said, that in moving the re-committal of this Bill and the Instruction, he must repeat what he said yesterday, that he would have preferred the method of procedure which the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. J. O'Connor) proposed to adopt, as he considered it would be a more expeditious way of achieving the object he had in view; but inasmuch as that method of procedure had been ruled out of Order, there was no alternative open to him but to make the Motion which he now made. He might mention that he had made this Instruction mandatory for the purpose of giving time. The present Bill was a Bill to constitute a joint Drainage Board for the purpose of carrying out a considerable scheme of drainage for the two townships of Blackrock and Kingstown. This Drainage Board was to be composed equally of members chosen by the Kingstown Township Board and the Blackrock Township Board, and he sought to put into the Bill a clause reducing the township franchise in Blackrock to £4. At present the Municipal franchise in Kingstown was £4, in Blackrock it was £8. So that if the Bill passed in its present form they would have one-half of the Drainage Board elected on a £4 franchise, and the other half elected on an £8 franchise. The number of Municipal voters in Blackrock was absurdly small when compared with the population, and when compared with the number of Parliamentary voters. The population of Blackrock was, in round numbers, about 9,000; the Parliamentary electorate was between 1,100 and 1,200, while the Municipal franchise was a little over 500, and he might observe that, owing to the want of a system of revision, the Municipal electorate was yearly decreasing. In 1890 the electorate was 682; in 1891 it was reduced to 605; in 1892 it was reduced to 586, and he was informed that there was every probability that when the lists for this year were made out, it would be found that the number of Municipal electors in Blackrock would not be much more than 500. He asserted that that was a gross anomaly when they considered the population, and also the number of Parliamentary voters. It was often said—and he dared say it would be said there that day—that the ratepayers were more interested than any other class of ratepayers in schemes such as this. But the curious thing was that the biggest ratepayers in the Blackrock township were absolutely not represented at all, and for this simple reason—that there was no provision whatever for joint occupation votes. There were several large establishments in Blackrock township with which he was personally acquainted. They paid the largest amount of rates, and owing to the fact that there was no provision for registering joint, occupiers every single one of these ratepayers was absolutely excluded from the list of voters. He was not in love with big ratepayers as a general rule, but he thought this state of things was a gross anomaly. All this was aggravated by the fact that there was absolutely no provision in the Township Act for the revision of votes. The Secretary of the Township Board was in this matter judge and jury, counsel, public, and all. He discharged the duty of revising the lists in his own office. Nobody knew how he did it or when he did it. He took the names from some list or other, and put them on or kept them off at his own sweet will and pleasure. He did not know anything about the gentleman himself, and he should be sorry, in the absence of definite information, to say that he misused his position. He did not allege that he did, because he was unable to prove it, and he should be sorry to allege anything he could not prove; but what he did say was this: that no single person ought to be entrusted with a duty of this description, which ought to be performed, as in the case of Parliamentary voters' revision, by a public officer in a public court with an opportunity to the voters of seeing that their rights were pro-served, and that no injury was done to them. In no case ought it to be possible for the revision to be effected as it was at the present moment in Blackrock. An objection was raised to his proposal by gentlemen who said that he proposed to introduce machinery in the Blackrock Township which did not exist in any of the other townships around Dublin except Kingstown. Instead of the fact that in none of the townships around Dublin did machinery exist for the public revision of the voters' lists being a ground for delay, he submitted that it was a ground for beginning the reform at once. Blackrock township had got into the control of a family ring. He made no charge against these gentlemen personally. Personally he knew nothing about them, though he knew most of them as politicians. They belonged to the richer class in Blackrock, and they managed the affairs of the Blackrock township to suit the purposes of the family ring which they constituted. They did not seem to care one farthing about the opinion of the ratepayers. If anything ought to be the property of the public it was the Town Hall, which was built and was maintained at the cost of the ratepayers, rich and poor. Yet, unless it suited the purposes of this family ring, they refused to let the Town Hall to anybody but their own party for public meetings. And he believed the practice was—but on this point he was not quite sure—that when they did meet themselves they met to the exclusion of the ratepayers. They would not allow the ratepayers to attend their meetings, and they had gone so far as to expel from the Board room the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, simply because he made himself troublesome in exposing their manner of managing the affairs of the Blackrock township. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division was absolutely one of the largest ratepayers in the township, and naturally under any fair system of franchise he would himself occupy a seat on the Board. But the result of the state of things which he was attempting to describe to the House was that this gentleman—one of the most intelligent in the whole community, and one of the largest ratepayers—had not only been unable to obtain a seat at this Board, but on one or two occasions when he had attempted to witness with his own eyes the manner in which the Board transacted their business he had been expelled from the room. What was it he (Mr. Clancy) proposed? He had down yesterday, and some days previously, a Motion for the reduction of the franchise in Blackrock to the household level. He put down that Motion to assert a principle which he thought was too often ignored—namely, that the poorest ratepayers in the community had as much right as the richest ratepayers to a voice in the management of their Municipal affairs. They paid quite as much, or more, in proportion to their means than the richer ratepayers. He put down that Motion for household suffrage to assert the principle, and so that hereafter their opponents could not say they had not asserted this principle when they had had the opportunity. If he could he would establish household suffrage both in Kingstown and Blackrock; but he acknowledged that it would be a step in advance if a provision to that effect were inserted at this stage of the Bill, and therefore he had taken the moderate course of proposing to equalise the franchise in the two townships. It might be objected that such a provision should not be introduced at the present stage of the Bill. There were two precedents on this point present to his mind. In 1885, in the case of the Rathmines and Rathgar Township Bill, when the Bill had reached the very same stage which the present Bill occupied the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) proposed and carried the reduction of the franchise in the township of Rathmines and Rathgar from £10 to £4. In 1886 the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) went further, and proposed and carried a provision for the reduction of the franchise in Belfast in connection with the Belfast Main Drainage Scheme to the household level, which was further than the present proposal went. Again, it was said that if this Motion was carried the Bill would be lost. They had heard that argument before. Why should the Bill be thrown out? If the House of Lords threw out the Bill on this ground, they would confess that they would prefer that the people of Blackrock should be slowly poisoned by bad water rather than consent to lower the existing franchise. He would predict that the Bill would not be lost if this Motion was carried. The House of Lords would pass the Bill if the promoters did not object, and he should like the promoters to go back to Blackrock and challenge public opinion upon the proposal he had made. He challenged them to get a verdict in any public meeting in Blackrock against the proposal. Another objection was taken to his proposal by gentlemen who said that though they had no objection to the reduction of the franchise in the ordinary way they objected to it being made in this manner. He (Mr. Clancy) had been in the House for eight or nine years. The Irish Party had every year introduced a Bill to effect the reduction of the Municipal franchise in Ireland, but they had never been able to get such a Bill passed. This reform was urgently needed, and he asked the House to agree to his Motion.

said, he rose at the request of the hon. Member who had made the Motion to second it. The hon. and learned Member had largely founded his argument on the precedent to which he (Sir C. Dilke) had induced the House to assent in 1885, of dealing with this matter of the franchise in urban districts in their Private Bills as they came before the House. The hon. and learned Member had said that the Municipal franchise in Ireland had been left long unaltered, although from year to year a change had been proposed. He remembered in the first year that the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) came into the House, and when he was acting as private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland he made a powerful speech in support of a change in the Irish Municipal franchise, and pointed out the terrible evils that existed in Ireland under the present system. And the state of things which existed in Ireland under the Towns Commissioners was even worse than that which existed under the Municipal Corporations. He would remind the House, as the hon. and learned Member had referred to it, that in 1885 and 1886 a proposal precisely similar to that now before the House was carried in the Rathmines Bill, and also in the Belfast Drainage Bill. The grounds on which he brought this matter before the House in 1885, and why he so strongly supported the present proposal, were because the Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in Ireland, over which he himself had the honour to preside, was almost entirely directed to this one point. The Commissioners pointed out in their Report with absolute unanimity—for the Report was signed by every member of the Commission—that of all the evils which affected the condition of the working classes in the Municipal and urban districts in Ireland, those which were directly due to the present condition of the franchise were by far the greatest, and that almost all those evils were traceable to the condition of the franchise in those towns. The Commissioners pointed out not only the curious nature of these franchises, but also the extraordinary thing on the part of the Municipal and Urban Authorities that they did not even observe the provisions of the law such as they were. He believed that in England they could hardly realise what the state of things in Ireland was. The only Electoral Body in England that in the least resembled the Urban non-Municipal Bodies in Ireland was the Thames Conservancy in so far as regarded the Upper Thames. That Body acted under an Act of 1795, and the gentleman who was responsible for the Register seriously maintained that he had no right to remove the names of persons who were dead, and as the Register was first made up in 1795 some of the original voters were still retained on it. The Report of the Royal Commission to which he had referred used the very strongest language on this question, and said it was useless to talk about any reforms of detail concerned with the condition of the working classes in Ireland until the question of the franchise had first been dealt with. The Commissioners stated—

"The existing evils of administration are not due to defects in, but to the failure of the existing authorities in acting upon, legislation which has invested them with ample powers. … It is not in the amendment of details of existing Statutes that the chief remedy lies for the deplorable condition of the dwellings of the working classes in the towns of Ireland. The legislation in existence has not been tried. There are provisions in Acts of Parliament which have been drawn expressly to meet the evils described to Your Majesty's Commissioners; but they are allowed to remain a dead letter. It will be well to again consider who are the authorities, who, while invested with considerable powers, have neglected to use them in face of a state of things which calls for the most energetic action."

