to drive into Ennis upon official business more than once in the private carriage of Mr. Stacpoole, the most unpopular agent in County Clare. For months he resided as a member of the family with Mr. Stacpoole. I have not language strong enough to characterise the conduct of a Government that would tolerate such things. Colonel Turner became the servant, the lackey of Mr. Stacpoole, there was no work too dirty for Colonel Turner to do, until at last the police in Clare acted as the servants of Mr. Stacpoole, and members of the Force were employed to collect the tolls at a fair for Mr. Stacpoole. Magistrates and police became the servants of Mr. Stacpoole, and when a Magistrate was required to do the dirty work of Colonel Turner, and a local man could not be trusted, Mr. Cecil Roche was sent for from Tralee at the cost of additional travelling expenses. In spite of all these things, and this state of administration, these charges, which have been made before and never denied, the Government complain that the people of Clare and Kerry have no respect for the administration of the law. All I can say is that if the people of Clare and Kerry had any respect for the administration of law under such circumstances they would be the most contemptible creatures, and would deserve to be kicked and flogged like slaves. When Thomas Drummond instituted a class of Resident Magistrates, he had in view the protection of the poorer classes against possible tyranny and annoyance of the Local Magistrates of the landlord class; he never dreamed of the use to which they have been put. He forgot that the appearing of Resident Magistrates as protectors of the poor depends on the men who preside in Dublin Castle, and who may make these Magistrates an additional instrument for the oppression of the people. As a further instance of Colonel Turner's abuse of his position, I may mention the part he took towards preventing a settlement of the dispute on the Vandeleur Estate. He wrote a letter to the Times denouncing the landlord for not taking more stringent steps, and for not bringing emergency men down to his estate. In view of these facts it is perfectly outrageous on the part of the Government to endeavour by a shady trick to pass this Vote to pay such men, who are no more nor less than Executive Officers placed over the heads of the Magistrates in Ireland for the purpose of intimidating them into doing the dirty work of the Government. What would English Members say if the Commissioner of Police were to sit upon the Bench one day and command the police the next? That would give a faint idea of what we have to put up with in Ireland, though that is not exactly a parallel case, because there we have officers at the head of the Judicial Bench and of the police in Ireland who are in no way responsible, directly or indirectly, to the people of Ireland, Now I turn to say a word or two upon the County Court Judges of Ireland. I regret to say the people of Ireland have not confidence in these officials.

There is nothing, I think, in the Vote for County Court Judges.

Under those circumstances, I will proceed with a few words I have to say upon a case recently tried before a Resident Magistrate, which, in my judgment, illustrates in a forcible and valuable way some of the doctrines as well as the value of the facts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to boycotting cases. We have heard boycotting described by the right hon. Gentleman in strong language as being accompanied by intimidation and violence. Now I want to draw attention to a case of boycotting recently tried in Tipperary, in which the charge was made against two schoolboys named William Quin and Robert Lewis. The summons set forth the grounds on which the prosecution was instituted, and is a kind of a manifesto on the part of the officials founded on the statements of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—

"Whereas it is a matter of popular notoriety that a system exists in several parts of Ireland known as boycotting"—so runs this manifesto of Colonel Caddell—"which injuriously interferes with the free exercise of legal rights by Her Majesty's subjects, and that the said system is carried out by certain persons, who, by signs, or otherwise, warn those who wish to exercise their legal rights not to do so,"

and after other "whereases of great charge," finally, on June 19, these two respectable lads, under 16 years of age, are charged with the commission of that offence, to wit, endeavouring to prevent children from attending school. The evidence given by the police showed that the lads stood outside the school house, and in this case the overt act of intimidation and violence alleged was that one of the lads charged shook a rose at the girl supposed to be intimidated, and prevented her from attending school. Of course, the whole thing is perfectly ludicrous, and I do not wish to discuss it at great length, but I wish to emphasise the fact that in all these prosecutions before Magistrates in Ireland for boycotting there is no established proof of violence or intimidation. We hear of violence and intimidation from the Chief Secretary, but when we come to hard facts before the Magistrates, we hear nothing at all of these accompaniments. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite entitled to denounce boycotting, but he is not entitled to connect boycotting with violence and intimidation when there is no violence and no intimidation. The Irish Government are armed with enormous powers. Why, if there is violence, are not such cases brought before the Magistrates? But, as a matter of fact, there are no cases of violence connected with boycotting. Over and over again we have had it in evidence that the offence of a man charged with boycotting was indicated by his pointing with a crutch he held in his hand at certain animals, or he said some words, or he winked, nodded, or coughed in the sight or hearing of the persons who were about to make purchases. There is no proof, I say, that boycotting is based on intimidation. One word in conclusion, and I do not know whether I shall be strictly in order, but I will only make a brief reference to the question of "shadowing," as exemplified in the case of David Kent. It has transpired in evidence that the constable who shadowed David Kent did prevent the sale of calves and lambs by Kent, by thrusting his head between the owner and possible purchaser, scaring away the latter. Kent, unable to do his business, unable to sell the stock he brought into the fair, turned round, and at a short distance away saw a police officer, who was walking about the fair, and began to follow him. The police officer turned round, and said, "If you continue to follow me I shall have you arrested." Kent continued to follow him, and was arrested. He was brought before a Magistrate, put in gaol for five or six hours, and then bailed out. When brought before the Magistrates for trial he was charged with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. The Magistrates, I understand, held the charge to be proved, although there is some mistiness about the record of the decision; but Kent was dismissed on condition that he should not follow the policeman any more. Now, Sir, I want to know what is the legal ground of the charge against Kent, and I want also to know what right the Magistrate had to dismiss the man on condition that he would not continue to follow the policeman? If it be maintained that the Magistrate was acting within his legal right in finding this man guilty, and in requiring such an undertaking from him, I want to know how it can be lawful for the police to obstruct a poor man in the discharge of his business? The Government has hitherto given no clear and definite statement of the law on this point in Ireland. We want to know whether, if it be lawful for a policeman to follow a civilian, and to obstruct and annoy him in the discharge of his business, it is also lawful for a civilian to follow a policeman and in the same way annoy him? Under what law may a policeman molest, annoy, irritate, and interfere with the private business of an individual against whom no charge is made, if a civilian is not entitled to do the same thing? We had it the other day from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Magistrates in each district are allowed, on their own responsibility, to select the individuals who are to be subjected to this horrible persecution. I say frankly that during the autumn we shall try to put a stop to this system. People who are shadowed will insist upon following the police, and if they are arrested for following the police, I am bound to say, it will come to this in the end, that on a suitable opportunity it will be the duty of one of our men to knock down a "shadow." Although I have over and over again used my influence in Ireland to preserve the police, and to prevent collisions between the police and the people, often under very unpleasant circumstances, I say I think our people are justified, when a favourable opportunity arrises, in trying the law on this matter, if the Attorney General refuses to state it clearly in this House. I think the proper way to try the law is for the man shadowed to take his opportunity when out of sight of the picket to knock down the "shadow," and assert his right not to be dogged, punished, and outraged by policemen when there is really no law to justify it.

