I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether an enlargement of the Earls Heaton School, to the extent of 60 places, is being sanctioned by the Education Department, notwithstanding the protest of three members of the Soothill School Board, in whose district the said school is situated, who have represented that within 150 yards of the said school there are over 200 vacant places provided by another public elementary school; and, whether, if this is the case, he will consider the matter?

The provision of a third class-room is desirable in the interests of the efficiency of the Board School; but, as it appears that there are still a good many vacant places in the National School, the Committee of Council will consider whether they shall reckon this class-room as increasing the accommodation of the Board School to the extent proposed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the appointment of lady supervisor in the Belfast Post Office Telegraph Department has been conferred on a comparatively junior clerk; what is her period of service, and how many there are in the first class senior to her over whom she has been promoted; and, whether those who are senior to the lady appointed were considered incapable of filling the position; and, if so, for what reason?

Miss Reid, who was recently promoted to be Woman Supervisor at Belfast, is not a comparatively junior clerk. Her service dates from November 1882. She was fourth on the First Class, and the three standing above her were certified not to be qualified for the promotion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of gravel have been taken from the Ballygawley river by the Clogher Valley Tramway Company since the 1st of January last, and sold to the Great Northern Railway Company; how many permanent way men of the Clogher Valley Company were employed in removing the gravel; and, is it in accordance with the rules of the Board of Trade for the management of tramways that permanent way men may be taken from their proper duties to be employed in filling gravel for sale to railway companies?

I am unable to give the hon. Member any further information with regard to this matter than is contained in my reply to him of July 26th. The Board of Trade have no rules dealing with the duties of permanent way men. The responsibility for the proper management and control of the tramway rests with the Company, and the Board of Trade cannot interfere.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a woman named Margaret M'Manus, of Mullana-vanog, county Monaghan, an evicted tenant, who was prosecuted for alleged trespass at the Monaghan Petty Sessions, on Tuesday 27th July, although she alleged that she was engaged in negotiating with the Land Commission for the purchase of her farm under the Land Acts, and asked for an adjournment of the case for a month pending completion of the negotiations; (2) is he aware that the magistrates were equally divided upon the case, and unable to make any rule; (3) what stage are the negotiations in; and (4) will this prosecution be suspended to admit of their being perfected?

The facts appear to be correctly stated in the first paragraph. The landlord withheld his consent from the application of the evicted tenant for reinstatement, and consequently the Land Commissioners cannot entertain the application. The hearing of the case in which the defendant was summoned for trespass stands adjourned until tomorrow, when the prosecution will be proceeded with. The prosecution is at the suit of the landlord, and the Crown cannot interfere as suggested in the fourth paragraph, even if the Land Commissioners were in a position to entertain the application of defendant for reinstatement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his statement that discharged soldiers were unfit to be employed as messengers in the House of Commons, and were subject to temptations there which made it a little difficult to appoint them, was based on information given by individual Members of the House of Commons, or on reports made by the officials in charge of the staff; and, whether he would state any instances showing their unfitness, or where they have succumbed to temptation?

The statement made by me conveyed the opinions officially expressed by those responsible as to the desirability or the reverse of appointing retired soldiers as messengers in the House of Commons. No instances were given, and I am not without hope that the view may be modified. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether the present staff had given satisfaction?

I am not responsible for them, but I should say the present staff was admirable. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the contract for the Portrain Lunatic Asylum was given to a firm whose tender was £1,500 higher than the lowest tender, and which is paying for labourers 12s. a week of 57 to 60 hours, as against 19s. a week of 54 hours Dublin wages; for tradesmen 28s. to 30s. a week of 57 hours, according to ability, as against a minimum of 36s. a week of 54 hours in Dublin; and, if so, whether this is in accord with the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons?

It is not a fact that the contract for the new Asylum at Portrane was given to a firm whose tender was £1,500 higher than the lowest tender. Labourers and tradesmen engaged on this work are employed by the hour, and not by the week, and I am informed that the rates of wages paid are not at variance with the Fair Wages Resolution of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has been made aware of the great inconvenience to which the people of Lurgan are being put in transacting their business at the post office in that town, owing to the inadequate space and unsuitable character of the premises; whether he is aware that telegraphic operations are carried on at the public counter in the hearing of the public; whether he has received a memorial from the Town Commissioners of Lurgan, praying for enlarged and more suitable premises; and, whether it is his intention to take steps for providing a post office such as will enable the business to be conveniently and properly transacted?

The attention of the Postmaster General had been called, previous to the receipt of the memorial from the Town Commissioners, to the inadequacy of the accommodation afforded in the present post office at Lurgan, and for some time past the postmaster has been endeavouring to find better premises at a rent which the amount of the business would justify but without success. It is believed to be very likely that the sound of the telegraph instrument is audible at the public counter. The question of providing a Crown office is now being considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he intends to make inquiries to satisfy himself that the two companies that have tendered for the purchase of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway are in a financial position to carry out the conditions of their respective tenders in case either should become the purchaser; (2) whether he will satisfy himself as to the truth of the rumour circulated in favour of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company's tender to the effect that the Midland Railway Company of England is financially concerned in the offer of purchase of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company before selling the Government's interest in the concern, and the greater interests of the ratepayers of Waterford, to that firm; and (3) whether he has any objection to say if the Midland Railway Company are parties to the offer for purchase made by the Fishguard and Rosslare Company? The HON. MEMBER also asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say if the London and North Western Railway Company are financially concerned in, and are parties to, the offer made by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company for the purchase of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway?