"The majority of the people who are rated for the expenses of Local Government have no voice in the election of the Corporate Body who spend the rates."

I am not going to say anything to the House upon the merits of this proposal, because, so far as the merits are concerned, it is no part of my duty, and not my business, to deal with them. I have really to lay before the House the observations that occur to me in my capacity as guardian of the Private Bill Legislation; and, having done that, it will be entirely for the House to say whether they will accept the view put forward by the hon. Member for North Dublin, or whether, on the other hand, they will accept the view which I am going to suggest on the other side, not with the object of opposing the Motion, but simply of doing what I conceive to be my duty, and laying before the House those matters which I think ought to be called attention to upon the practice of the Private Bill Committee. The hon. and learned Member for North Dublin has laid an extremely forcible and clear statement on the matter before the House; but I think even he will admit that what he is asking the House of Commons to do is a strong order. His answer to that will be that, no doubt, this is a strong order, but, at the same time, the circumstances are such as to justify him in making it.

And it has been done before.

I am coming to that. I think I ought to assume, after what has taken place, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a strong case in this matter. But I want to point out that, while he has a strong case, I think be is asking for a very strong order. He says that this has been done before, and I agree. I do not attach so much importance to the first precedent as he does, because in the Bill of 1885 there was an original voting clause, and what was done upon its consideration was to deal with that subject, and to alter it; and, therefore, that precedent, I do not think, ought to have as much weight as the hon. Member seems to place upon it. I would ask the House whether it will follow the precedent of the Belfast Drainage Bill or revert to what I conceive to be the old practice of the House of Commons, and say that under the circumstances it is not disposed to adopt the hon. Member's proposal? That is a question for the House to determine and not for me, and before I go any further in that matter I desire to draw attention to two points: In the first place, the Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament. It has been examined by two Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and no suggestion of the question which has now been raised was made. There may be good reason for raising that question. The hon. and learned Gentleman may ask how I would have acted. Well, I should either have appeared before the Committees or employed counsel to do so for me. That is the system adopted by Parliament. It may be a good system or a bad one. This is a serious matter to hon. Members from Ireland, and I ask them to pause in any decision they may arrive at, and from which they may expect to reap an advantage, by following the precedent of the Belfast Drainage Bill. Such a precedent, though advantageous for the moment, may turn out to be disadvantageous to them hereafter. They had an experience of that when the Belfast Drainage Bill was quoted against hon. Members, and that precedent was made as if for the purpose of defeating a measure they were interested in. I think I may appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork, who has a considerable acquaintance with Private Bill Business in this House and who has for some time given valuable service to the Referees Committee. I am sure he will appreciate the force of what I am saying. You may say—"The case is so important that it should over-ride these considerations"; but it should be borne in mind that the Private Bill practice of Parliament has not been as strict as the Public Bill practice, and it may consequently be argued that it will be to the advantage of the House and the country to assimilate the Private Bill practice as far as we can to the Public Bill practice. But this would scarcely do, because in the case of a Gas or Water Bill which has been passed through Select Committees, and comes back to the House, an attempt might be made to engraft upon its provisions some totally different subject when no opportunity has been afforded for the Committee to hear witnesses, and to consider the evidence as it affects the provisions of the Bill. I hope hon. Members will not misunderstand what I say. I am pointing out the extreme importance of preserving the ordinary practice of the House. I think we ought never to resort to special remedies at all unless there is an enormous grievance, and I submit that it is far more important to the Irish Members and to everybody that the principles of this Private Bill Legislation should be preserved than that the object of the hon. Member opposite should be attained. If this Motion is adopted it will form a strong precedent—it will be a guide to me as to the attitude I am expected to take. I hope, therefore, the House will pause before adopting the Motion. Hon. Members may think that they have a strong grievance, but I submit that that is not the question. The question is, are you going to set aside the plan of allowing Select Committees to take evidence and to carefully consider the questions that come before them? If you are going deliberately and with your eyes open to set aside the system which in the past has worked well, consider what a precedent you are setting, and what difficulties you may be creating for yourselves. I cannot help thinking that before you by a very ingenious movement put aside the ordinary practice of Private Bill Legislation, and adopt this strong and special remedy over-riding the Standing Order and inserting a clause in the Bill which the Committee cannot consider, and on which they can call no evidence, you should have an overwhelming case.

said, that in the absence, through illness, of his hon. Friend the Member for South Dublin (Mr. H. Plunkett), in whose constituency the townships lay, he opposed the Amendment on the general ground that the House was being asked to follow a course which had never, with the exception of two cases, by no means on all-fours with the present, been pursued by them before. Not a word had been said against the merits of the Bill. The case of Rathmines, to which allusion had been made, differed essentially from the measure before the House, since in it there was originally a Franchise Clause. In the Bill the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir C. Dilke) found something to hang his arguments for the reduction of the franchise. To-day the right hon. Gentleman had culled from the Reports of the Commission over which he had presided a number of facts connected with the local sanitary administration of the Irish boroughs. Well, he (Mr. Macartney) did not deny that these were facts which were of most serious importance and deserved the attention of the House. He did not concur with the Report of the Commission when it said that the existing mischiefs were entirely due to the franchise. There were other causes. Did the right hon. Baronet mean to charge against the Commissioners of Blackrock and Kingstown the charges formulated against the general body of Municipal Bodies in Ireland in the Report of the Commission? He might say that in some degree he agreed with the Seconder of the Amendment with respect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Housing of the Poor, though not entirely; but, at the same time, he did not think the right hon. Baronet ought to have made on a small Private Bill the use he had made of the Report. If these great mischiefs had existed in these two townships—if the Commissioners were men who had an interest in insanitary buildings, and derived profit from them, and neglected all the duties imposed on them by law in virtue of the office they enjoyed, surely there was ample opportunity for some of the ratepayers to go before the Committees in Parliament and make out the case which the right hon. Baronet had attempted to make by implication. The hon. Gentleman had said that the ratepayers of Blackrock were excluded—

Some of them.

Yes; some of them were excluded from occupying their proper position, either as electors or as representatives of electors. Surely the Bill had been duly formulated, and proper notice had been given to the ratepayers and inhabitants of Blackrock, so that if they had any grievances against the Town Commissioners they could have brought them before Parliament. He was not aware that any agitation had been got up against the Bill, which was absolutely necessary for the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the two townships, and the hon. and learned Member had not attempted to show that the Commissioners would act otherwise than for the advantage of those townships. Surely it was not quite fitting that the ratepayers of Blackrock should come before the House of Commons now to ask to have done for them what they ought to have done for themselves? With regard to the Belfast Drainage Bill, he would remind the House that that also was far from being on all-fours with the present Bill, and the contention of the hon. Member for North Kerry on that occasion was that the promoters of the Belfast Bill were trying to carry a measure which would be for the benefit of some portion of the inhabitants of Belfast, and it was upon the accusations he made against the Corporation of Belfast that he founded his demand for the reduction of the franchise in that city.

My case was that the Corporation of Belfast did not represent the ratepayers, and that it ought to do so, bringing forward a large and expensive scheme such as that the House was then considering.

said, that argument was undoubtedly used, but that alone it would not have convinced the House. The hon. Gentleman pushed his contention further, and based his claim for the reduction of the franchise on the fact that there was a large and poor proportion of the ratepayers of Belfast, which was inimical to a certain proportion of the scheme, yet which was not adequately represented on the Town Council. No allegation of that nature was made by the hon. Gentleman the proposer of the Amendment now before the House. Moreover, he would point out that the Drainage Board to be constituted under the Bill would not be elected under a £4 or an £8 franchise, but that it would be appointed by the representative Bodies of Kingstown and Blackrock. Upon that Board the Irish Local Government Board would have an ex officio member, who would be a sufficient guardian of the public purse, and would prevent these gentlemen from acting against the interests of the townships.