I think this the most important Vote in the whole of the Irish Estimates. We have been discussing for the past fortnight the administrative and the executive policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. This Vote deals with the whole question of the administration of justice in Ireland. Of course, we are not going to touch the administration of justice by the Superior Courts. In Ireland, as in England, and I suppose everywhere else, the Courts of First Instance—the Courts of the Local Magistracy—are the Courts with which the people are familiar, and these are the Courts which represent to the people of Ireland that much repeated phrase of "law and order" They represent British justice, and I submit it is the duty of the House of Commons, in voting the money for these Courts, to satisfy itself that they are Courts which adequately administer justice, and which have the confidence of the people of Ireland. I believe someone has said it is necessary in a free country not only that justice should be impartially administered, but that the people should believe it is impartially administered. If that be true I think both sides of the House will admit, even without the confirmatory evidence of the two speeches made to-night, that the people of Ireland do not believe justice is impartially administered to them. I suppose there is hardly a gentleman sitting on the other side of the House who is not in the habit of taking part in the administration of justice in his own locality, and there are many also on this side of the House who administer the law. I am not going to say a word disrespectful to the general ability and legal knowledge of Stipendiary Magistrates in the great towns of England, and especially in the Metropolis, where, I think, they dispense justice in a highly satisfactory manner, but I believe it to be the just boast of Englishmen that justice is fairly and impartially administered by the overwhelming majority of the Justices of the Peace. In London, and wherever you think it necessary to provide paid Magistrates, you take the greatest possible care that they shall be fully qualified to discharge their duties. No one is appointed who has not studied the law and practised the law. It is a rule, almost without an exception, that the men selected as Stipendiary Magistrates are not only possessed of knowledge of affairs, but that they are also possessed of knowledge the law. The same rule prevails in Scotland, and in the colonies, and in India. In India, which, perhaps, some people would say is the parallel of Ireland with regard to our rule, we are a conquering race governing a subject race. I believe, myself, the strongest hold we have on the people of India, the strongest tie which attaches India to British rule—is not our military, or our civil, or our financial administration, but the belief which pervades all classes in India that in the Courts of the Queen they receive, and will continue to receive, fair, equal, and impartial justice. And why is this? How do we provide for the administration of justice in India? We do not make the office of the administration of justice a refuge for the morally and intellectually destitute—we take care to provide suitable men. The examination imposed upon men who go out to India is the most severe competitive examination, and a man who passes it does that which is equal to taking a first-class degree at Oxford. Then we give him a special University training at the public expense for a certain number of years. When we send him to India we take care that he shall have judicial training and every Magistrate is compelled to state in writing, not only the decisions he gives, but the reasons on which these decisions are founded, and they are submitted to a Superior Court for revision, and alteration if need be. I am simply giving these details to the House to show the means we take to secure the just and fair administration of justice in India. Now, what do we do in Ireland? Is there any parallel between the administration of justice in Ireland and its administration in England, or Scotland, or the colonies, or India? I am not going to say a single word reflecting on the personal character of any Resident Magistrate—I am dealing with a system, and I do not hold the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) responsible for that system. He found it when he came into Office, and it is one of the evil results of English rule in Ireland that the system exists. Although the right hon. Gentleman has defended it with unswerving fidelity to the men over whom he has been set, it would be a mistake for us in dealing with it to regard it as an accident of the present Administration. I have in my hand a Return respecting the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. It was moved for by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Notts (Mr. J. E. Ellis) last year, and I find from it there were then 75 Magistrates in Ireland, who are receiving the grant provided for by this Vote. I call the attention of the House to the composition of this body. Only 14 of the Resident Magistrates have the slightest ostensible connection with the legal profession. In the 14 I include not only gentlemen who have been barristers-at-law, theoretical or practising, but one gentleman who kept all the terms for the Bar, but "for family reasons was not called." I have also included gentlemen who served in the Army after they had been at the Bar. I do not think it requires much knowledge to know what that means. At all events it is a very fair presumption that men who did that were not much fascinated by or attracted to the legal profession. Well, then, there are 24 ex-officers of the Army, 22 ex-officers of the Constabulary, and 15 gentlemen, who are variously described, some as "Hon. Secretary to the Tipperary Agricultural Society," "In the Revenue, Police and Superintendent Departments," "On the Commission of the Peace for several years," and so on. One gentleman is described as an Army tutor. Now, let me ask the House what these gentlemen have to do. Here we can bring the matter more closely home to the present Administration. It is under the present Chief Secretary's legislation that there has been thrown upon these gentlemen some of the most difficult legal duties which possibly can fall on any Court. You have deprived the people of Ireland of the protection of juries, which is given in other parts of the Kingdom, and you have devolved upon the Resident Magistrates the functions not only of Judges, but of juries. I will quote one sentence from one of the greatest authorities we have on criminal jurisprudence. He says—

"Perhaps few things are left so doubtful in the Criminal Law as the point at which the combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal."

Well, this delicate and difficult question of Criminal Law has been handed over to these 75 gentlemen, of whom only 14 are in any way competent to decide a legal question. What do these gentlemen cost? I know the Chief Secretary will say, "The House of Commons does not vote enough money for me to get the article which India, and the colonies, and Scotland and England get. "I have heard him say," I cannot with the Vote that you supply provide myself with perfectly competent men. "I am rather doubtful about that. The Vote is 20 Magistrates at £675, 32 at £550, and 20 at £425. In addition, each receives £100 as travelling allowance, and something more than £100 for their personal and travelling expenses. Judging of Irish salaries by English salaries, applying the test that an Irish Judge of the Supreme Court receives about two-thirds of the salary paid to an English Judge. I think if an Irish barrister receives two-thirds of the salary which is paid to an English Stipendiary Magistrate, the proportion is pretty well observed, and tonight we shall vote to the Irish Resident Magistrates considerably higher salaries than two-thirds of what is generally paid in England to Stipendiary Magistrates, excluding the Metropolis. In addition to these salaries a large number of these gentlemen are in receipt of Army pensions. I concede to the Chief Secretary that we ought to provide sufficient money. This House has never been niggardly in Irish administration. These Irish Estimates are monuments of extravagance. The cost of the Government of Ireland is a great deal too large. When the Chief Secretary obtains from this House, practically without discussion and objection, the most liberal allowances for the Constabulary and every branch of his administration, I am sure the House would not grudge him money to enable him to give the people of Ireland proper administration of justice. Whether we are Home Rulers or Unionists we must be agreed upon, this that the people of Ireland are entitled to a competent Judicial Bench, and until the Chief Secretary comes down to the House and asks for a sum which will enable him to appoint competent qualified men, and the House refuses him such a sum, he has no right to shield himself behind the supposed zeal for economy. Now, how do these gentlemen discharge their duties? The Chief Secretary may say they do their work satisfactorily. I have seen, again and again, in speeches of the Chief Secretary, statements that the appeals which have been made from the decisions of the Resident Magistrates are a very fair indication of the admirable manner in which their duty is discharged. We have been told that a very large number of cases have been heard' by Resident Magistrates, and that there have been very few appeals. I have got the Judicial statistics for 1888. In that year there were 1,082 convictions under the Crimes Act. There were 201 appeals. You may say that that is a small proportion, and that there is a primâ facie presumption that the decisions have been satisfactory. But go a little further, and you find that by the astute manner in which the mode of appeal was dealt with 697 cases were not appealable against. The sentences were below the mark carrying the right of appeal. As a matter of fact, there were only 385 cases which could be appealed against, and in 201 of the 385 cases, appeals were made. In 70 cases, or in 33 per cent. of the cases appealed against, the appeals were successful I believe that is quite as high, if not higher, than any similar effort in this country, A few days ago the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis) obtained a Return up to the 31st of March, 1890. There have been 769 convictions; 204 could not be appealed against, leaving only 565 that could be appealed against. 233 were appealed against, and in 72 cases the appeals were successful—again 33 per cent. I think that is very fair evidence of the effect of the appeals. Let me bring under the notice of the Committee one or two cases. I am not one of the Members, who have been to Ireland, but the reports I have read in the Times, for example, fully confirm my opinion as to the unsatisfactory nature of the system, and prove the in competency of the men who have been put into these positions. But I also rely for a good deal of my Irish information upon what I think is one of the ablest provincial newspapers, the Manchester Guardian. With the permission of the Committee, I will read a few sentences from the account given by the special correspondent of the Manchestvr Guardian of what he saw in Ireland upon the trial of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien). He said—

"People in England are often puzzled to know why the Irish want Home Rule. The best answer to a man in such perplexity would be to take him to a town where a political trial is proceeding and hid him 'Mark, learn, and inwardly digest.' He would see much to astonish him. Passing by the hotel patronised by the landlord party, he would probably observe a group consisting of the Magistrates who were to try the case, the Magistrates who were to command the police and the troops, several police officers with swords and revolvers, several officers of the Army, the counsel and solicitors for the Crown, and, to protect the whole party, a plain clothes detective. That, at least, is the sight which I saw last night, and it is a sight I have often seen in Ireland."