Of course, I shall make the inquiries mentioned in the first and second paragraphs. The Midland Railway, so far as I am aware, are not parties to the offer mentioned in the third paragraph. The same answer applies to the hon. Member's Question No. 37, about the London and North Western Railway Co.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that at the Castleblaney quarter sessions on the 10th October last, the Grand Jury passed a resolution commending the conduct of Sergeant Corry and Constable Flynn for their action in one of the cases tried at the quarter session; and that the Judge handed this resolution to the District Inspector to be forwarded to the Inspector General; and (2) whether the resolution was forwarded in due course?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. Two days after the adoption of the resolution, the members of the Constabulary named in the Question made an application for favourable consideration of their conduct in connection with the case referred to, but on the 14th October asked permission to withdraw their application, and the District Inspector, under the circumstances, did not consider it necessary to submit the resolution to the Inspector General. The Inspector General having now considered the resolution, is of opinion that the duty performed by the police in this case was of very ordinary character, and not such as to entitle them to any special recognition.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question as to why this District Inspector did not in due course submit the resolution, as ordered by the Judge, to the Inspector General?

The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have read his own Question. There is nothing in his Question as to why the resolution was not sent to the Inspector General. The Inspector probably did not consider it as of sufficient importance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the attention of the Deputy Keeper of the Records has been called to the continued complaints made as regards the manner in which the several volumes of the calendar of entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland have been compiled; whether it is intended in the subsequent volumes to correct the errors in those already published, a number of which have been set out at length in two articles in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record; whether the direction of the deputy keeper abrogating the original Rolls Instruction (eleventh), that each series should be chronological, will be reconsidered; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that the French publication relied on as a precedent gives an index setting forth the date, etc., of each document in proper sequence, a similar index will be provided for the English volumes; and, whether, in view of the importance of this work for historical purposes, the Deputy Keeper of the Records will submit for inquiry to some persons eminent in this branch of scholarship the several allegations which have been made, that the documents of which the series in question are intended to be a calendar are confused as regards their order, imperfectly summarised in many instances, often mistranslated, and indexed imperfectly; that dates are often not given; that technical terms are misunderstood; that errors are frequent; and that the work displays a general want of knowledge of the subject matter dealt with.

The Deputy Keeper of the Records informs me that his attention has been called to complaints respecting the manner in which the first two volumes have been compiled. Such entries as are proved to be erroneous will, of course, be corrected, but several of the charges made in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record have been found on investigation to be groundless. The rolls instruction mentioned by the hon. Member referred to calendars of State papers, which are detached documents, and is not applicable to calendars of rolls or registers. In dealing with these it is usual to follow the extract order in which the entries occur in the original manuscripts, and this has been the system pursued by scholars of different nationalities working on the Vatican archives. A proposal to supply a chronological table of political entries is now under consideration. The Deputy Keeper will be willing to discuss the whole question with some impartial scholar.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any assistance has been provided, as promised, for the present editor of the Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so, whether he will state the names of the person, or persons appointed for the purpose; to what departments of the work such assistance extends, and what assistance has been provided for him in the Irish portions of his work; and, whether the Deputy Keeper of the Records will consider the advisability of having a separate volume compiled relating exclusively to the Irish entries.

Yes, this assistance has been provided, as the volume issued last week shows. Mr. Johnson, of the Record Office, was assisting the editor at Rome from January to May last year, and Mr. Twemlow from last November to the present time. Their assistance extended to the whole of the text and the index alike. All entries, moreover, which related to Ireland have been examined by the Very Reverend M. Costello, of the Dominican Priory of San Clemente in Rome. It is not considered advisable to have a separate calendar of Irish entries.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the result of the negotiations with the Committee of the London and North Western Railway Company in reference to the acceleration of the Irish day mails?

The Postmaster General, the Chief Secretary and myself, saw the Chairman and Manager of the London and North Western Railway Company on Tuesday last, and it was arranged that they should furnish an estimate of the cost of improving the day passenger service. That estimate I have not yet received. The day mail is already faster than the North Wall boat train, and is only 19 minutes slower to Chester than the night mail itself. The acceleration of what is now the 7.15 train, would therefore only slightly improve the hour of starting from London. That train must run as far as Chester in any case if North Wales is to receive its mails as early as it has hitherto. If an additional train has to be run, starting from Euston at (say) 8.30, it would be more convenient, of course, for London passengers, but it would mean that Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and other passengers who form two-thirds of the traffic for Ireland, would either be detained for a long time at Crewe or Chester, or start considerably later than at present—although the present hours of starting have proved very convenient for them. The alteration in the times of these trains would also dislocate the existing postal arrangements of the localities concerned.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether at an interview between Djevad Pasha and the Admirals, the character of his mission was discussed; and whether this is to be taken as a recognition of the right of Djevad Pasha to interfere in the affairs of Crete?

Djevad Pasha stated to the Admirals on the 25th of July that his mission was not political, but that his instructions were to take command of the troops, and endeavour to enlarge the cordon and ameliorate the position of Mussulmans. This statement cannot be taken as a recognition of his right to exercise any function except that of commander of the Turkish troops, to which post he has been appointed in place of the commander recently withdrawn.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, since the landing of Djevad Pasha, the European soldiers in Canea have been frequently insulted by the Mahomedans and Turkish soldiers, and in some instances assaulted, and whether, in the face of such proceedings, the Admirals intend to maintain their present attitude towards the Mahomedans and Turkish authorities in the island?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information in regard to the state of affairs in Crete since the arrival of Djevad Pasha in the island; whether a few nights since European soldiers were maltreated by a Turkish patrol; and whether any, and if so, what, steps are being taken by the Powers to prevent the repetition of outrages?