Blackrock is the only township in the County of Dublin where this franchise exists.

said, that he was not responsible for the anomalies of the franchise in the County of Dublin. As there was no general rule for the election of Town Commissioners all over Ireland, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member would only add one more anomaly to those which already existed. The Town Commissioners of Kingstown had promoted this Bill jointly with the Blackrock Commissioners, and he had received a letter from the Town Clerk of Kingstown declaring in effect that the Commissioners of that township had taken no action, directly or indirectly, for the insertion of such new clauses as the hon. and learned Member now desired. If the Amendment were agreed to the result would be that the Bill, which was of the highest possible importance to the inhabitants of Blackrock and Kingstown, and had received the unanimous support of the Boards of both townships, and which, moreover, had not been opposed before the Committees, would be indefinitely hung up. He said this, not because the Commissioners of Blackrock had an objection to the general law dealing with the reduction of the franchise, but because the Blackrock Commissioners had no power under their Act to accept the proposal, which ought properly to be contained in a general and not in a Private Act of Parliament. They had to give a certain notice for every specific proposition they desired to carry out in relation to their duty. That notice went before the ratepayers, and the work to be done had to be approved of, not only by the Board itself, but by the ratepayers who elected the Board. The commission they received from the ratepayers was only a commission in respect of the specific objects contained in the Bill; therefore, if the House yielded to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment—and he hoped it would not—the Bill against which no public meeting had been held in either township, and which was not opposed before the Committee, would be postponed indefinitely, not because the Commissioners themselves had a fundamental objection to it, but because they had no power to carry out the proposal.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had drawn attention to the fact that the Kingstown Commissioners did not oppose the Bill. But Kingstown already had a £4 franchise, which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) asked for Blackrock; and Kingstown, therefore, being already in possession of what was asked for in favour of Blackrock, of course the former township had no particular reason to intervene against the Bill. He thought the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) was in error as to his (Mr. Sexton's) attitude on the Belfast Bill. In all matters of substance there was a close and perfect parity between the present case and the case of Belfast. In the latter case an expenditure of £300,000 was proposed; and his contention was that, as the main body of the persons who contributed the rates in Belfast were excluded from the franchise, it was not expedient that the expenditure of such a large sum should be entrusted to such a Body, but to a more representative Body. That principle was accepted by the House and was carried into effect, and it was precisely the same principle which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) advanced to-day. The Blackrock Commissioners wanted to borrow £50,000, and, seeing that the township included some 9,000 inhabitants, he thought that the House would agree with him that the sum was relative to a greater sum than was asked for in the case of Belfast, and that the persons who contributed to the rates in Blackrock had a right to be admitted to the franchise, so as to be enabled to control the Local Body, and a moiety of the representation on the Drainage Board, by whom this money would be expended. With regard to the observations of the Chairman of Committees, he would point out that the House did not always accept his ruling where matters of public money arose, and such a case arose in 1886. He would further wish to point out that in the case of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill of 1881, which was promoted by the Tory Party, the main principle was that every person entitled to be a Parliamentary elector, who paid local rates, was entitled to exercise the franchise. Further, he might mention there was a Select Committee of the House, the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee, which sat from year to year, which had power and instructions from the House to sanction provisions in Bills in excess of the general law, and, if the House of Commons gave such powers to a Committee, he did not see why the House itself should not do what it had instructed a Committee to do. He thought that the speech of the Chairman of Committees was a dry effort, not worthy, in his judgment, of any serious attention, to overpower the merit and substance of the case by resorting to technicality. His hon. Friend did not propose to insert in a Bill any clause which had reference to the nature of the duties of the Committee. It was not a matter in regard to which evidence need be required. If the speech of the Chairman of Committees were to be received as the foundation and basis of Private Bill Legislation in that House, he would venture to say that it would introduce an extremely vicious principle. It meant that the House was to diverge to a principle of renunciation in regard to Private Bills, that no matter how pressing the public interests might be that the House was to declare in advance that it would not consider such a matter. A more vicious principle, and one more contrary to the practice of the House of Commons in police and sanitary matters, he could not imagine. Here was a Board in a community of 9,000 persons representing some 300 persons out of an electorate of 500. The Parliamentary electors of the district numbered l,200r and the local electors would number 1,200 if Blackrock were situated in any part of the United Kingdom but Ireland. The Board sat in camera. It spent the funds of the community in private, and it expelled from the Town Hall the leading ratepayer of the district. Finally, the skeleton list of 500 was revised by a gentleman who was Judge, jury, and executioner all in one, and who left a name or cut out a name as he pleased. The thing was fantastic and absurd. He could not defer even to the opinion of the Chairman of Committees when that right hon. Gentleman told him that, because of certain Rules, the House was not to interfere when it found that so fantastic a system of government was carried on. The Bill proposed to put a burden of £5,000 on the two communities, and he was there to say that he would take not only that, but every other, opportunity of affording the ratepayers a means of supervising the expenditure of their money. He could not admit that any Ride of the House should debar him from giving those who in any local community contributed to the local purse the power of electing the Body which expended the local rates.

said, his principal reason for interposing in the Debate was that his hon. Friend who sat for the Division of Dublin County, in which Blackrock was situated, was not able to be present. He entirely agreed with the argument the Chairman of Committees had put forward, and would only submit to the House one consideration in support of what the right hon. Gentleman had said. If the precedent of the Belfast Bill was to be sustained and probably pressed further on other occasions, might not some objector to a Bill who had brought forward all the objections he could before the Private Bill Committee carry out his purpose, in defiance of the will of the locality and in the teeth of the Report of the Committee, by getting some friend in the House to introduce into the discussion of the Bill some matter of public policy by which he could snatch a Party Division? This was not only a possibility, but a strong probability, and it would be a total contravention of the whole principle on which Private Business was conducted in the House of Commons. The present proposal would carry further than it had over before been attempted to carry the principle which was unfortunately established in the Belfast case. The hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) said that Kingstown, which was to take a share in carrying out the drainage system, had one franchise, while Blackrock had another. It had already been pointed out that the real Governing Body was not to be elected by the ratepayers under the provisions of this Bill. However this might be, the Kingstown township, which for a long time opposed this scheme, were so convinced by the discussion the Bill received before the Lords that they had joined the Blackrock Commissioners in urging its speedy passage. The question of franchise was not raised in any way whatever in the Bill before the House. There was no complaint whatever about the management of the township as regarded sanitation or anything else of the kind except with respect to the outfall of the drainage into the sea, and that defect this Bill sought to remedy. He hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would advise the House not to stop the further progress of the Bill, because it was absolutely certain that the Commissioners who were promoting the measure had no authority to give assent, and would give no assent, to the proposal which had been made, so that the result of carrying the Instruction would be the loss of a Bill which had involved great expense and trouble to those who had put it forward.

My hon. and learned Friend who moved this Instruction must be aware that with every word he said on the merits of his proposal I am in full and entire accord. If his account of the franchise of Blackrock is true, I am sorry to say it is true also of too many other places in Ireland. The facts have long been well known to me, and I am entirely in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend in desiring to see a more rational system adopted in reference to these local franchises. The anomalies he pointed out are, as he said, gross, and call for remedy, but, at the same time, I must repeat now what I said some time ago in reference to the Rathmines and Rathgar Bill. Is it worth while, in trying to effect a reform, great as it would be, for the sake, I would say, of making a demonstration—because it would not come to much more than that—in favour of a reformed franchise in Blackrock, to run the risk or almost to face the certainty of losing this Bill which my hon. and learned Friend himself agrees, upon the merits, is a Bill that is required by the condition of the township? It would be impossible for anyone who knows anything about this neighbourhood not to be aware that the demand for the creation of a drainage system there is an urgent demand, and one which every citizen of the County of Dublin, and especially of the City of Dublin, has a direct interest in. My hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), who made an ingenious speech in defence of the Amendment, referred to the position of the House in reference to the Police and Sanitary Committee, and he found it convenient to suppose that there was some analogy between the course recommended now by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) and the practice of the House in referring certain matters to that Committee. But my hon. Friend forgets that the Police and Sanitary Committee was instituted not so much for doing things as for preventing things being done.