"Turning out this morning after 10 o'clock I found great preparations for meeting the enemy—I beg pardon, I mean our Irish fellow-subjects.—The hussars had saddled their horses, made ready their carbines, and were waiting the signal to mount. The men of the Welsh Regiment were seeing to their accoutrements and trying whether the locks of their rifles worked well. Police—some armed with rifles, others with batons—were pouring in from country stations, and those encamped in the town were preparing their weapons. In all 110 police, 34 hussars, and 50 infantry soldiers were present to make it quite certain that respect for the law is completely restored in Ireland."

The correspondent then gave some details of the trial, and proceeded—

"The Magistrates who were to try a Member of Parliament on a highly complicated charge which would test the acumen of the most learned and skilful judge were Mr. Irwin, a promoted officer of the police, and Colonel Caddell, an ex-soldier. By no possibility could either of these gentlemen have had any legal training worth speaking of, and if an intricate question of law were to arise they were bound to go slap-dash at their conclusion. Now it turned out that the question they had to try was in a singular degree one which the most cultivated lawyer would have faced with hesitation. The charge in the summons was that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Gilhooly had entered into a criminal conspiracy to induce certain persons not to fulfil their legal obligations. Amplified by Mr. Ryan, Q.C, the prosecuting counsel, the formal charge meant this—that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Gilhooly had delivered speeches at Clonakilty, the object of which was to put pressure on Mr. Smith-Barry to desist from his Ponsonby estate operations by inducing his tenants to withhold their rents."

The hon. Member has already alluded to the evidence given in the case, and certainly there was perjury on the part of the police officer, who pretended to have taken shorthand notes. Writing later, the correspondent said—

"A wretched and miserable farce is just over. I suppose that no man with the slightest legal training—I will go further, and say no man with common sense—could have sat in Court this day and have come away without being convinced that wherever the interests of the land- lords are concerned impartial justice cannot he expected from Irish Resident Magistrates."

I have given the Committee some details of the case in order to show how justice is administered in the eyes of an independent observer. I desire now to refer to the attitude of the Irish Magistracy towards Members of Parliament. The Chief Secretary says that if Members of Parliament break the law they should be prosecuted the same as other people, and there I agree with him. But the point in which I differ from him is that Members of Parliament should not be punished because they are Members of Parliament, and that is the crux of the Irish situation. I put it to Gentlemen opposite who have judicial instincts whether after the strong, powerful, and excited speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) to-night, in which speech he mentioned by name certain of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland, it would be decent in case of any alleged infraction of the law by him—I will not put it stronger—that he should be tried by the men he has denounced to night? Is it human to expect justice under such circumstances? Would it be considered fair to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), for instance, that he should be tried for anything he may have said or done, by a Court composed of Gentlemen below the Opposition Gangway? The Irish Resident Magistrates assume that they are part of the great army in the controversy which is now going on, that they are fighting under a distinguished and able general, and that their policy and aim is not the administration of justice, but the winning of a political victory against their political opponents. Let us take the case of the prosecution of the Rev. Mr. Crawley, a Roman Catholic curate, on the charge of having intimidated a Protestant rector. I think a little common sense would suggest to any impartial spectator that where a Catholic clergyman is accused of intimidating a Protestant clergyman, or where a Protestant clergyman is charged with intimidating a Catholic clergyman, or any other clergyman, a good deal of caution should be exercised in dealing with the case, a case which evidently, in the first instance, is not entirely disconnected with sectarian rivalry. But I am not going into the case. I understand it was a case of strong language; and, as a friend said to me the other day, any English Magistrate would have dismissed it. Captain Welsh and Mr. Cecil Roche were the two Judges in the case. Captain Welsh said the defendant was represented as being in a position to sway the people of the district. As the language he addressed to the people carried great weight the Magistrates had no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the Rev. Mr. Hopley and Sergeant Burke were intimidated, and they sentenced the defendant to a month's imprisonment in each of the cases. Would any English Magistrate have sentenced the defendant to a month's imprisonment? Captain Walsh added that, to prevent the recurrence of the use of such language in the future, they would bind the defendant over in one surety of £40, and two of £20 each, to be of good behaviour, after the expiration of his sentence, for 12 months. In default of finding those sureties he was to go to gaol for six months. I call that a travesty—a prostitution of justice. But that evidently did not come up to the requirements of Mr. Cecil Roche, who said—

"The defendant was a very remarkable man. Of considerable power of mind, of splendid physique, he had acted kindly towards his parishioners, who were an ignorant, wild set of people, half mountaineers, half seafaring men. Rightly and properly, he had great influence over them. The part Father Crawley had taken between landlord and tenant was praiseworthy and creditable, but his intense egotism had led him astray."

Fancy Members of Parliament being convicted for intense egotism! Mr. Cecil Roche evidently regards himself as dictator. Such words would never be used in English or Scotch Courts. If any Magistrate acted like Mr. Cecil Roche, the Lord Chancellor would immediately have him removed. The Resident Magistrates have no knowledge of law, and do not appreciate the elementary principles of justice. They are in the thick of a great political fight, and are conscientiously convinced that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is the best policy for Ireland, and that advocated on these Benches the worst; but they are not qualified men to steer an even keel in a country where agrarian disputes are the main source of all criminal trouble. These Magistrates connected with, inflnenced by, belonging to, one class, are not competent to deal out even-handed justice, and the result of their action proves it. What you have said à priori would happen, has happened, in almost every case brought before us. The other night the Chief Secretary made a startling admission. I admire him for having the courage of his convictions. He never shrinks from a paradox, however it may turn against him, or stays to fence with qualifications of the case he makes in his defence.

"It may, he said, be the result of three centuries of mis-government. I form no opinion on that, but the condition of Ireland is such that practically three-fourths of the people cannot he trusted to keep their oaths as jurymen on a trial, and, therefore, a system of procedure unknown in this country had been pursued by successive Governments in Ireland."

Is he going to say the same thing to-night; is he going to say it is impossible to trust the people of Ireland, and hence it is necessary to adopt the system of administration of justice? Is it a necessity in Ireland that we should autocratically and despotically administer justice, shutting the people out from their share in the administration, relying on administration by Magistrates alone? Then I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have competent Magistrates, men like those whom we send to India and to the colonies, and those whom we have in England and in Scotland, men apart from all political prejudice, so that they will show to the people of Ireland that, no matter whether they have Home Rule or rule at Westminster, wherever the Queen's power extends justice will be fairly and impartially administered. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has said that he is striving for principles which lie at the root of civilisation. There is a greater principle than he contends for which lies at the root of all civilisation and society, and that is the pure and impartial administration of justice. In that consists the condemnation of the present system, which we so much deplore, and are trying to put an end to. Whether we succeed or fail—I do not wish to mix this question up with Party politics—I make one more appeal to him, not to defend the present system, but to ask the House of Commons to help him to remedy what is a national danger and a national disgrace.