The British Admiral has reported that isolated quarrels have recently taken place at Canea between the European and Turkish troops, but nothing has been said as to any connection between these incidents and the arrival of Djevad Pasha. On the contrary, the British Admiral expresses the hope that in consequence of the measures adopted by the Admirals in conjunction with Djevad Pasha, they will not recur. There is no reason, therefore, why the Admirals should depart from the attitude which they have hitherto observed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the blockade of Crete is still maintained; if it is, whether he can state the present conditions of the blockade; and, whether ammunition and military stores are allowed to be landed for the use of the Mussulmans, while the blockade is enforced against ammunition intended for the Christians?

I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 19th of July with regard to the blockade of Crete. Ammunition and military stores are no doubt landed for the use of the Turkish troops in the island. This is obviously necessary so long as they remain there.

asked whether it was true that while ammunition and military stores were allowed to be landed for the Turkish troops, they were not allowed to be landed for the use of the Christians?

There are no Christian troops in the island.

said that his question referred not to Christian troops, but to the Christian insurgents.

The hon. Member tries to establish a parity of position between the Turks and the Christians. No such parity exists, because there are no Christian troops in the island.

Then I understand that the English Admirals are on the Turkish side. [Nationalist cheers.]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Admirals intend to allow Djevad Pasha to remain in Crete?

The Admirals have no ground for objecting to the discharge by Djevad Pasha of the duties of the post to which he has been appointed.

; I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when it is proposed to begin the universal delivery of letters in the rural districts of Ireland, promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech?

The Surveyor's proposals for extending the delivery of letters throughout the United Kingdom, in accordance with the promise of the Budget Speech, are being received, and the proposals, after examination, will be carried into effect without any unnecessary delay. As was, however, intimated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the work of extending the deliveries in all parts of the country will occupy a considerable time, and cannot possibly be completed within the present financial year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India (1) can he state how many arrests of British subjects have been made in India recently, under the law of lettre de cachet; (2) whether the persons thus arrested are to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial; (3) whether this system of punishment for alleged political offences is a proceeding sanctioned by any canon of English law and, if so, will he state what such law is; and (4) whether any British subject so arrested and imprisoned in India has the right of trial before any court of India, or any right of appeal to any tribunal in England?

In reply to Question No. 1, two persons have been arrested recently under the Bombay Regulation XXV. of 1827. As to Question No. 2, I cannot say what may be the intentions now or hereafter of the Indian Government; and in regard to Question No. 3, the hon. Gentleman can consult the regulations and form his own conclusions. As to Question No. 4 there is no appeal.

asked whether persons in India arrested under Regulation XXV. could be kept in prison without trial indefinitely?

The Indian Government have power to detain such persons in prison as long as they think necessary.

asked the noble Lord whether his sanction had been obtained for these arrests before they were made?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Palmyra Islet has recently been occupied as a British possession; and, if so, was such occupation carried out by orders from the Foreign Office; and whether the occupation of this islet is to be temporary or permanent in its character; if permanent, whether any communication to that effect will be addressed to the Government of the Hawaiian Republic or to any other Power?

A British Protectorate was declared over the unoccupied island of Palmyra in 1889. The occupation will be maintained, but has not required any communication either to other Powers or to Hawaii, with whom the island has no present connection.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that under the old regulations the porterage charge for conveying a telegram from Lisbellaw Post Office to Point House was only 1s. 4d.; whether under the new rules Point House would be entitled to a free delivery, this charge having been fixed on a distance not exceeding three miles; whether he is aware that the Post Office authorities now claim 1s. 3d., stating that the distance is five miles; whether he can explain if the distance is five miles that 2s. 6d. instead of 1s. 4d. was not charged under the former scheme; and if he will take steps to have the true distance ascertained by actual measurement?

The Postmaster General is not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the Question. He will, however, be happy to have inquiry made on the subject, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Dr. Corfield's Report on Post Office Establishments will be laid upon the Table of the House before its Adjournment?

Dr. Corfield's Report on the sanitary condition of the General Post Office East (not on Post Office Establishments) was made at the request of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee and by desire of the Postmaster General to enable him to determine whether that Office did or did not afford sanitary accommodation for the large stair employed in it. In accordance with Dr. Corfield's recommendations, steps are being taken to remove a large portion of the work to another building with a view to the reconstruction—so soon as circumstances will permit—of the entire building. Every effort is being made to do this with as little delay as possible; and in the meanwhile the Postmaster General is of opinion that it is not necessary—as it would certainly be unusual—to lay the Report itself on the Table of the House.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON), I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department will allow their share of the special grant to schools, whose managers object to their joining associations in the formation of which they were not consulted, as un-associated schools?

The objections of managers to joining associations will in each case be considered on their own merits. No general rule can be laid down.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories will be circulated?

I have already explained that this Report has been delayed unavoidably, owing to the fact that it now has to include returns collected under the Act of 1895. The Chief Inspector informs me that he will complete the report next week, but I fear it may be some weeks before it can be circulated.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps have been taken in connection with the complaint made by the operative painters of Belfast against the contractors of the new Military barracks at Holywood in not complying with the Fair Wage Resolution of this House?

The contractors have denied the allegations made against them; and the person who complained has been invited to furnish his evidence. He has not yet done so.

asked whether, when the letter was sent to the War Office, any inquiry was made into the matter by Mr. Major?

On the letter reaching the War Office the usual course was taken and the letter was forwarded to Mr. Major.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Excise authorities have granted a new licence for a public house at 3, George Street, Paisley, without giving an opportunity for the hearing of objections; and (2) whether a renewal of the licences to the "Globe" and the "County" having been refused by the Special Sessions of the Licensing Court, and the refusal upheld on appeal, for what reason the Excise authorities have since granted licences to these two hotels?