Or sanctioning things.

I agree; but the object of the House was to take can that certain things should not be done without having a special Report and calling the special attention of the House to the matter. I think that disposes of that part of the question. Much has been made of the precedent of Belfast. There is, however, this great difference between the Belfast case and the present case: that this is a mandatory Instruction to the Committee. In the Belfast case the Instruction was not mandatory.

In the case of the Belfast Bill the House itself put the clauses in on Report. There is now a Standing Order that prevents that being done.

I explained that the reason why I did not adopt the course of moving a new clause was that it would be out of Order.

But, as my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Dilke) points out, the Standing Order was passed after the Belfast precedent was established. Why was it passed? It was in order to prevent anyone taking the course which my hon. and learned Friend now seeks to take. Therefore, I think that the more the Belfast precedent is examined the less will be thought of it as a precedent for a case of this kind. The present proposal does what the Belfast proposal did not do. It introduces an entirely new element into the Bill. It is proposed to insert in the Bill an entirely new idea, and, if I may say so, a heterogeneous matter. I do not agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry in reference to the argument of the Chairman of Committees. I think my right hon. Friend's speech was a very valuable reminder to the House of the conditions that would be introduced into Private Bill practice if this Instruction were assented to by the House. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Mellor) said that the Committee would not have power to hear counsel or to take evidence.

Why should they?

My hon. Friend asks why should they. Why have a Committee at all?

I would not have a Private Bill Committee if I could help it.

Well, I was rather alarmed at the argument of my hon. and learned Friend when he said time would be lost and endless discussion would take place. I quite agree that there are occasions when you may have discussions too indefinitely prolonged. I am not at all averse to brief discussions, but still I was alarmed at the rather supercilious treatment of the value of discussion by my hon. and learned Friend. I think that, as my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees said, it would be a rather strong order if the House were to accept a change in a local measure without resorting in any way to the method by which we obtain local opinions on the subject. I take the point I put earlier in the Session—namely, that it is not worth while, for the sake of making a demonstration against gross and intolerable anomalies, to lose a solid and practical advantage. I am sorry to say that I cannot support the Instruction.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to imagine that both Blackrock and Kingstown needed this Bill, and were in urgent need of it. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that the Kingstown Commissioners passed a unanimous resolution to oppose the measure? The Kingstown Commissioners had been dragged into this drainage scheme by Blackrock, and had been obliged to submit to it. The Kingstown people had a good system of drainage, which cost them £15,000, and they required a different system altogether from that which had been forced upon them by the Blackrock Commissioners. The Chairman of Committees had said that this was a very serious case. It was a very serious case for the people of Blackrock, who were involved in a very heavy expenditure without having had a voice in the decision of the ease. The majority of the people of Blackrock had no voice in the transaction of the business of their township. Some six years ago there was a proposal to establish a free library in the township, and because it would add 1d. in the £1 to the taxation, a majority of 300 out of 500 electors refused to apply the Libraries Act to the township of Blackrock. The roads which ran by the terraces in Blackrock were well attended to, but the dwellings of the poor were in the most unsanitary condition, and there were slums and back lanes in Blackrock which were a perfect disgrace to civilisation. In the first place, then, they had it that the Kingstown Town Commissioners had opposed this Bill; and, in the second place, they had no reason to believe that the people, if they had a voice in electing their Commissioners, would have supported a drainage scheme which involved them in a considerable amount of expense while the township was already heavily laden with debt. He hoped the House would vote for his hon. Friend's Motion, and enable the people of Blackrock to decide whether or not this drainage scheme should be carried without their consent if the franchise was reduced from £8 to £4.

appealed to the House to allow the discussion to close. In order to comply with the law, it was necessary to take the Report of the Vote on Account at that Sitting.

—[Cries of "Divide!"]

I trust that the hon. Member for Fermanagh will bear in mind what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.

said, that after what had fallen from the Prime Minister it was not his intention to stand between the House and the decision of this question; but, having regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wicklow, he should like to say a word or two.

That Motion has already been made.

said, the question was whether this peremptory Instruction should be sent to the Committee, the result of which would be to prevent the Bill becoming law this Session. The measure would get rid of a long-standing grievance. [Cries of "Divide!"] The hon. Member for Wicklow had said that the Kingstown Commissioners had passed a resolution in opposition to the Bill. That was quite true up to a certain point; but the hon. Member had forgotten to mention to the House that, although the Kingstown Commissioners had passed that resolution, and although they had lodged a Petition against it, they subsequently withdrew that Petition. It remained for the House to say whether it would prevent the 27,000 inhabitants of these townships from getting rid of their sewage, which, at the present time, was a source of great danger to the public health.

called attention to several matters connected with the administration of affairs in Ireland. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for affording him this opportunity, and said he would endeavour to repay the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy by brevity. He wished, first, to direct the Committee's attention to a rather serious disturbance at Bundoran, in Donegal, on Sunday week. The Evangelisation Society, an Organisation composed of ministers and members of various Protestant Churches, had been conducting a mission in the North of Ireland. On Sunday week the Society sent two of its agents to Bundoran, a seaside place much frequented by visitors. The Society had a tent put up in a private field, by the permission of Mr. James Hamilton. Before the arrival of the two evangelists a Nationalist newspaper published a leading article, in which it was said—

"The visit of the evangelists to begin a propaganda has aroused deep indignation among the Roman Catholics, who have made up their minds, whether rightly or wrongly, that they will not permit this fresh insult to their feelings or their religion."

He denies having made such a statement.

said, it was quite impossible that all the newspapers should have invented a speech for the Police Inspector, and he thought it was high time that the policy of blaming the reporters should cease. The Police Inspector said that the procedure of re- turning men for trial had not been satisfactory in the past. He was right, whether he said it or not. Beyond all doubt this method of procedure had not been satisfactory in the past. It was beyond yea or nay that the only result in all the cases of agrarian crime which came before the Assizes was the discharge of the prisoners. In the case at Tomgrany the Police Inspector suggested that the men should be bound over to keep the peace. What did that action on the part of the Crown amount to? It amounted to this: that in all agrarian cases there should be no prisoners returned for trial. That mode of stopping the supply of criminals was certainly novel. It was laid down—probably by the Irish Attorney General or the Irish Solicitor General—that men guilty of agrarian offences in Clare were not to be sent to the Assizes, but were to be bound over under the ordinary law to keep the peace. That was a dangerous step to take in Clare. Of all the counties in Ireland Clare was the last place in which a new departure of that kind should be made, and he would look with some interest to the explanation which the Chief Secretary would give in the matter. He now came to another place —Limerick. The Chief Secretary had referred to the dark area of Clare, Limerick, and Kerry. Some weeks ago he brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary by a question a meeting of the National League and a meeting of the National Federation, in Limerick, both convened for the express purpose of protesting against some evicted land in the neighbourhood of the city being taken by a Mr. Bateman and by the representative of a Building Society for building purposes. Both meetings resolved that if the lauds were not given up circulars should be issued to the customers of Mr. Bateman, amongst the farmers of Limerick and Clare; and The Limerick Leader, the leading Nationalist organ of the locality, declared that if Mr. Bateman and his friends did not take this fair notice they would have to take the cost. Mr. Bateman and his friends did not take this notice, fair or unfair; they insisted on their legal right to take land in the neighbourhood of Limerick, and they continued to hold possession in spite of the Federation and the League. These rival Nationalist Organisations were as good as their word. They both issued circulars directed to the customers of Mr. Bateman, who was a victualler or butcher in Limerick, and against the travellers of Messrs. Denny and Son, who were mixed up some way in the matter; and as the circulars had not the effect of inducing these men to give up the land, the Organisation had taken to posting boycotting notices on the walls. On the Sunday morning of last week about 2 o'clock two constables were out on duty. They found three men standing near a hoarding, or place where bills were posted, two of whom ran away, and they arrested the third. The man when arrested at once threw away a packet of papers, which were found to be boycotting notices. He was brought up at the Limerick Petty Sessions. There were nine Magistrates on the Bench. There was no question about the identity of the prisoner. In fact, no defence was raised. A letter was put in evidence. It was addressed to Samuel Frost, a boy in the employment of Mr. Bateman, whose duty it was to visit the disputed land to see after the stock. The letter was dated 3rd June and ran—

"If you go out to Miss Morrison's land again, look out! Our city is not going to be disgraced by you grabbers; and, by God! if you go there again, there will be too much proof that you were there."