Every one who has heard the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not an unwelcome interruption to the ordinary course of invective in this Debate against Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman has tried, and successfully tried, to keep the question of politics out of sight, and has asked me to do the same. The right hon. Gentleman has made no personal attack on the Government, who can defend themselves, or upon individual Magistrates, who cannot defend themselves, and, for my own part, I will endeavour in the observations I have to make to follow the example which the right hon. Gentleman has set. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that politics ought not to be allowed to enter into any question connected with the administration of the law in Ireland. In one sense of that recommendation every human being who heard, and every human being who may read those words will, I am sure, cordially agree. That the course of justice should be diverted, if only by a hair's breadth, to serve the interests of any political Party, would be a horrible and disgraceful thing; but if the right hon. Gentleman means, by what he has said, that the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland, in the state of opinion of the Irish people as they were now led in certain parts of Ireland, is to be kept wholly independent of political objects which the commission of crime is intended to attain, that, I think, is not at present possible. The right hon. Gentleman has argued throughout upon the hypothesis that the political objects of a great Party in Ireland are wholly independent of the Criminal Law and its administration. He has argued as if it had never occurred to anybody in Ireland to commit a breach of the Common Law or the Statute Law, in order to gain a political object. I do not wish to introduce more controversial subjects than I am obliged; but the right hon. Gentleman knows that, whether rightly or wrongly, the Government do not follow that opinion, but are forced to the melancholy conclusion that political objects in Ireland for the last 10 years have been aimed at by criminal methods. As long as that unhappy state of things continues, so long as political objects are arrived at by criminal methods, so long will trials which ought to be purely criminal trials, and abstracted entirely on the part of the audience as well as the Judge from all political considerations, be attended with those unfortunate symptoms which the right hon. Gentleman has described, of an excited mob and disgraceful scenes in the streets, which have, unfortunately, so often accompanied the administration of justice in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asks me how it is possible and legitimate to try, for example, the hon. Member for East Mayo before one of the Magistrates he has so cruelly aspersed in his speech. I admit that the fact that the administration of Criminal Law is—through no fault of ours—mixed up with politics, is a great misfortune and a difficulty. But because the hon. Member for East Mayo chooses to make this sort of attack on the Magistrates, is he to be allowed to break the law in Ireland with impunity? I take a purely hypothetical case never likely to occur. I trust the hon. Member will never come into collision with the administration of the Criminal Law; but supposing that the hon. Member, in carrying out his political object, does resort to methods regarded as criminal by the law of the country, is he not to be tried because he has thought fit, in the exercise of his duty, to make a violent and, I am bound to add, a discreditable attack upon certain Magistrates?

I did not say that he was not to be tried, but that he should be tried by an impartial tribunal.

That is to say, it only rests with the hon. Member to attack every tribunal—and to do him justice, I think he has attacked every tribunal in turn. Attempts were made in these Debates yesterday to attack the High Court, and this evening to attack the County Court Judges, attacks which were only prevented by the ruling of the Chairman, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if his principle is to be carried out, an hon. Member will only have to add to a breach of the law a violent attack in this House on the tribunal which would have to adjudicate, and he will secure immunity for himself. I have only taken the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo, because it has been cited by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not assume that the hon. Member contemplates any breach of the Criminal Law. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to apply to this system in Ireland the test of experience. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is the proper test to apply. If experience shows that the present system in Ireland works tolerably well, I presume that the case will fail that we ought, by spending a great deal more money, to get a class of men who will not serve at the present salaries. In order to see whether, in a normal condition of society, the existing system of Magistrates works well, we have only to look at that part of Ireland which is in a normal state, and I maintain that in Ulster, or, at all events, in those parts of Ulster which are not disturbed (I am aware that there is a certain amount of disturbance in Donegal), the system works admirably. It is only when, in the exercise of their duty, through no fault of their own, politics are connected with these breaches of the Criminal Law, that it is alleged that the Magistrates fail. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have to deal with a very difficult law, and that they have no legal training. For my own part, I am not prepared to admit that in England experience shows that men of the same class as the Resident Magistrates, military men and others, are incapable of dealing with such matters. How many Chairmen of Quarter Sessions are old officers? The right hon. Gentleman assumes that experience in the Army for a good many years renders a man incapable of performing such duties. For my own part, I maintain that some of the best Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have had precisely the same kind of legal training as these Resident Magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman says the law which these Resident Magistrates have to administer is very difficult, especially the law of conspiracy, but Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have also to administer the law of conspiracy. ["No, no!"] Of that I do not speak with confidence, but I refer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the administration is difficult. We have heard a great deal of the right of appeal, and the right hon. Gentleman has reminded the Committee that there is no right of appeal from a conviction where the sentence is below a month. But on a point of law, whatever the sentence may be, there is an appeal to a Court which the right hon. Gentleman will admit is competent—namely, the Court of Exchequer or the Queen's Bench—by case stated. I have no doubt that appeals on points of law have been taken exactly in those cases where, in the opinion of the defendants' counsel, the Resident Magistrates had shown themselves weakest in law. Since the passing of the Crimes Act to July 1, 1890, there have been 25 appeals to the Court of Exchequer or the Queen's Bench by cases stated. Of these 25 cases, obviously those in which the Resident Magistrates were considered weakest, only three were reversed, and the remaining 22 were affirmed. Therefore, I say that, looking to past experience of the law administered by these gentlemen, it is not at all so weak as the right hon. Gentleman would lead the Committee to believe. The right hon. Gentleman has examined the cases in which there have been appeals on the facts, but I was not quite able to follow the right hon. Gentleman's figures. According to a Return furnished I find that from November, 1888, to June, 1890, 1,393 cases were tried. The number of appeals lodged in that period was 256, and of these only 18 were reversed on appeal. That is a proof that, on the facts, as well as on the law, experience demonstrates that these tribunals are competent, fair, and honest tribunals.

The right hon. Gentleman has left out the cases of reductions of sentences.

There were, no doubt, some 60 cases in which there were reductions of sentence. But with respect to those it must be remembered that two Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction often pass different sentences on cases apparently similar. But such differences of opinion by no means demonstrate that the Court of first instance did not do its duty. As my right hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General for Ireland) reminds me, on appeal the cases were re-heard, and therefore evidence not before the Court below might be, and probably was in most instances, called in the Court above, and, further, that in several cases the sentences have been increased for the very purpose of giving a right of appeal. Therefore the mere fact that a sentence was reduced on appeal by no means demonstrates that the Court of first instance did not do its duty. I pass from that general criticism on Courts of first instance in Ireland to certain specific allegations made by the hon. Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork. The hon. Member for East Mayo accuses the Government of having broken their pledges in not having regularised the position of the Divisional Commissioners by Act of Parliament. Is there any human being who, in the present state of public business, would do anything by Act of Parliament which could be done in any other way? Would it be common sense to come for an Act when we found that it was unnecessary for us to do so? The hon. Gentleman said such a Bill would have been met with the same kind of resistance as the Bill for the appointment of an Assistant Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was met with. If that is so, the Government were justified in taking the obviously rational course of avoiding the difficulty by not coming to Parliament at all. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to make a most violent attack, and exhausted even his budget of invective upon Colonel Turner. But when it all comes to be analysed it amounts to this. Colonel Turner lived with Mr. Stacpoole, who was a landlord in Clare. On account of that unforgiveable offence he has been described as a man who acted as Mr. Stacpoole's lackey, who is unworthy of the confidence of the Government, who ought to be dismissed on the earliest possible occasion, and who is a proper target for the ordinary arrows of Nationalist invective. Why should not Colonel Turner stay in Mr. Stacpoole's house? Is every man who stays in a country house the lackey of his host? Is every man who stays in a country house incapable of doing justice? Is it an iniquity to use the carriage of your host to go to a neighbouring town? Incredible as it may seem to hon. Members who were not in the House when the hon. Member made his speech, that is one of the chief counts in the indictment against Colonel Turner He drove from Mr. Stacpoole's residence into Ennis in Mr. Stacpoole's carriage! Monstrous enormity! Horrible iniquity! Ireland indeed requires Home Rule when such things as these are done in that unhappy country.

Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he approves of the action of Colonel Turner in becoming an inmate of the house of a land agent in County Clare, in the then condition of the county?

Colonel Turner has never asked me whether I approved or not, and I think it would be grossly impertinent if I interfered in such a matter by expressing any opinion at all. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be driven to rely on his attack on the Irish Magistracy, on some old and some very hypothetical incidents. He gave a long account of what happened seven or eight years ago in County Mayo in connection with a Resident Magistrate, since dead. That might have been a good thing to bring up on the Estimates seven or eight years ago, but it is not a good thing to bring before the Committee now, because it can afford them no guide as to the course they ought to pursue with regard to the present Estimates. The hon. Gentleman then related what occurred to him at Tipperary. He said-he was talking to some friends when Colonel Caddell ordered the police to draw their batons and charge. The hon. Gentleman said the police did not obey their orders, and so nothing happened. But supposing, the hon. Gentleman said, something had happened, then Colonel Caddell would have had to try the case of an injury inflicted in obedience to his own orders. I think the hon. Gentleman in stating this hypothetical case has fallen into several serious errors. Colonel Caddell did not order a charge; the police did not disobey his orders, and if batons were not drawn on that occasion it was because the police followed strictly the orders given by Colonel Caddell.

I heard the order to draw batons given myself.

I believe I have stated the facts as I have been told them by Colonel Caddell; but, at any rate, Colonel Caddell gave no direction which would have justified the police in batoning the hon. Gentleman or his friends. Then the hon. Member said, supposing he had been brought before Colonel Caddell as the result of what might have happened? The hon. Gentleman and his friends have said over and over again that the utmost care ought to be taken not to mix up executive and judicial functions. With that I agree, and every effort is made by the Irish Government not to allow the man who has executive functions to perform to adjudicate on the cases arising out of that executive action. It is in order to pursue that rule that it is necessary to make Resident Magistrates leave one district and go into another.

How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the case of Nunan and Hogan, in which Colonel Caddell combined the two functions?

The two women referred to by the hon. Member were bound over by Colonel Caddell to keep the peace on a day subsequent to the disorder in which they were concerned. Colonel Caddell could have performed that operation on the spot. He preferred to do it next day, and he did it next day. The facts of that case, therefore, do not bear out the contention of the hon. Member. No Resident Magistrate has ever ordered a baton charge and then directed a prosecution of those charged.

Yes; Mr. Roche did on three occasions.

The hon. Member is mistaken.

No, I am not mistaken. It occurred in my own constituency. I know Mr. Roche quite as well as you.

The other chief ease brought against Colonel Caddell was in connection with the funeral of a man named O'Dwyer. The hon. Member accused the police of violating the graveside, of desecrating the feelings of the relatives of the dead, and of behaving in a way in which no one in a civilised country ought to behave. I will remind the Committee of the facts connected with that funeral. If it had been an ordinary funeral, merely an occasion on which the relatives committed to the earth the body of one who had been dearly connected with them, and chose that occasion for the display of natural emotion, interference by the police would have been monstrous. But was this so? Does the hon. Member claim immunity for a funeral when it is made the occasion of a political demonstration? I think that the hon. Member will feel it to be absurd to put forward any such claim. It had been published abroad that the hon. Member himself was going to the funeral, and that other political friends would be present. There were 12 policemen told off to protect the reporter on that occasion. There were nine reporters not connected with the police present. On this sacred and solemn occasion, therefore, there were nine reporters, I presume, of the Nationalist Press who had come to the grave not to make public the family grief, but in order to take down the speech which the hon. Member might deliver and publish his words all over Ireland with a political object. I am far from saying that the action of the police on that occasion was necessary, but to describe it as a desecration of the grave is surely absurd. There was no attempt to interfere with anyone present.

Yes. They shouldered the people out of the way.

The police were there because they believed, on good evidence, that this was a political demonstration, and whether they were right or wrong, whether they were necessary or unnecessary, I maintain that the attacks which have been made are utterly outrageous and beyond the merits of the case. There have been cases in which graves have been desecrated and funeral processions interfered with. The other day when a policeman was burying his child in Tipperary the unfortunate mother and father, standing by the grave-side, were assaulted by stones.

That is false.

As they were standing by the grave they were assaulted with stones thrown by the roughs of Tipperary. I call such conduct as that interfering with the last rites of the dead, and in a manner which is disgraceful and discreditable. Some moderation, however, might be shown by hon. Gentlemen in the language which they use. The hon. Member for East Mayo not only denounced in the most violent language the character of the Magistrates with whom he has been brought into conflict, but he announced his intention of raking up details of their private life, and of dragging out anything which he thought could be twisted into an accusation against them. I have never listened with greater pain to any speech delivered than to this one. I think it most discreditable to the hon. Member who made it. As for Colonel Caddell, who has been made the object of a vituperative attack by the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, who has used language which he would never dare to use outside the House, this Magistrate has nothing to fear from attacks of that kind. If the hon. Member wishes to rake up details about Colonel Caddell's private life I will give the hon. Member some assistance in the task he is undertaking. Colonel Caddell was 23½ years in the Royal Irish Fusiliers; he was an instructor of musketry for three and a half years, an Adjutant in Louth, Deputy Assistant Adjutant General in Belfast during the critical time of the riots; he served in the Soudan campaign of 1884, for which he received a medal and the Khedivial decoration. Colonel Caddell has served and is serving his country, and such attacks as have been made upon him this evening will do nothing to sully the reputation of a man like him. I do not ask hon. Members to moderate the attacks which they make on the Government or the officials in Ireland. Let them make what attacks they please, but surely the private life of those individuals might be sacred. Surely those who from the vantage ground of this House may say anything they please without being called to account for it, might feel that that privilege carries with it some duties; and it is discreditable not only to themselves, but to the cause they desire to serve, that they should seek to use the language of private calumny and private slander.

As a matter of personal explanation, I should like to say that nothing was further from my mind than that I should employ the vantage ground of this House to make an attack upon any one and which I should be afraid to repeat outside. When I attacked Captain Segrave I did so outside this House, and I shall do the same in the ease of Colonel Caddell.