The facts of the case mentioned in the first part of the hon. Member's question are as follows:—The publican referred to in the first paragraph had for more than eight years held a licence at 18, High Street, Paisley. In March last he applied to the Licensing Magistrates for a renewal of his Publican's Certificate, which was granted. In April, the owner of the premises, who had acquired them towards the end of last year, gave him notice to quit with the intention of pulling down the house. The publican then removed to 3, George Street, but by that time it was too late to apply for a certificate for his new premises. He thereupon petitioned the Board of Inland Revenue to permit him to carry on the sale of exciseable liquors, until the next licensing Court in October, pointing out the great loss and damage which he would otherwise sustain. This petition came before the Magistrates, who concurred in his request, recommending the Board to allow the sale to go on, and undertaking to grant a certificate for the premises at the next licensing Court. In these circumstances the Board consented to instruct their officers not to interfere with the sale of liquor on these premises until the next licensing sittings. In the two other cases mentioned the action of the Board has been the same, although the circumstances are somewhat different. In each case a seven-day Hotel licence was held, and at the last licensing Court application was made, in the ordinary way, for renewal. The applications were refused, and the refusal was confirmed on appeal; the Magistrates intimated that they would have no objection to grant a six-day licence, if application were made, but by the time the case was decided it was too late to make application, and the matter cannot formally come before the Magistrates till their next licensing Court in October. On the petition of the hotel keepers, supported by the unanimous and pressing recommendation of the Magistrates, who undertook to grant the licences at the next licensing Court, the Board have instructed their officers not to interfere with the sale of liquor under the conditions of a six-day licence on these premises till the Magistrates next sit as a licensing Court.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what rifles are used by the British troops in the fighting at Malakand; and have the troops any Maxim guns; and, if so, can he state whether they are water jacketed, and fitted with the new automatic supply cistern?

No British troops were engaged at Malakand. The native troops have Martini-Henry rifles. There are two Maxim guns, which are water-jacketed. I have no knowledge of the automatic supply cistern.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now had the opportunity of considering the representations made to him on behalf of the Burnley miners, in favour of the withdrawal of the exemption now existing in regard to them from the operation of the check-weighing clauses of the Mines Regulation Act 1886; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject?

I have made inquiries in this matter, but I do not think, as matters now stand, that the party who desire the withdrawal of the exemption have made out a case which would justify me in altering the existing arrangements. I am not even satisfied that a majority of the miners affected by the exemption desire the change.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the provisions of The Public Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act 1862, and especially Section 5 of that Act, it is lawful for the Excise authorities to grant a permit under which a person who does not hold any certificate in terms of that Act may sell exciseable liquors; whether his attention has been called to the case known as Steel's Hotel Licence, in Glasgow, renewal of which was refused at the Magistrates' Annual Court in April last, and the appeal against that refusal was dismissed by the Quarter Sessions in May last; whether a recommendation from some of the magistrates has since been received by the Excise authorities; if so, what was done with it; and, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Under the Act quoted by the hon. Member the Inland Revenue have no power to issue a licence for the sale of exciseable liquors by retail to any person who shall not produce a magistrates' certificate granted under the Act. In the case to which the hon. Member refers application was made to the magistrates by the proprietress of the hotel in the usual way for renewal of her seven-day licence. The magistrates refused to grant the licence, and, though it was understood that they would have no objection to grant a six-day licence, it was then too late to make the necessary application. The proprietress then petitioned the magistrates to sanction the sale of liquor on the premises under the conditions of a six-day licence until their statutory sitting for the granting of licences in October, and the magistrates who heard the petition unanimously endorsed it. Under these circumstances the Board of Inland Revenue consented to instruct their officers not to interfere with the sale of liquor by the petitioner on these premises until the statutory sitting in October at which the magistrates can consider the application for a six-day licence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when the Committee appointed to inquire into the mail service in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland are likely to report?

The Committee to consider the future arrangements for certain steamer services on the West and North Coasts of Scotland, which is no doubt the Committee to which the hon. Member refers, has only recently been appointed, and it cannot at present be stated over how long a time the necessary inquiries will extend or when the report will be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps the Government propose to take with reference to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Museums for securing the buildings at South Kensington against danger from fire?

This Question is rather for my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works than for me, but I may say that the additional Estimate which was presented and circulated some days ago provides for an immediate expenditure of £5,000 upon removing the more dangerous buildings on the east side of Exhibition Road, including the "boilers" and the electric lighting plant, displacing the occupants of the official residences, and reconstructing the entrance to the southern galleries on the west side of Exhibition Road.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Lands Act Inquiry Commission, whether, under the terms of reference, the tenant farmers will be afforded facilities to have representative tenant farmers from the different districts in Ireland examined on their behalf to give evidence as to the fixing of fair rents by the Land Commissioners and County Court Judges, and the fixing of the value of the tenant's interest in a holding, wherein the landlord exercises the right of pre-emption; and when, and where, the sittings of the Land Acts Inquiry Commission will be held?

The procedure of the Royal Commission, as well as the time and place of their sittings, will be settled by the Commissioners themselves. I will bring the Question of the hon. Member under the notice of the Secretary to the Commission.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Treasury will authorise the Public Works Loan Commissioners to receive hack, without demanding a high premium, moneys which were formerly borrowed when the rates of interest were abnormally high, in order that School Boards and other public bodies may re-borrow from the same authority at the current rates fixed by the Commissioners, or in the open market, upon very much lower terms than those upon which the moneys were originally borrowed?