What was the charge?

said, the charge was posting boycotting notices. But the Crown Solicitor stated that he attended to prosecute by direction of the Attorney General; and why the man was charged with posting the notices was a question the hon. Member would have to settle with The MacDermott. The Attorney General would not have directed the Crown Solicitor to prosecute unless there was an offence. And surely it was an offence to be found with boycotting notices near a hoarding from which the police had previously pulled down similar notices. No doubt the Chief Secretary would say—"What power have I over these Limerick Magistrates?" But his charge against the right hon. Gentleman was that he had deliberately divested himself of the power of dealing with offences of that kind. If the right hon. Gentleman only availed himself of the Act that he found on the Statute Book, and in operation when he came into Office, he would be able to have those prisoners in Clare and Kerry tried by two Resident Magistrates, and summarily awarded from one to six months' imprisonment. He would now briefly refer to the question of the classification of crime by the Irish Office, and also to some comments made upon it by the Judges at Assizes. He had asked the Chief Secretary the other day why the attempt to murder Mr. Blood should have been put down as intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the question was a very natural one, but that the fact of the matter was that the shot had been fired at such a distance that Mr. Blood could not have been injured by it, and that it could not, therefore, have been an attempt to murder. What were the facts? He had them in a letter from Clare written by a person who probably knew more of the case than anyone else. On the occasion when Mr. Blood was last fired at he was fired at from a Snider rifle at 400 yards distance, and the Chief Secretary said it was put down as intimidation because the shot could have no effect. In 1887 Mr. Blood was fired at from a Snider rifle at 500 yards distance, and it was put down as an attempt to murder. The right hon. Gentleman said that no change had been made in the classification of crime, notwithstanding the facts that in 1887 a shot fired at 500 yards distance was put down as an attempt to murder, while a shot fired in 1893 at 400 yards was put down as intimidation because, forsooth, it was fired at so great a distance. The right hon. Gentleman's classification might be the right one, but there was a change.

It is not my classification.

Of course, I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with having interested himself personally in this matter.

The men are the same, the principles are the same, and the practice is the same. I did not meddle in the matter one way or the other.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman must not say that, because he would have to meddle in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the government of Ireland. In his Charge to the Grand Jury at Maryborough, Mr. Justice O'Brien said that in the Return made to him by the Constabulary there was only one case of arson; but before the Grand Jury there were nine cases of malicious burning. Mr. Justice O'Brien did not say that there had been any change in the classification of crimes, but simply that the Police Returns did not accurately represent the facts. That was a perfectly legitimate statement to make. When this question was last before the House an hon. Gentleman had asked whether the English Judges had these Returns placed before them, and whether English Judges made charges of the kind. As a matter of fact, the English Judges had not these facts before them. They had the Chief Constables' Returns of the actual crime before them, and it was with that they dealt in their Charges to the Grand Juries. But in England the great bulk of the crime was made amenable, and in Ireland, in many counties, the great bulk of the crime was not made amenable. If the Judges in Ireland did not know what crimes had been committed in respect of which there were no prisoners before them, they would have nothing to go upon in addressing the Grand Jury on the actual condition of the county. The defence set up by the Chief Secretary was that these cases of burning were not entered on the Police Report unless the Constabulary were certain that they were malicious. But they must go to the Grand Jury for that question to be decided; and then it would be too late for the Judge to include them in his Charge, because the Judge would have gone away. The hon. Member for Shipley suggested that a number of people fired their own premises in order to get compensation. That would be a worse outrage than malicious burning, and at any rate it did not remove the cases from the list of crimes. Such cases ought to be on the sheet laid before the Judge; and if they were placed on the sheet till the Grand Jury had decided whether or not they were malicious, they would never appear, for by that time the Assizes would have been over.

They are not agrarian outrages.

said, that might be, but all the same they ought to be on the Return. His contention was that the Judges, not finding these cases on the Returns, were justified in calling the attention of the Grand Jury to the fact. It was not fair for the Chief Secretary to charge the Judges—who had simply complained, as they had a right to do, that the Police Reports were not accurate—with attacking the Executive. They were doing nothing of the kind. At the Kilkenny Assizes there was a case which the Police Inspector had not put on the Return at all. There was a Unionist meeting. It was held at Waterford before those Assizes, was attended by the Rev. Mr. Power, the incumbent of Kilkenny Parish, and by two of his parishioners. Everyone would admit that they had a right to go to this meeting without being punished. But what happened? Mr. Power's church windows were broken, and boycotting notices were posted on the houses of the two parishioners, cautioning people to hold no intercourse with them. That was the freedom of opinion they had in certain parts of Ireland. The Police Inspector did not report a word of this to the Judge. He wished to protest against such tyranny. Were Unionists to be able to attend religious services and political meetings only by the consent and grace of the Nationalists? Some years ago he should have had the enthusiastic support of the present Chief Secretary in his protest.

Hear, hear!

asked why he had not that support now? The position he took up was not that there had been a change in the classification of crime since the Government came into Office. What he said was that the Irish Judges ought not to have been attacked by the Treasury Bench, as they were attacked, because they simply declared that the Returns laid before them by the Constabulary were not accurate representations of the facts. There was another matter to which he wished to refer. At the beginning of the Session the Chief Secretary made considerable changes in the constitution of Asylums Boards by putting on a considerable number of Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman was attacked for his action. But he did not join in those attacks, as he believed the right hon. Gentleman to be perfectly justified by his defence that the Roman Catholics were not represented on those Boards according to their numbers. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman's attention to County Down. In that county there were 106,000 Presbyterians, 73,000 Roman Catholics, and 65,000 Protestant Episcopalians. According to the theory of the right hon. Gentleman, the Presbyterians ought to have had a majority on the County Asylums Board; but, while the Episcopalians had nine representatives and the Roman Catholics six, the Presbyterians had only two. Upon what theory had the right hon. Gentleman constructed that Board? Presumably it was because the Presbyterians were opponents of the Government that their representation was so small. He supposed it was thought the Presbyterians could be trampled on with impunity. But they could not. He asked the right hon. Gentleman also why it was that a loading man among the Presbyterians—Mr. R. S. Corbett, J.P.—and a Unionist candidate for South Down at the Election of 1886 was dismissed from the Asylums Board? The last question which he wished to raise he only brought forward from a sense of duty. He had done his best to have the matter settled outside the House, but he had failed. It was the case of one of the candidates for a Professorship in the Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin. Marlborough Street College was established very shortly after the National system of education was brought into existence, and for a very long time it was the only College where teachers could get trained. It was a strictly undenominational College. As years went on the denominationalists succeeded in getting Training Colleges of their own—two Roman Catholic and one Episcopalian. The College in Marlborough Street was left on its undenominational basis, and was largely attended by Presbyterians and Methodists. Quite recently Professor Joyce, who was at the head of the College, resigned after a service of 50 years, and his resignation was viewed with regret by all concerned with education in Ireland. It became necessary to elect a successor, and a number of candidates came forward, but it was at last narrowed down to two. He did not know either the one or the other of their religious opinions. Against the moral character of one of these candidates Professors in the College made serious charges. The Board felt themselves compelled to order an investigation, which was held by the two secretaries of the Board. It was proved that Professor Joyce some 10 years ago declined to put this man over a class of girls in the drawing school, and left a Minute to that effect. Two National school teachers gave evidence that they had seen this man in a state of intoxication in the streets of Dublin with people he ought not to have been with. The secretaries acquitted him, and a Minute was passed by the Board to that effect. When he went to an election seven members of the Board voted for and seven against him. The Resident Commissioner, Sir Patrick Keenan, three ex-secretaries, and three other Commissioners voted for him. The Chief Baron, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, and the Presbyterian and Methodist Commissioners voted against him. The matter came up again, and the votes were six to six. In the meantime the Presbyterian Church sent in a protest against his candidature, and a Presbyterian Commissioner who had voted for him refused to vote in his favour again. The election was then adjourned till October. This matter was first introduced into the House by a question by an hon. Member opposite. On the part of the Presbyterian Church he desired to say that, inasmuch as students of that Church, young men and young women, were attending this Training College, they could not consent to have a man against whom such charges had been made placed over the Institution. If he was, it would result in the breaking up of the College. Even supposing the man had been wrongly charged and that the case was one of suspicion, to put him over such an Institution would be nothing short of a calamity. This undenominational College had maintained its existence under difficulties; it had many opponents, even in the House of Commons, and he desired that it should I not have to contend against this appointment, but that a Professor should be selected against whom nothing could be alleged. He had brought forward the case now because the election had been adjourned until October, when the House would not be sitting, and on behalf both of Presbyterians and Methodists he protested against this man being forced on the Institution by the Chief Commissioner.