The speech just delivered by the Chief Secretary of Ireland renders it very difficult for me to make the speech which I had intended to make on this occasion. I am bound to say that with a long experience in England I cannot conceive the possibility of police acting at funerals in the way which has been described to-night by the Chief Secretary himself without causing much exasperation and irritation by their presence, and I would suggest that it would be better far that one or two rash speeches should escape notice rather than that the people assembling to pay the last farewell to the remains of their friends should be insulted by the presence of the uniformed' officers of the Crown. It was not, however, for that that I rose, but to deal with a case which was discussed two days ago, and which has not yet received any notice at the hands of the Chief Secretary or of the law officers of the Crown. It is the case of Mr. John Kelly, who was charged with conspiracy, and sent to gaol by Mr. Meldon and Colonel Waring for four months with hard labour. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton dealt with the difficulty of the law of conspiracy in a way which saves me the necessity of delivering some remarks I had intended to make. Lord Justice Jervis, one of the most eminent lawyers who ever sat in the Court of Common Pleas in this country, once said that the charge of conspiracy was one of the easiest to make and one of the most difficult to prove. If he had had the experience which we have had of the procedure before these Resident Magistrates, I think he would have come to the conclusion that it is quite as easy to prove as it is to make, especially if he had had any knowledge of the case which I am now discussing. There was not, so far as I am able to learn, a shadow of evidence upon which any reasonable jury would have convicted this gentleman of the charge of conspiracy. A charge of intimidation was preferred against him, but on that he was acquitted by the Resident Magistrates themselves. The general charge of conspiracy was proved by two speeches, one of which was made by Mr. O'Dwyer, who was in Mr. Kelly's company on the occasion of the proceedings which immediately led to his arrest. The speech itself was, however, made in Mr. Kelly's absence, and it was not suggested that Mr. Kelly could possibly have known anything about it until long after it was delivered. The second speech was one delivered by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, and Mr. Kelly certainly could not have known anything of that, because he was in gaol at the time of its delivery. Now, these were the only two speeches on which this charge of conspiracy was founded. It is, I think, necessary that a tribunal which deals with charges of conspiracy should be, from a commonsense point of view, a jury of twelve impartial men, and, from a legal point of view, a high judicial functionary beyond suspicion in dealing with such a case. But what have we here in this case? I say, without fear of contradiction, there was no attempt on the part of the Chief Secretary, who was present during part of the Debate the other night, or on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland, who was in the House the whole time, to answer the case made out by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Dublin against Mr. Kelly's conviction. The case against Mr. Kelly did not involve one single overt act except those I am just about to put to the Committee. All that was shown against him was that, in company with Mr. O'Dwyer, he had gone on to the estate of the hon. Member for South Hunts, and that he had driven on an outside car to the houses of different tenants. There was not a particle of evidence of anything that happened at any one of those places. Of course, if you intend to assume that a man is guilty, and if you intend to convict him, I can quite understand that you may manufacture out of several harmless acts some conclusion in support of a conviction. But there was not a particle of evidence against Mr. Kelly. He went, no doubt, into several of the tenants' houses. It was not alleged that any language was used by him in any of the cases save one. In that one case he appears to have talked with the wife of one of the tenants just outside the house, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who has carried espionage in Ireland to an extent utterly unknown in the history of that unfortunate country, was served to this extent by a constable who was hiding behind a hedge, and who stated he heard the woman say: "This is the real campaign ground about here;" that Mr. Michael O'Dwyer, who was in company with Mr. Kelly said, "Yes, that is the woman to fight;" while Mr. Kelly re joined, "I find that women are a great deal more determined for us than are the men." Now, the only possible portion of the phrase on which there could be a shadow of defence for saying that any sane man could come to the conclusion that a conspiracy existed was contained in the words "for us." What did "for us" mean? What ought it to have meant? What ought the Magistrates to have imported into the meaning? What would a jury have imported into it? Would they have imported the language of the hon. Member for North-East Cork delivered at a time when Mr. Kelly was in gaol? Would they have imported into it the speech of Mr. O'Dwyer delivered some time previously, also in Mr. Kelly's absence? I say it would have been impossible to get an English jury or an English Magistrate to convict under circumstances of that kind. But the Resident Magistrates, having found a general conspiracy in the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, which, I believe is the very speech to which he drew attention in the earlier part of this evening, and having found also a conspiracy in the speech of Mr. O'Dwyer, they import Mr. Kelly into that conspiracy, because he happens to have used the words "for us" in a careless way to a woman who was using language quite natural on the part of a woman in that position. Rightly or wrongly, no doubt there is a conflict in that district between landlord and tenant, and it is a conflict of a most bitter kind. It is not a conflict brought about by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, or by any other hon. Member. It is a conflict which began unfortunately before they were born, and it arose out of a bad state of things which has long prevailed in Ireland. I mentioned on one occasion on which I addressed this House how much I had been struck by some articles in Blackwood for 1844, 1845, and 1846, dealing with the state of things between landlord and tenant in Ireland at that time. You might reprint those articles as descriptive of what is happening in that country to-day. The only difference is that now you have less crime, fewer murders, less moonlighting and outrage, and that is due to the hope put into the minds of the tenantry by the hon. Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork and their colleagues—a hope which induces them to act within the law, because they believe that sooner or later some kind of justice will be achieved for them. Mr. Kelly was found guilty of conspiracy by two Resident Magistrates. In England, over and over again, Judges, when trying cases of conspiracy in which questions of politics might be imported, have warned juries to use the utmost care in weighing the evidence submitted to them. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to urge that he has a right, in cases in which criminal acts are committed for political objects, to resort to special methods for the purpose of dealing with them. I cannot help thinking that he has done much to lower the view which English people will take of Irish justice. I feel sure that the course which is being pursued, and which was pursued in the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo himself when he was brought within the grasp of the Resident Magistrates by the direct act of the Chief Secretary in proclaiming a district so as to bring it within the operation of the Crimes Act, is a course which in England induces English voters—and I believe will still more do so at future elections—to give a rough rule-of-thumb verdict of justice. It will induce them to say that as your Resident Magistrates treat men whom you describe as criminals, as political foes, they are straining the law in sending them to gaol, and as a consequence the English people will, by their verdict, take the political power which you misuse out of your hands.

Before the Chief Secretary leaves his place, I beg to give a most emphatic denial to his statement that Magistrates do not act judicially and executively at the same time. Unless the Chief Secretary has a shorter memory than we give him credit for, it must have been within his knowledge that cases have been brought to his notice in this House. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget the Vandeleur evictions? Did not Roche at these evictions take part in a baton charge, actually using a stick himself, and did he not afterwards sit on the fence and have the very persons he had batoned brought before him and sentenced to imprisonment? If there is any shame in the world the Chief Secretary, addressing the House amid grave and awful accompaniments, might have paused before he delivered himself of these sentiments. I will give my own case, which was brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary, not only by myself, but by my hon. Friend while I was in prison. Roche, who presided in the case, went out to the steps of the Courthouse of Tralee and ordered a baton charge on the people who had ventured to cheer for me when I came out under arrest. Roche led the charge himself with a stick in his hand, and he never allowed me to go out of his sight until he had lodged me in gaol. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that that is the reverse of the process that has already been referred to—that the Magistrate sat on the Bench first, and lugged his prisoner to gaol afterwards, but I have also brought to the Chief Secretary's notice the case in Dingle of the unfortunate man Ferriter, who was put in gaol time after time for the crime, as it was then, of selling copies of United Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has said there has been no change in his policy—that there has been no change in the administration of the Crimes Act. Why, then, is Ferriter not in gaol to-day? He is still selling United Ireland. This man was brought before Mr. Roche and sentenced, and here also that Magistrate made a baton charge on the crowd, heading the police himself. Several men were arrested, and these men Roche at once proceeded to try. They were committed to prison, and Roche accompanied them and the man he originally tried, to Tralee, a distance of 34 miles. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny this fact? The right hon. Gentleman said I was mistaken. I was not. There are things which have caused our blood to boil and our flesh to creep. I, myself, have seen Resident Magistrates ruthlessly and mercilessly leading these baton charges, and afterwards sitting in judgment on the cases of the very men they had attacked time after time. Instances of this kind have come before me, and I can, if the Chief Secretary challenges the fact, identify these cases by the dates and the particular sentences inflicted. It is a hard thing for an Irishman to trust himself to speak on these subjects. Our feeling is not so much one of hatred as it is of extreme loathing and contempt, and it is very hard for us, knowing how the Government are championed by the political supporters who sit behind the Front Bench, to keep our temper when these statements are made. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, born as I was among the Irish people, that I know them to have a strong sense of propriety in these matters, and that nothing more easily arouses their indignation than when they see those who have to administer the law, and are supposed to administer it equally, making common cause with those who side against them. The Irish people would spurn us if we showed the same partiality as the right hon. Gentleman wants the Resident Magistrates to show, and we claim that these men who are drawn from the off-shoots of landlordism, should at least preserve the appearance of decency in the exercise of their functions.