Every loan amounting to £100 outstanding represents the asset of £100 Local Loans stock, which has been borrowed for the purpose of making the loan. But £100 would barely cancel £90 of that stock at its present price. It is evident, therefore, that such a proposal as the question suggests would endanger the solvency of the capital account of the fund to the loss of the general taxpayer. Similarly, the solvency of the income account would be endangered by the simultaneous repayment of millions, even if they were all lent out again, for that would mean a loss of about ¾ per cent. on loans amounting to about 14 millions, which represent the loans to School Boards outstanding. A request that in the present state of the money market loans should be received back at par before they are due is one that would certainly not be entertained by other lending bodies.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether, by the Devonshire (Muzzling of Dogs) Order, all dogs with the exception of sporting dogs in charge of competent persons are required to be muzzled; (2) whether he is aware that a large number of dogs are used by farmers and cattlemen in Devonshire for the purposes of their business; and (3) whether he will extend the same exemptions to dogs under the charge of competent persons used for business purposes, as the Board of Agriculture extends to dogs used for sport?

The reply to the first two Questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. With regard to the third Question, the matter has already been carefully considered, and for reasons I have already given, I regret I am unable to adopt the suggestion.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the fact that tenants whoso rents do not exceed £4 per annum are not entitled to vote at School Board elections, whether he is aware that in the Island of Lewis, out of 3,160 crofters who are entitled to vote in county and parish council elections, as many as 3,060 are disqualified to vote at School Board elections by reason of their rents being less than £4; and, will he state whether a Bill will be introduced next Session to extend the franchise for School Board elections.

In March 1896, the hon. Member asked a similar Question, based upon the same figures, which he was then informed were not supported by the statistics supplied to the Education Department. I have no reason to think that these figures are now more correct than they were in 1896. The subject will receive consideration, but I am unable to pledge the Government as to the course which will be pursued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is able to state when the S Division of the Metropolitan Police will be supplied with the new loose serge jacket.

Two-thirds of the number required for this Division were supplied on the 19th July, and the remainder will be delivered to-morrow and on Wednesday. I hope that every man in the Metropolis will be fitted with the serge tunic within a week.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether any, and, if so, what number of seamen who have served 10 years in the Naval Reserve are in recipt of the benefits of the Greenwich Hospital Pension Fund, as per Rule 99 of the Admiralty conditions, and which when men enrol are offered as an inducement to join the service.

The Rule 99 referred to by the hon. Member was published in 1861, and dealt with the admission of men as inmates of Greenwich Hospital. In consequence of the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1869 the hospital was closed and no men from the Navy or Reserve have since been admitted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) how many cases of rabies have been reported in Devonshire during the past 12 months; and (2) whether farmers' dogs employed in driving sheep and cattle, and fishermen's dogs employed in carrying ropes to and from their masters' boats, may be accorded the same exemption from the muzzle as dogs employed in sport?

Two cases of undoubted rabies have occured in Devonshire during that current year. One case occurred on the 29th June, and another on the 7th July, whilst a third dog was destroyed in June under very suspicious circumstances. In connection with the latter case another dog from the same premises, after displaying similar symptoms, disappeared. In reply to the hon. Member for South Molton I have stated that I am unable to adopt the suggestion contained in the second paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the text of the memorial recently presented to him, signed by upwards of 60,000 women, and by branches of the British Women's Temperance Association, expressing their objections to any intervention of the State for the regulation of immorality. The hon. Member also asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial from the British Committee of the Federation for the abolition of State Regulation of Vice, praying him not to sanction the new cantonment regulations proposed by the Government of India, and protesting against the repeal of the Cantonment Act Amendment Act of 1895; whether he will forward that protest to the proper authority in India; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the text of the memorial?

I have no objection to laying the text of the memorials from the British Women's Temperance Association and the British Committee of the Federation for the abolition of State Regulation of Vice on the Table of the House if the hon. Member will move for them; and I propose to forward the memorials for the information of the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Secretary of State will announce his decision on the question of superannuation before the Prorogation; whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on the same subject will be presented to Parliament; and, whether an answer will be given to the memorial presented two years ago?

I have promised my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Epping Division to give the applicants an opportunity of personally representing their case before any recommendation is made to the Secretary of State, and this may somewhat delay the decision. The Report of the Departmental Committee will not be presented to Parliament. The decision will cover all applications on the subject which have been received.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has had his attention called to the correspondence that has recently taken place in the press with regard to a Royal Residence in Ireland; and, whether he will, during the Recess, consider the advisability of next Session abolishing the office of Viceroy of Ireland, of substituting in its place a Secretaryship of State for Ireland, and of establishing a Royal Residence in that country on a fitting and substantial scale?

I have never made any secret of my own doubts as to whether the existing system of governing Ireland by the Lord Lieutenancy is the best that could be devised, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend legislation on the subject for next year. No change can take place without legislation, and it will be impossible to promise any such legislation having regard to the pledges we have already given as to the expenditure of public time in the forthcoming Session of Parliament.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Nationalist feeling in Ireland is strongly opposed to the idea of a Royal Residence in that country?

No, I am not aware of that. [Ministerial cheers.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the Question to stand over till next General Election when we will soon show—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Report of the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands 1892, shows that 1,782,785 acres of land are available in the six crofting counties for new holdings, extension of existing holdings, and the creation of small farms; and, seeing that these lands are now largely used as deer forests, will he state whether a Bill will be introduced next Session for the purpose of giving the Highland crofters and cottars access to these lands at fair rents for agricultural and grazing purposes?

I am afraid I must repeat my last answer, that I cannot give any pledge in regard to legislation for next Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have denounced the Treaty of Commerce of 30th May 1865, between the German Customs Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; if so, will he state whether this denunciation will apply to all supplementary agreements regulating its extension to the various German States which subsequently joined the Customs Union, and also to Alsace-Lorraine; and will this denunciation enable the Government of the German Customs Union to impose duties upon shipping now extensively built and sold in this country to German owners, and which are admitted duty free?

asked how it was that the publication of this Treaty had appeared in the German papers and had not been officially published in the British papers.