I think the last case mentioned by the hon. Member for South Tyrone is really a reductio ad absurdum of the principles on which be and his Section would desire the Irish Administration to be conducted. I am not responsible for the Marlborough Street Training College except in a very narrow Parliamentary sense. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of the relations between the Executive Government and the National Board, certainly from Mr. Forster's time downwards, is aware that the Executive Government as a rule, almost without exception, do not enter into the minute details of the working of those establishments. It would be perfectly impossible to carry on the working of those establishments, and leave the National Board with any free administrative power whatever, if the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant are to meddle in matters of this kind. Let the House understand what the hon. Member for South Tyrone has just done. Here is a man who is a candidate for a position in this Training College. Charges of an odious kind were brought against that gentleman—as the hon. Member said, the two Secretaries held a long inquiry, extending over four days, into those charges. The Report of those Secretaries, with, I presume, the evidence, was submitted to the Board, and at the end of it the 14 Commissioners present passed a resolution in these very words—

"The Commissioners are satisfied of the innocence of this gentleman, and that no imputation rests upon his moral character."

Was the exonerating resolution passed without a division?

I am very glad my hon. Friend has put that question. The resolution was passed unanimously, though it is quite true that when the Board came to consider on the same occasion whom they should choose seven, voted against the gentleman in question and seven for him; but that division, for aught I know, bearing in mind the previous resolution, was on general grounds. The hon. Member has referred to the Resident Commissioner, and with bad taste, I think. All I can say is, I received, on last Saturday, an account from the Resident Commissioner himself of his share in the transaction, and I learn, that when this gentleman was first proposed Sir Patrick Keenan knew nothing whatever about these charges. I need not go into the question of the appointment. That is a matter for the National Board to determine. I can quite imagine they may feel that if the Presbyterian Church adheres to the resolution since passed, it may be open to doubt whether it would be politic to appoint this gentleman; but I hold that it would not be proper that, any Church, without producing any kind of evidence of the reasons upon which they found their exclusion, should have the opportunity of preventing the Commissioners from choosing the man whom they think best fitted for the post. Now I will pass to the other matters which the hon. Member thought fit to raise in connection with the Irish Administration. The hon. Member began with a reference to certain disturbances at Bundoran, and he made a very passionate and loud appeal as to the free exercise by the subjects of the Queen of their right to proselytise.

That is not a fair observation. I said nothing about proselytising.

I will withdraw the word proselytise, and will say, of their rights to preach. There is no difference of opinion between the hon. Member and myself on the principles of the right of freedom of political and religious meetings as now expressed by the hon. Member. I only wish that the hon. Member had bethought himself of those principles during the last six years. The hon. Member quoted from a leading article in a paper called The Donegal Vindicator with reference to the Evangelists, and said the Government must have known that it would lead to disturbance, and why, then, did they not make extra provision? But the Executive Government did make extra provision. They sent 25 extra men to Bundoran before the proceedings in the Evangelist tent began. As for the hon. Member's account of what did happen, it really was one of the grossest bits of exaggeration that I have ever heard, even from Ireland. I have read all the official Reports on the subject, and there was not a word about 1,000 men having come in for the purpose mentioned, or for any purpose. There was no doubt a crowd gathered round the tent, but, though the circumstances were exciting, the police were perfectly able to preserve the peace. There was, no doubt, an attack on Mr. Templeman, and some rudeness was offered to his sister; but, as I understand, it was rather of a gallant than of a controversial character. She very properly resented it, and a scuffle arose, but it was entirely unconnected with any general view as to the preaching in the tent. It was a personal scuffle, and so far from lasting an hour, as the hon. Member said, ray information is that it did not last more than a couple of minutes.

said, he spoke of the general disturbance attending the tent service.

This was the only disturbance that took place.

said, there were two separate disturbances.

I think I have road the papers more carefully than the hon. Member, and that is not so.

There were none of the police present.

said, they were not in the very area where the assault on Miss Templeman took place; but they were effectually preserving the general peace in the crowd round the tent.

said, Mr. Templeman was coming from evening service at the church to the tent when he was assaulted.

Quite true, but he found himself in this crowd round the tent.

Not at all.

Order, order!

Mr. Templeman found himself in the crowd drawn together by the services. It was asked why the police did not arrest the persons concerned in the assault on Mr. Templeman. As I have said, the assault on the lady took place in a very limited area, and when the police got to the spot the persons concerned had got away; but they arrested three persons connected with the general uproar, and I am told that it was nothing more than an uproar. There is one fact to which I wish to call the attention of the House after hearing the language of the hon. Member about 1,000 men coming to suppress the freedom of preaching at Bundoran, and that is the fact that there has been a service conducted in that tent by Evangelists every evening since, and there has not been a trace of disturbance or interference with them. What becomes of all the highly-coloured pictures which the hon. Member drew of the attempt in Bundoran to put down freedom of preaching and of religious service? I am told that there are both Catholics and Protestants in Bundoran who were sorry that the Evangelists had come there; but since the first disturbance, which was accidental and productive of no serious injury, everything has been tranquil. What is the good, merely for the sake of getting a small crumb of political capital, of stirring up the dying embers of religious prejudice, as the hon. Member did when he began his speech? With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member in reference to the Gweedore cess, he wanted to know why we have not ordered the Constabulary to execute warrants for the collection of the county cess? I am not aware of the precise facts connected with Gweedore; but I hold strongly the view—I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought when he was in Office—that at all events this case needs very careful examination; it is very doubtful whether it is wise to issue these warrants to the Constabulary. I think it would be a very bad precedent, and I dispute the hon. Gentleman's doctrine that it is the duty of the Executive Government to order the Constabulary in all cases to execute warrants for the collection of the county cess.

said, he simply asked whether the Government were going to do anything, or whether they were going to let those people go scot free who were responsible for the murder of District Inspector Martin?

That is the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman approaches this very narrow point of administration.

The cess is for Inspector Martin's widow.

The point which the hon. Gentleman has attacked the Government for has nothing to do with the origin of the imposition of this county cess. It is a small matter of adminis- trative detail, and in the reference he has made to this lamentable event of the death of Inspector Martin he has tried to stir up political prejudice, just as before he tried to stir the religious passions of gentlemen opposite, though I am glad to say the attempt did not succeed. Then the hon. Member went into County Clare, and told the House that a Resident Magistrate, Mr. Hodder, used certain language as to the propriety of the proceedings which were taken against a certain number of persons who were charged at Bodyke, and, with astonishing courage, stated that District Inspector Feeley used language of a somewhat similar kind—namely, that it was no use sending prisoners for trial in County Clare. Now, I have here before me an explicit and categorical denial from Inspector Feeley that he used a single word of the language imputed to him by the hon. Member. The hon. Member seems to have expected that some such denial would be forthcoming, for he said that the view he put forward was right, whether the District Inspector used the language or not. That is the way in which the hon. Gentleman argues as to the demerits of the Irish Administration. The hon. Member said that the language used by the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Hodder, is a proof that the Government are taking a now departure, and, instead of sending cases for trial, are getting minor notice taken of misdeeds of the kind referred to. The hon. Member was kind enough to exculpate me, and said the responsibility for this action must lie with the Attorney General and the Divisional Commissioner. Now let me say, once for all, that it is entirely on myself that the responsibility lies, and I cannot let the Attorney General or the Divisional Commissioner rest for a moment under what the hon. Member regards as a charge. Most of the proceedings of this kind are taken on my own personal responsibility, and I am here to answer for all that is done in these matters. If the hon. Member had been a little more careful he would have seen that even if the men in question had been committed for trial, they would not have been tried at Ennis at all, but at the Winter Assizes in Cork, so that the Government lost nothing by giving up the power of change of venue. Mr. Hodder, experienced and learned as he is—and he is a gentleman of whose legal competence both the Lord Lieutenant and myself are satisfied—seems to have thought that because charges in the order book clearly showed that an indictable offence had been committed, it was not, therefore, in his power to bind the defendants to the peace. If Mr. Hodder used language of that kind he was mistaken, because if persons charged with an indictable offence are brought before a Magistrate, and if in the opinion of the prosecuting counsel the facts do not disclose circumstances of such gravity as to justify the committal of the defendants for trial, the Magistrate has it within his power to bind the defendants to keep the peace under his ordinary commission. That is the clear law of the matter. Mr. Hodder, owing to an inadvertence of the Petty Sessions Clerk, mistook the form of summons under which the men had been brought up. The latter part of the summons, calling on the defendants to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace, was omitted from the order book; and Mr. Hodder's remarks, as far as I understand from his own Report, were based on a misconception; and on referring to the summons itself he saw at once that the course proposed by the District Inspector was a perfectly regular one. As for the offence itself, obstruction of the police, especially in cases like that of Bodyke, is a very serious matter, and you cannot afford to trifle with obstruction and resistance to the police in a place like Bodyke. But I am bound to say that the facts of the case are not of such gravity as necessarily made a committal for trial with a heavy sentence the only way of dealing with it. There may be circumstances under which the most trifling breach of the peace deserves to be severely dealt with; but such circumstances were not present in this case. I recapitulated these circumstances in answer to a question, but I will recapitulate them briefly again. Two caretakers, with their police escort, went out for the purpose of occupying evicted farms. When they arrived at a certain townland they made a delay of a few minutes; and, as is likely to happen in such a case, a crowd assembled, several members of which hooted and groaned at the caretakers. On the police cautioning the crowd, most of them desisted; but some half-dozen persisted in following the caretakers. These few persons were afterwards joined by a number of children, and in the result three stones were thrown in the direction of the caretakers and the police; but nobody was struck by them. The police then warned the people that they would use force if they did not disperse, and the crowd then dispersed. The circumstances were reported to the authorities, who directed that any persons who could be identified as having taken part in the stone - throwing should be proceeded against, with a view to having them bound over, and the Judicial Commissioner approved of that course. The hon. Member thinks there has been a great miscarriage of justice, and yet these are the facts.