I am almost ashamed to mention the trivial matters which I am about to bring before the Committee after listening to the expressions of honest indignation which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House. I can myself bear testimony to what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the partiality displayed by the Irish Magistrates, and I will give an instance. In April last I was on the Ponsonby Estate, during the evictions managed by Colonel Turner. I saw on a police car the agent for the Property Defence Association, and I am sorry the hon. Member for South Hunts is not in his place, as I should like him to hear what I have to say. It struck me with shame that the representative of one of the parties to the dispute on the estate should be honoured and protected by the authorities in that way; and I protested against it to Colonel Turner, saying it was a scandal that that person should be allowed so to use the public property. I am glad to say that Colonel Turner had sufficient sense of right to prevent a repetition of this display on the following day, and I am also glad to tell the Committee, because I sympathise with the people, that not a man was to be found in the Youghal district who would drive that individual. I remember on that occasion seeing the leader of the tenants rudely thrust back when he wished to enter premises from which a family was being evicted. It was his duty to take the number of the family so as to arrange for the accommodation they might require in order to protect them from the weather. He was, however, thrust back by the police, and that, too, from a place where he had a legal right to be. A lady who was with us, and whose warmhearted services to the people are deserving of all praise—Mrs. Byles, of Bradford—protested against the treatment of that young man. What happened? The Police Inspector, Inspector Hill, whose name is now familiar to us, declared that that person ought not to be permitted to enter the premises because he had been in prison. An appeal was made to Colonel Turner, and he replied that if the English ladies and gentlemen wished it the man should be admitted. Well, Sir, as an Englishman, I am ashamed to be represented in Ireland by men who can behave in that fashion. I know, from my experience in this House, that it is a waste of time for an English Member, not to speak of Irish Members, to complain of the conduct of the Irish Magistrates. No heed whatever is paid to us when we declare that the Irish Magistrates have broken the law. We are either not listened to or we are listened to with indifference when we complain of the brutality of these men. To my mind, it is a pity and a shame that English gentlemen should stoop so low as to make it appear, either by their speeches or their silence, that they believe their Colleagues in this House are capable of bearing false witness.

If I were a friend of the Chief Secretary, I should have compassion on him, because he is called upon to defend the actions and whitewash the blackened characters of his subordinates in Ireland. I should feel sorry that his great abilities were called in play to defend and whitewash a man like Colonel Caddell, whose conduct towards a lady, under most disgraceful circumstances, must be characterised as that of a blackguard. A man who, when remonstrated with by a reverend clergyman in the streets of Tipperary, had no other answer to give to that educated gentleman than to stick his tongue out and make use of insulting language. I say that the action of the Chief Secretary, in whitewashing that blackguard, places him in a position for which his friends ought to feel the greatest compassion. In his defence of Colonel Caddell, he deemed it his duty to make a charge against the people of Tipperary, that they committed an assault upon the police on the occasion of a funeral of a child. I could not hesitate on the spur of the moment in crying out that that was false, and I now say that the statement was one of those official falsehoods which we are accustomed to listen to in this House. When I was last in Tipperary, not long ago, I made it my business to inquire into this matter, and, after continued investigation, I could find no man in Tipperary who ever heard a word about this assault on the police. I went to the spot where the assault was said to have taken place, and none of the neighbours knew or could tell me anything about it. I asked Father Humphreys to investigate the matter, and he willingly undertook the work, and I will now read to the Committee a letter which he wrote to me after he had made that investigation. He says:—

"My dear Mr. O'Connor, since telegraphing to you, I have heard of what happened at the burial of Constable Corcolan's child. No one but the police attended the funeral. When they were passing through the street, some little children of eight or nine years old cried out after them 'Balfour, Balfour' and whistled 'Harvey Duff.' This was the mob who stoned the constables whilst burying a child. The very small children here have a habit of crying out 'Balfour' when they see a body of police passing through the town. I saw a child five years old doing this on a day of eviction. If there was a mob throwing stones, how was it that no one was summoned?"