I am not aware whether the statements embodied in the last Question are well founded or not. It is the fact that Her Majesty's Government have given notice for the determination of the Treaty in question, which, together with all supplementary agreements extending to the various German States, will cease to be in force on July 30, 1898. Her Majesty's Government have intimated to the German Government their desire to negotiate a new Commercial Treaty with Germany, and until these negotiations have made some advance it would be premature to express any opinion as to the effect which the determination of the Treaty of 1865 will have as regards the Customs Union in Germany. ["Hear, hear!"]

Has a similar intimation been given to the Belgian Government?

Yes, Sir; I believe it has.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he had any news to communicate to the House as to the garrison at Chakdara?

I have two telegrams. The first from the Viceroy at Simla, received at the India Office, August 2, 11.47 a.m., is as follows:—

"Malakand.—In continuation of my telegram in the Military Department, dated yesterday, Cavalry reconnaissance with flanking infantry support met with strong opposition, and was forced to retire. Casualties—Captain G. M. Baldwin, the Corps of Guides, wounded severely; Lieut. C. V. Keyes, the Corps of Guides, wounded slightly. Native ranks—the Corps of Guides, 11th Bengal Lancers, 12 wounded, three dangerously. Enemy following up attacked north side of camp. General Blood having arrived and assumed command wires this morning, columns under Meiklejohn and Goldney advanced at dawn and attacked enemy on made road and on hills. Attacks brilliantly executed, and, so far as could be seen from Malakand, completely successful. Officers previously wounded doing well, except Lamb and Costello doing fairly."

[Cheers.] I have a further telegram in these terms:—"Chakdara relieved; garrison safe." [Cheers.]

asked what business it was proposed to take to-night after Supply?

asked what was proposed to be done with the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill?

said that as to Supply there remained the Report of Supply of the Votes which would be taken that evening, and it probably would have as great, if not a greater, claim to consideration than the Reports standing on the Paper. The House would remember that last year it was found possible to give precedence to Reports of Supply by postponing with consent the Votes which it was not desired to discuss, so as to leave room for the Votes which it was desired to discuss; and the Government were prepared to adopt such a plan this year in order to meet the general wish of the House. As to the Bills on the Paper, he was informed by the Chief Secretary that the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill was purely a Departmental Measure referring to Belfast only. He did not ask the hon. Member to take it from him that the Measure was non-contentious, but he thought that the hon. Member, on looking at its provisions, would find that it was so.

We cannot get the Bill. It is not available, and it is hard to ask us in these circumstances to deal with it.

thought that the hon. Member would find that it was now printed, but if the hon. Member raised any objection he should feel that it would have great weight. But when the Order came on, he thought that the hon. Member would have an opportunity of convincing himself that it was practically non-contentious. With regard to the remaining Orders on the Paper, to his very great regret he believed it to be impossible to take the London University Commission Bill in the course of the present Session. He felt to the full the objections as to leaving over for another year the settlement of a question in which a large number of independent educational bodies were concerned, and on which, speaking broadly, they had come to an agreement. But he recognised at the same time that there was serious opposition taken to it in its present shape, and the Government could not face the expenditure of time necessary to deal with the Measure in the present Session. The Government must therefore postpone the Bill. He earnestly hoped that next year, at all events, the Government would be in a position to settle this long standing and perplexing controversy. [Cheers.] With regard to the Land Transfer Bill, he was given to understand that the main part of the opposition to this Measure came from Yorkshiremen, or Members representing Yorkshire constituencies; but he was also informed by those who were able to give an authoritative expression of opinion on the subject, that there was no interference under this Bill with the existing Yorkshire system, and he believed that it was recognised in Yorkshire that they were anxious there for the passing of the Bill. If the Bill could get through without any serious expenditure of time, he still hoped they might be able to pass it. There could not, however, be any serious expenditure of time—it was absolutely impossible at the present period of the Session—and if time was required for the Bill he could hold out no hopes that the Government would be able to proceed with it, though he had some grounds to hope that the opposition to it might melt away.

Will it come on to-night?

I should like to bring it on tonight if we can. I am not competent to speak as to the details, but I understand that full security can be given to every Yorkshire interest. There remain only the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Exemption from Pilotage) Bill. I hope we shall be able to make progress with the Irish Judicature Bill in order that it should go as soon as possible to another place. The Merchant Shipping Bill comes from the Lords. I believe it is a non-controversial Measure, which it is rather important to pass from a diplomatic and international point of view.

indicated that there were certain clauses in the Land Transfer Bill to which Yorkshire objected.

I am not competent to deal with the details of the Bill, but I will take note of my hon. Friend's point.

asked as to the outstanding Votes in Supply.

said that there were 33 Votes in Supply, representing about £2,000,000, still to be taken. This was practically identical with the condition of Supply at a similar date last year. The number of Votes then was 30, and the amount about £1,800,000. The difference was more than accounted for by the number of Supplementary Estimates taken this year, and which had not to be taken last year. The Government had not been so successful with Irish Supply as he had hoped, but he trusted that there would be some opportunity that evening to debate some of the outstanding Irish Votes.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to a letter in The Times from the Vicar of St. Jude's, Whitechapel, giving details of the water famine in the East-end of London, and whether an assurance of the Deportment would be given that the best endeavour would be made to minimise as far as possible the sufferings of these unfortunate people. [Cheers.]