I am simply acting on what Mr. Hodder is reported to have stated.

The report in the newspapers, I am informed, is not accurate; but apart from that, in matters of this kind, the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner, representing the Executive Government, is more important, and ought to weigh more with the House of Commons as to the precise amount of gravity of the wrong done, than the dictum of a Magistrate. It is a most dangerous thing to get into the habit of quoting the dicta either of Magistrates or Judges as to the course the Executive Government should take. I have no more to say with regard to that Tomgreaney case. With regard to the case of Doyle of Limerick, the man who was found with the boycotting notice in his possession, he was arrested by the police and taken before a Bench of 10 Magistrates, five of whom refused to convict, four of whom took the opposite view, and one of whom refused to take any part in the proceedings. The hon. Member finds fault with me because I have not overruled the decision of the five Magistrates; but the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary throughout his administration took the very opposite view. He always said—and no one doubted that what he said was perfectly true—that the Executive Government did not interfere with magisterial discretion, and he should regard it as the gravest and the grossest impropriety if he attempted anything of the kind. Are we to decide off-hand? Are we to say all the Magistrates acted wrongly, and immediately take fresh proceedings? I told the hon. Member that it is still a matter for consideration, and then the hon. Member's reply was—"Ah, you now begin to consider it, because I am bringing down the House of Commons on you." With all respect to the House of Commons, I do not think that even that Assembly would make the Executive Government in Ireland undertake proceedings of that kind; and I do not think the House of Commons, the more they understand these proceedings and the spirit in which the hon. Member has brought forward this case, will impugn the action of the Irish Executive Government. The hon. Member was entirely wrong, in connection with this case, in his account of what he called my divesting myself of powers given by the Crimes Act. It is not so, because he forgets that one of the boasts of his own friends when they left Office was that they had practically dropped the Crimes Act. What certainly is true is that they had dropped that portion of the Crimes Act which many of those who supported them in their administration and otherwise considered the most valuable part—namely, summary jurisdiction for boycotting notices, intimidation, and so forth. That part of the Crimes Act was dropped before we came into Office. As for the powers of summary jurisdiction in cases of not and unlawful assembly, these powers remain intact, and therefore the hon. Member was not at all accurate. Then, with regard to the classification of offences, the hon. Member and those who agree with him in Irish matters persist in the suspicion that somehow or other a great change has taken place in the system of classification. What was the proof he put forward? It was one of the most remarkable that even the hon. Member's ingenious mind could devise. He referred to the shooting at Mr. Blood, and said the outrage was not recorded as an attempted murder because the shots were fired at a distance of 400 yards, while under the Chief Secretaryship of the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) a case was so recorded, although the shots were fired from 500 yards; and, therefore, there must have been a revolution in the system of classifying these cases, because, forsooth, a rough guess fixes one distance at 400 yards and another at 500 yards!

It could not be a rough guess, because a Snider rifle was dropped on the spot, and the distance was accurately measured.

I was at the place the other day, and in this case there was no Snider rifle found at all, and no kind of rifle or any other weapon was found. There may have been in the case which occurred during the Chief Secretaryship of the Member for Bristol. But can anything be more childish or frivolous in the way of proof that there has been a revolution in the system of classification in the interests of the present Government than to state that there was this discrepancy of 100 yards in a rough guess as to distance?

I find I am wrong in saying that a Snider rifle was found. A cartridge case of a Snider rifle and the tracks of two men were found at a certain point—

In which case—this or the former?

And that is a matter of proof very nearly as good as a rifle.

The House will see that this serious charge, or rather innuendo, because it has not yet taken the shape of a charge, as to a revolution in classification rests on proof of that kind, which is really so childish that it is not worth detaining the House upon it. The hon. Member also referred to some remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice, and he said that the Lord Chief Justice had never stated that there was a change of system of classification. I am not sure as to that, because I have not had time to read through his words; but my impression was that there was some indication of that kind. The hon. Member accuses me of attacking the Judges. I have not attacked them; but what I have said—and I shall certainly always repeat it—is that the course taken by this learned Judge in cross-examining the County Inspector in open Court in Clonmel the other day was a course open to grave objection. That was all I said. Unlike the hon. Member, I may have strong feelings, but I do not like using violent and strong language, otherwise stronger language than that might have been used. But this is what strikes me as curious: that though the Lord Chief Justice has had a great deal to do with the administration of the law in Ireland for a number of years, he has never found out until now that there is anything faulty or defective in the system of classification. Everybody who has anything to do with the administration of the law in Ireland, every County Inspector who has to make Returns to the Judges, knows perfectly well that there has been no change, not an iota of change in the classification, and that precisely the same material has been presented to the Judges and in the same form during the last 12 months as has been the practice and custom to present through a good many 12 months before; and I may say that I do not think it adds to the notion of the impartiality which people like to see, especially in Ireland, among those who administer the law that these remarks should, for the first time, have been made after a change of Government. Now, Sir, the last point raised by the hon. Member was in respect of the Governors of lunatic asylums. With respect to the names of Governors of the lunatic asylum of the County Down the hon. Member tells us—and I think rightly—that there are in County Down 106,000 Presbyterians, 65,000 members of the Church of Ireland, and 73,000 Roman Catholics, and that there are six Governors who are Roman Catholics, nine who are members of the Church of Ireland, and only two who are Presbyterians. Now, upon that matter I can only say that the appointments on those Boards all over Ireland was an extremely laborious and very difficult task. I felt it to be our duty to undertake that task, because it seemed to me—and here I believe the hon. Member agrees with me —[Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!]—that it was our duty to undertake that task, because it is a monstrous thing that in nearly all the counties in Ireland where the percentage of Roman Catholics in the population was enormous that yet on the Boards of Governors, consisting of 20 or 25 gentlemen, sometimes not more than one or two Roman Catholics were members. I do not believe any Member in the House—neither the Member for North Armagh nor the Member for South Belfast—would deny that it was time to put an end to that state of things. Very little fault, I am bound to say, has been found with our nominations, difficult though the task was. We may have made some oversights in the matter of County Down, and I may say here that perhaps I did not draw a sufficient distinction between the members of the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterians. Wanting to make up the balance between Roman Catholics and Protestants, I admit I did not sufficiently recognise the difference between the Protestant denominations; but as to the hon. Member saying that I desired to trample upon the Presbyterians, I can only say that is an instance of the exaggeration which has pervaded the whole of his speech this afternoon. He knows very well that I have no desire whatever to trample upon the Presbyterians, any more than upon the Episcopalians or the Roman Catholics. As to the dismissal of certain gentlemen, I cannot, of course, say off-hand what the circumstances were. I repeat, that in the case of the County Down and in all other cases of the kind we did the best we could. In one or two instances, or perhaps in three or four instances, oversights were pointed out to us, and I believe in most of those cases we have repaired those oversights so far as we could. I can only say that I will do the best I can in the next revision to redress the balance, and give the Presbyterians their fair share of representation. The hon. Member has not opened up the general question of the state of Ireland. If he had gone through the Judges' Charges at the recent Assizes he would find—and the House will be glad to know it—that, excepting a very small area, which is certainly far from satisfactory, in the case of 33 Judges' Charges the report is as satisfactory as possibly could be, and that the improvement in the condition of Ireland and the course of restoration to peace and order, which began, I am quite willing to admit, under the right hon. Gentleman opposite, has gone on through an unbroken progress, and the improvement is every month continued.