This, Sir, is a pertinent question. The police were present in sufficient force at the funeral of the child; doubtless there were policemen at every corner in Tipperary. Yet no one was arrested. Not a single charge was made against anyone, and no complaint was made until we heard a statement in this House in reply to a put up question on the part of the hon. Member for Tyrone. I deny that this shameful charge has any foundation in fact, or that any justification can be found for making it, and I demand an investigation into all the circumstances connected with it. If that investigation should take place I venture to assert that the people of Tipperary will come out of it with much greater credit than the officials of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has defended Colonel Caddell, and told us that he does not unite in himself the administrative and executive functions. Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the sad and distressful case of the poor boy Heffernan, who was shot down in the streets of Tipperary by policemen who were under the command and direction of Colonel Caddell. In the course of the investigation which took place into that affair, it was proved that the police were not compelled to act as they did, and that an order had been issued that the greatest humanity, combined with prudence, should be exercised before any attempt was made to fire on the people, and that they should not fire until every other means of preserving their lives had been exhausted. It was proved in the case of the boy Hunt. A verdict of wilful murder was given against Carter. Informations were applied for, and Colonel Caddell, who commanded the police when this boy was killed, was one of the Magistrates who sat upon the Bench, and refused to grant informations against people who had been declared guilty of wilful murder by the Coroner's Jury. Why should the Irish people respect law and order when they find it ruthlessly set aside by the tools of the Government, and when they see the verdict of one of the oldest Courts known to the Constitution ignored? Allusion has been made to the invasion of the sacred rite of burial, in the case of O'Dwyer. It was carried out by Colonel Caddell, and it was a most disgraceful proceeding. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork had intended to make a speech, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is his Government so bad, is the conduct of the Resident Magistrates so atrocious, is the course of the Executive so ruthless, that the criticisms of my hon. Friend could not be permitted? I come to another statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. He defended Colonel Turner from the charge brought against him by the Member for East Mayo, of having stayed at the house of Mr. Stacpoole, a local landlord. No matter how the Chief Secretary may exhaust his powers of rhetoric in defending Colonel Turner, we still hold that it is a disgraceful thing for a man in his position to have stayed with a local landlord. Why did the Land Commissioners give orders to the Sub-Commissioners never to accept the hospitality of anybody connected with the land of Ireland? Because they knew that to do so would be to forfeit the confidence of the Irish people. Is it not the fact that in England Inspectors of Private Lunatic Asylums do not accept the hospitality of those whose institutions they inspect? The Factory Inspectors in England, too, do not accept the hospitality of anyone who is connected with a factory. But in the case of Magistrates in Ireland, they can accept the hospitality of those in whose interests the law is administered in Ireland. This Colonel Turner, fresh from the table, with his legs just drawn from under the mahogany of his friend, Mr. Stacpoole, ordered his soldiers to advance upon the people, and I counted 80 men with bleeding heads after the fray. Yet the right hon. Gentleman expects the Irish people to respect law and order, as administered by these people, who accept the hospitality of landlords and agents. The manner in which the law is administered is illustrated by the remark of Colonel Carew, who said, "I do not care what the law is, but I do care about the instructions from Dublin Castle." Cheering for Mr. Gladstone is a crime to be punished, or calling a donkey by the name of Mr. Balfour, or winking at pigs at the fair, is a heinous offence. Indeed, the Magistrates have tortured the law so as to punish those whom they are obliged to declare innocent, Now, Sir; on the 2nd of July, last year, my hon. friend the Member for Mid Cork visited the town of Tipperary, and he was met by a number of people, whe cheered him. The Police Magistrates considered that a very grave offence, and accordingly some 15 or 16 of these men, young fellows, were brought before the Magistrates. They were solemnly charged, and the case was investigated. The Magistrates retired to consult, and when they returned, one of the young men was dismissed, but with regard to the other 14 or 15, Mr. Meldon said they must stop such disorderly proceedings as cheering for the hon. Member for Mid Cork, and he ordered the defendants to find bail to be of good behaviour for 12 months, or go to gaol for two months. The defendants at once refused to give bail, and said they were ready to go to gaol. That is what I call a straining of the law by the Magistrates. I remember, Sir, reading of the crowd in Liverpool, on the occasion of a great trial, in which a woman was charged with poisoning her husband, expressing by groans its disapproval of the jury who found her guilty. People were so indignant at the verdict that they groaned at the jury and they groaned at the Judge; but there was no baton charge of the police, there were no arrests, no fines, and no imprisonment and why? What was the difference between the two cases? The only difference was this, that the people who cheered for Mrs. Maybrick in Liverpool were Englishmen, and the men who cheered for Dr. Tanner in Ireland were Irishmen. The law was broken, if broken at all, as much in the one case as in the other. I have another case to refer to. There is in Tipperary a man of great influence and great respectability although sometimes the Chief Secretary, as is his wont, tries to throw aspersions on his character. I allude to Mr. John Cullinane, who I might say is my premier constituent. His great offence in the eyes of the Magistrates is that he has great influence with the people. He has often been accused before the Magistrates, but the Magistrates have been obliged to admit that he used his best efforts to keep the peace, and to prevent riots taking place. Recently Mr. Cullinane was brought before Removables Irwin and Caddell, and charged with having taken part in an unlawful assembly. The unlawful assembly consisted in a procession of carts passing through the streets of Tipperary. These carts had been engaged throughout the day in removing earth from one place to another, in order to level the ground for the building of houses for the evicted tenants of Tipperary. The neighbours of these people of Tipperary had engaged in what they believed to be a charitable work. They were formed into a procession by Mr. Cullinane, who believed that would be the best and more orderly manner in which they could get out of the town, as it would prevent delay, it would prevent stopping at public houses, and it would ensure that no opportunity would be given to the police to baton the people. Well, he marched them through the town, and was charged in consequence with an unlawful assembly. The case was solemnly tried by Mr. Irwin and Colonel Caddell. Well, Colonel Caddell, the hero of the Chief Secretary, the warrior with medals and honors, who insults evicted tenants when they are helpless females, who sticks out his tongue at an educated and respected rev. gentleman who addresses a civil question to him—even he could not find that Mr. Cullinane was guilty of unlawful assembly. He said it was for them to consider whether such circumstances existed as put people of firm minds in dread and terror. They did not feel that they would be justified in coming to such a conclusion, and therefore they dismissed the charge of unlawful assembly. But on the evidence before them it appeared that this gathering was "immensely excessive." In other words, Mr. Cullinane was guilty in the eyes of the Magistrates of an excess of legality, because they declared that the assembly was lawful. He was thereupon ordered to find bail, himself in £100 and two sureties in £50 each, to be of good behaviour for 12 months, or in default to be imprisoned for six weeks. Of course, Mr. Cullinane, as an honourable man, would not admit he had been guilty of any offence. If he had given bail for his good behaviour it would have been an admission that he was of bad behaviour, and he therefore elected to go to gaol for six weeks. Thus the Magistrates used the Act of Edward III., not for the purpose of punishing those who are guilty of crime, but in order to put out of the way the enemies of landlordism as it at present exists, and the friends of the people whose only offence is that they are the political opponents of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I shall allude to only one other phase of this question. The Magistrates in Ireland have incited the police to the commission of violent acts, at the time young Heffernan lost his life there was also another man named O'Donovan who was shot down by the police. In reference to this case Mr. Cecil Roche said—

"I quite agree with the sentence of the Court, and I wish to say that in any other country in the civilised world had these men attacked the administrators of the law in the way they have, their lives might have been taken, and they (the police) would have been justified by the Government in taking their lives."

Now, Sir, that language was used by a man in a judicial capacity, and was addressed to a Force which is in a most excited state, and to men who, when they have deadly weapons in their hands are allowed to take drink to an extraordinary degree. In the trial alluded to by Mr. Cecil Roche, on that occasion, it was proved that the man who fired the shot was such a bad character in the eyes of the police that he was several times fined, according to his admission, for want of discipline and for drunkenness. This, taken in connection with language used in another case, is very significant. Mr. Bolton, Crown Prosecutor, said, in open Court, that he was sorry to hear it stated that the police had no right to defend themselves unless the Riot Act had been read three times. He declared that a more absurd statement had never been made and that whether or not the Riot Act was read, and even without command from their officers, the police were entitled to defend themselves with their weapons if attacked by civilians. Now, what I want to point out is, that these two speeches, when taken together, show design on the part of those administering the law in Ireland to incite the police to the commission of murder. After such language as that any constable may say, "I may shoot, maim, kill, bludgeon as much as I like; I have only to say my life is in danger, and whatever I do I shall be defended by Mr. Bolton, the Crown Prosecutor, and shall be acquitted by Mr. Roche, the Resident Magistrate." At the time he made the speech to which I have referred, Mr. Roche said that stones were "deadly weapons," hence we have it that if a small boy—an irresponsible child—hurls a stone at the police in Ireland, it may be taken as an excuse for turning round on a peaceful meeting of citizens in Tipperary, Kerry, or Cork, and firing volley after volley into them. I say that such language as that, coming from such men in authority, and used in the presence of men who are already in a state of excitement, is nothing more nor less than an incitement to murder. We are often told by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, who sometimes acts as his lieutenant, that we have the law open to us in Ireland. I imagine these poor people going before Colonel Caddell or Mr. Cecil Roche—the latter holding his drum-dead court-martial. After an eviction this Mr. Cecil Roche sits on a stone at the road-side, and, after his baton charges, having arrested people, tries them, and gives them six months' imprisonment. Imagine going before this gentleman and expecting to get justice. The Chief Secretary is fond of saying that the ordinary protection of the law is open to the poor people of Ireland. One man in Cashel, a discharged soldier, not long ago took the Chief Secretary at his word, having been seriously assaulted by a constable. It seems that some children were parading the streets, jeering at the police, and singing songs. The only people in the street besides the children were four men standing at a corner, one of whom was the discharged soldier. This man was assaulted by a policeman in a most wanton manner, and, relying on the word of the Chief Secretary, he brought an action against the constable for breaking a blackthorn stick across his head. It was proved that the assault had been committed, and one of the Inspectors was asked—

"Did the men at the corner do anything?"

The answer was—

"No, but I considered if they were allowed to remain they might do something."

The Magistrate heard the case, but the oath of the discharged soldier, who is yet liable to be called upon to shed his blood for his country, for he is in the Reserves, went for nothing, and that of the Inspector, who said that the four men, if they had been allowed to remain on the corner of the street, might have done something, was believed. The Magistrates, to whom we are asked to appeal for justice, dismissed the case against the police. Now, Sir, this case, which could be multiplied a hundreds fold, if it stood alone, would be enough to justify us in taking up the position that the Irish people cannot expect justice in Courts presided over by Resident Magistrates, for the reason that those Magistrates are all on one side in Ireland, that side being the landlords and land agents. That is the side of the Government, who are the friends of the landlords, and the people feel it is no use to expect justice from these Magistrates whose salaries we vote tonight.