said that up to the hour when the House met no complaints had reached the Department as to the insufficiency of the water supply, but on reading the letter in The Times he dispatched General Scott to the locality. It was found that, being Bank Holiday, none of the responsible officials were at the company's offices. There had, however, been a serious burst in one of the mains. He dispatched General Scott later to the various blocks of buildings referred to in the Vicar of St. Jude's letter, and was now waiting his return and the report.

asked whether the Government would consider the propriety of moving an Amendment in the Water Companies Bill in another place with the view of altering the date for the Bill to come into force? At present the date was November 1, but he thought its provisions might be made to apply to any water famine during the present summer.

said that he had considered this point since he had received information with reference to the water supply, and if it was possible to do so he would take steps in the direction indicated. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether any steps were being taken by the Local Government Board to assist the Middlesex County Council in their endeavour to remedy the state of things existing in the River Brent?

said that on Friday last he stated that he had ordered an Inspector to go down and immediately report on the state of the Brent. On Saturday morning he received the Report. By arrangement with the officials he had an interview with the Chairman of the Middlesex County Council, and the same afternoon he dispatched to him what, according to the views put before him, were the instructions necessary to enable him to take immediate steps for the purification of the river Brent.

, in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the sale of food and drugs, said it was unusual to do so at this late period of the Session. [Ironical cheers.] There was, however, no intention whatever of proceeding with it. [Ironical laughter.] It was merely brought forward in fulfilment of a pledge given earlier in the Session. [Ironical laughter and cheers.] The object of the Bill was to give effect to recommendations which were made by the Committee which sat on the question of food and drugs; and his object in introducing the Bill now was in order that during the recess they might be able to ascertain the general drift of opinion with regard to the Question. [Ironical cheers.]

said that the Commissioners were carrying on the examinations not only for the Civil Service but also for the Army and Navy. They conducted the entrance examinations for the Army and Navy as well as some other examinations. There had been complaints as to the inefficient knowledge of languages said to exist both in the Army and the Navy, and some persons had found fault with the Commissioners on the ground that they were supposed to sympathise with the acquisition of the older branches of learning rather than with the acquisition of foreign tongues. He did not associate himself with these charges, because he did not know how far the Admiralty and the War Office were responsible for the examinations, and how far the Commissioners were responsible; but he believed, judging from experience at the Foreign Office, that the examinations were discussed between the departments concerned and the Civil Service Commissioners. The Navy was extremely deficient in officers acquainted with foreign languages, and considerable difficulty had been found in naval operations when civil interpreters had to be called in. Major-General Tulloch, in a Paper read before the United Service Institution, had thus summarised the facts. He said that as regarded the Navy, the officers had what might be called a schoolboy acquaintance with French; only a limited number had passed as interpreters in that language, a few in Spanish, and there were only eight German interpreters and one Russian. Now, considering the number of naval and marine officers in the Service, that was a state of things that was most unsatisfactory—and in that observation he thought the Committee would be disposed to agree. He went on to say that the two languages, German and Russian, in which there were so few interpreters in our Navy, were surely above all others the most important now that the German and Russian Navies were rising so much in power, and it was humiliating to confess that although German and Russian were almost unknown to our officers, English was spoken by nearly all the officers in the German and Russian services. There was something to be said, of course, from this point of view—that English was the great maritime language of the world, and it was perhaps even more necessary that foreign naval officers should be acquainted with the English tongue than that British naval officers should be acquainted with foreign tongues. But if the First Lord of the Admiralty would turn his attention to this matter, he thought he would be inclined to admit that there was some room for improvement. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he was quite aware of the importance of a knowledge of foreign languages to the officers of the Navy. The Admiralty had gone very carefully into the question as to how far the knowledge of modern languages ought to play a serious part in the examinations for the Britannia. They had consulted the best authorities and had taken a great deal of trouble in this matter, and they had come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to give modern languages a high place in the examinations; that was to say, that knowledge of foreign languages should not enable the candidates to take a position to which their other qualifications would not entitle them. It was a question where to begin, and they were of opinion that they should rather try to encourage the study of these languages after the men had passed into the Navy. He quite agreed that every inducement should be given to officers to acquire foreign languages, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matter received, and would continue to receive, the full attention of the Admiralty, and that they would be very glad if to a larger extent the officers of the British Navy were acquainted with foreign languages. ["Hear, hear!"]

wished to put a question to the President of the Local Government Board with regard to prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts. He understood that in answer to questions put during the Session, the President of the Local Government Board had assured the House that what was called the Evesham letter—in reference to repeated prosecutions—had been sent to the Boards of Guardains whose action was brought before him. Since the issue of the Report of the Vaccination Commission it had become increasingly the custom on the part of many Boards of Guardians to deal in a lenient manner with the question of vaccination prosecutions; but several cases had been brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and to the attention of hon. Members representing constituencies in which this question excited much interest; and what he had to ask was that the Local Government Board would consider the advisability—in view of the emphatic declarations of the Royal Commission—of issuing a circular giving stronger and more definite advice in the direction of the Evesham, letter. Legislation on this question being in suspense, he thought they had a right to expect that the Local Government Board should take rather more decided action than was represented by merely sending out as a matter of form what was called the Evesham letter. The number of repeated prosecutions might be very small; but certainly some of the cases which had been brought before him were exceedingly hard and showed a relentless spirit entirely in conflict with the recommendations of the Commission in dealing with those who had conscientious scruples as to the vaccination of their children. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to issue a circular defining the duties of Boards of Guardians and making suggestions which would lead to the removal of the scandal of repeated prosecutions, which in cases were marked by great cruelty to individuals and great wrong-headedness on the part of the Guardians.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take some steps in this matter of vaccination, whether in the direction suggested by the hon. Member or in another direction he would not say. He wished to press on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of an earlier issue of the Report of his Department. There was no Departmental Report of greater value to the public, or that which was looked forward to with greater interest by those who took heed of the administration of the Public Health and of the Poor Laws. He had been much disappointed, however, that greater dispatch was not observed in publishing. He was quite aware that great care was required in the preparation of the Report; but he sometimes thought the gain to the public would be greater if more promptitude in publication were secured, even at a little sacrifice of accuracy in minute details. He certainly thought the staff of the Local Government Board wanted strengthening, not in ability or in industry, but in numbers, ["Hear, hear!"]