I think the House will have derived great satisfaction from the closing sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The perennial problem of dealing with Irish crime is one which must cause great anxiety to whoever is responsible to this House for the administration of Irish affairs, and I am perfectly certain that no man feels the weight of that responsibility more than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not propose to enter into a minute survey of the controversy between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone; but I will deal only with three or four points which have been raised. The first of these relates to the collection of the county cess in that part of Donegal where I learn—I was not aware of it before—that for some years past no county cess has been collected. The right hon. Gentleman declines to admit that he is bound to entrust the collection to the Constabulary in the event of the ordinary officials failing to collect it. With that general proposition I am not inclined to quarrel. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, but all my hon. Friend said was that if the county cess was not collected because its collection involved some controversy connected with Irish politics or agrarian crime, then the Executive Government ought to consider seriously whether they could allow the duty of paying the local rates to fall into abeyance, or whether they would take steps to enforce it. It is a very serious responsibility to allow the county cess in any district to be repudiated year after year. With regard to what took place before Mr. Hodder, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has given an accurate version of what that gentleman said and what the Constabulary officer said; but the reason why my hon. Friend brought that case before the House was that it appeared to him that the Government were anxious to avoid bringing certain cases to trial, and that their anxiety not to do so was justified by the fact that whenever cases had been sent to trial in that particular county no attempt had been made by the juries to do justice. Perhaps I should say, in any case arising out of an agrarian quarrel, there has been no attempt at the last two Assizes on the part of Clare juries to execute their bounden duty. That was ample justification for my hon. Friend and others interested in Ireland to watch with critical eye every step taken which might throw light on the policy of the Government in relation to these Assizes. As to the question of classification, I accept fully the statement of the Chief Secretary that there has been no change of policy whatever. But, Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood the particular case my hon. Friend brought forward with regard to Mr. Blood. He mentioned that this unfortunate gentleman had been fired at three times. On two occasions the shot was fired at long ranges with a Snider rifle, and one of the Returns made was "attempted murder," and the other "intimidation." I agree that no great weight ought to be laid on the difference between 400 and 500 yards; but unless it can be shown that in the second case there were circumstances connected with the firing of the shot which obviously proved that it was not intended to take effect, I do say that, whether the principle of classification has been changed or not, to put the case down as one of simple intimidation is absolutely absurd. I do not know how high the courage of hon. Gentlemen in this House mounts; but I know I do not wish to be fired at from a distance of 400 yards by a Snider rifle, and should resent such an attempt being put down merely as intimidation, and not attempted murder. The Government may have information in their possession to show that Mr. Blood was not fired at; but, if so, it should be stated. But if the shot was fired at Mr. Blood—whether at 400 or 500 yards—out of a Snider rifle, I say it was wholly ridiculous to describe that attempted assassination as intimidation. That is not the only peculiarity with regard to the classification of crime brought before us. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the criticism—I will not use a stronger word—he made on a previous occasion upon the Chief Justice of Ireland. Well, Sir, I understand it to be the duty of a Judge of Assize in Ireland to make himself acquainted with the condition of the counties in which he is carrying on trials with regard to serious crime. If it be admitted that that is his duty, I cannot see how he is to perform it unless he be permitted to examine the officer who makes the Returns; and if all that can be alleged against the Chief Justice is that he so carried out his duty, I fail absolutely to understand on what principle the right hon. Gentleman objects to that system on which the action of this distinguished Judge was based. But I go further—

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that hitherto these interviews between the Judge of Assize and the officer have been private; on the present occasion, for the first time, the cross-examination was made in open Court.

I have not present in my mind all the particulars, nor do I know what the special justification for any change of procedure may be, if change of procedure occurred; but, on the broad principle I have already mentioned, I cannot see that there is any room for attacking the Chief Justice. But I go further, for it appears that the result of the learned Judge's examination, whether public or private, was to show that two or three serious errors had occurred. I think my hon. Friend has done well in calling attention to these important matters, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we could not have ascertained this had the examination not taken place.

was understood to assent.

The Chief Justice said the Inspector was quite right in what he had done; but there was a mistake—probably in accordance with the regulations—with regard to a case of intimidation, which did not appear in the statistics, which could only be brought out by this examination by the Judge of Assize of the officer responsible. It must be admitted that if a case of serious crime was not before him when it ought to have been, the Chief Justice was justified in asking for particulars. No one would, of course, say that there was any desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley) to cook the statistics. It is clear, I think, that public benefit has been derived from calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that very serious mistakes have occurred with regard to the enumeration and classification of these cases. That is all I desire to say on the subject. I think the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that my hon. Friend has done well to call attention to this matter. I will only say, in conclusion, one word, repeating the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman—and not to him only but to the House—on what we are assured is the improved condition of social life in the disturbed districts.

said, he had intended to bring forward the question of Irish light railways; but there were only a few minutes left to them, and he could not do so at any length. He would, however, call attention to the burdens which had been cast upon the cesspayers of his constituency in connection with the construction and working of the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway. There could be no doubt that the construction of light railways had been a great convenience to many localities; but in some districts they had been badly constructed and badly managed, with the result that cesspayers who guaranteed a portion of the interest on the capital of the undertaking were saddled with heavy financial burdens, representing, with local taxation, between 5s. and 6s. in the £1 on the Poor Law valuation. The line was 36 miles in length, and cost £120,000. The tax was a very serious matter for the people, who had no voice in the management of the line. It was constructed under the County Kerry Grand Jury, and passed by the Board of Works in Ireland and the Board of Trade. But the people of the district had no more to say to the construction of the line than to railways in the moon. There was no idea at the time of the project passing that the liabilities would be so great. There was one way of meeting the difficulty. His (Sir T. Esmonde's) Colleagues and himself had introduced a Bill dealing with the Irish Light Railways, which had passed the Second Heading, and he would ask the Government to take it up and endeavour to carry it into law. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would remember that the Bill had passed its Second Reading. They (the Nationalist Party) were not tied to the drastic provisions of this Bill. They only wished to obtain some further relief for those concerned in the working of these railways. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government should consider whether they could adopt the view of the people of the district and of the Irish Members. He hoped they would have an assurance that the Government were prepared to take up the Bill and carry it through.

said, the matter referred to by the hon. Baronet had been the subject of discussion between the Irish Government, the Treasury, and the Irish Board of Works, with a view to considering whether any plan could be adopted so as to relieve the pressure on the cesspayers in the districts in which the light railways existed, and so meet the wish of the hon. Member and his friends. At the same time, he must remind his hon. Friend that this scheme had been passed by the Grand Jury, and had been carried out on the strength of the guarantee.

said, they only guaranteed a proportion.

said, he might soon be able to state how far they could go. It was a question as to how far the Irish Government and the Treasury could agree upon the proposals to carry out the object in view.

said, there wore proposals in the Bill which had been mentioned by the hon Baronet which were, in his opinion, open to serious objection. He would not discuss them, however. He merely rose to revert for a moment or two to the question which had been before the House prior to that which had just been raised He was not surprised at the attitude of the Chief Secretary towards the late Administration. It was an extremely convenient course for him to adopt, and could be taken in connection with the "angelic theory" of which they had heard so much during the past few months. He could say, however, that the information given to the Chief Secretary was not prepared in accordance with the immediate facts of the Bundoran ease. There could be no doubt that the arrangements made by the Constabulary were absolutely insufficient, and they failed after due notice had been given to the police. The local Nationalist organ, used the most inflammable language for the purpose of inciting the passions of the people. He did not care whether The Vindicator was right or the Constabulary was right. One fact remained—that the disturbance took place. He (Mr. Macartney) had had a report sent him by an eye-witness, who stated that Mr. Templeman and his sister—the lady who accompanied him—were attacked as they were coming not from the Evangelistic services, but from the church. Some 200 or 300 roughs had been drinking in the neighbour hood; and some of them insulted the lady, and the disturbance then arose. The right hon. Gentleman had no information about what happened; he could not have any, as there were no police about at the time. They were engaged elsewhere. He thought they were justified—