called attention to the immense growth of vagrancy in the last eight or ten years. He found from the reports of the Local Government Board that since 1890 the mean daily number of vagrants had increased from 4,900 to 13,320. It appeared that the Casual Poor Act of 1882 had failed. A deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1895, and he informed them that as long as the Casual Poor Act was not put in force he could not grant any further inquiry. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been called to these reports and to the repeated complaints of the inspectors for the United Kingdom of the want of uniformity and continuity in the administration of this branch of the Poor Law. It was stated by the inspectors in report after report that if continuity and uniformity were introduced, the number of vagrants would be reduced. The mean daily number of vagrants was now larger than it had been at any time during the last 38 years; and in all rural districts the burden was seriously felt. The reports of the inspectors recommended fresh grouping of areas, classification, and separation of tramps from bonâ fide workers. In view of the great number of important questions to be considered in Supply that night he would not enter more fully into the question. He would content himself with calling the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the subject, and merely asking whether he was preparing to deal with it by fresh legislation, or whether he was prepared to recommend the local authorities to be more active in putting the existing law in force?

referred to a question which he had mentioned on former occasions, when he had the concurrence in what he said of the President of the Local Government Board, namely, the manner in which his patronage in the appointment of auditors ought to be exercised. He had ventured to point out the enormous and increasing importance of the duties of the auditors, and the extent to which they had the trust and confidence, both of the local authorities and of the House of Commons. In what he had said the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to express his agreement; and he himself laid down two years ago the principles upon which he hoped to proceed in appointing auditors throughout his tenure of office. Of course this was a matter in which the usage of the Department had changed in recent years. There could be no doubt that some years ago there was a good deal of political pressure brought to bear upon the Department to obtain the appointment of certain persons as auditors. Two earlier Presidents of the Board, Mr. Stansfeld and the present First Lord of the Admiralty, set an excellent example in standing out against that political pressure. He wished he could think that some of those who afterwards filled the office were as successful in resisting that pressure. He knew, when once any such political appointment had been made, how difficult it was to revert to a better system. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that as far as possible the auditors should be trained to the service, and that the men who had proved themselves to be thoroughly competent in the smaller posts should be gradually appointed to the higher posts, because experience was of immense importance in connection with these very delicate and difficult functions. It was not, as the Committee knew, a mere financial audit, but it was an audit in which the auditor had in certain cases to advise the Board with regard to certain items which, though not strictly covered by statute, might nevertheless be items that ought properly to be allowed under the circumstances of the case. It had been suggested that some recent appointments had been appointments of gentlemen whose experience hardly justified their selection. A gentleman appointed in Surrey had only three or four months' experience; another, appointed as assistant auditor in the Metropolis, had only three months' experience; and a third, appointed in Cheshire, had only two months' experience.

, replying first to the request that greater leniency should be shown to people who disregarded the vaccination law, reminded hon. Members that the Committee on Vaccination reported last year. Immediately afterwards he found it necessary to make further inquiries from the officers of the Local Government Board with regard to the necessary production of lymph. The report of the inspectors, who had made an exhaustive inquiry into the subject, had only just been completed. From the draft which he had seen he believed that sooner or later there would be a complete reform of all the laws relating to vaccination. The Inquiry appeared to show that in future vaccination would be performed in one of two ways, cither directly from the calf, or by means of calf lymph preserved in glycerine. The effects of this new method of preserving calf lymph were, he was told, very remarkable. He could not yet expres a final opinion, but probably the result of the latest researches would be to bring about a very considerable reform in the whole subject of vaccination. The amendments of the law which it might ultimately be desirable to propose were now under consideration. The question now was what ought to be done in the meantime. Speaking generally, he sympathised with the views of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, but the existing law must be observed, and he could not step beyond the limits of his duties and recommend Boards of Guardians to disregard the law. His action, however, would be in consonance with the spirit of what was called the Evesham letter, in which it was pointed out that where repeated prosecutions had been initiated for noncompliance with the law Boards of Guardians had a discretion not to proceed further. He admitted the lateness of the publication of the Report of the Local Government Board, but, as the Committee knew, the Department was overworked. The Committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of reorganising the Department had quite recently concluded its labours, and having seen a draft copy of that Committee's recommendations he hoped that the Government would be enabled so to reorganise the Department as to prevent in future any recurrence of the arrears of which complaint was now made. With regard to the question of vagrancy there had, he admitted, been a great want of uniformity of practice among Boards of Guardians. Interesting experiments bearing on this question had recently been made in Suffolk, and the subject was under consideration at the present moment, and he hoped that it would be possible to make some alteration in the system.

said, before the right hon. Gentleman passed from the subject of vagrancy he desired to ask whether his attention had been called to the serious increase of child vagrancy?

said that was no doubt an important branch of the question now under consideration by the Local Government Board, and would receive, as it deserved, his most careful attention. Replying to the right hon. Baronet, he thought he might say that the exercise of patronage was one of the most disagreeable duties that fell upon him, and it was quite true that attempts were made to exercise more or less pressure upon the Department with regard to the granting of appointments. He had refused countless applications to exercise his patronage in favour of individuals who, no doubt, had very excellent claims, but whose qualifications were not as good as those of other candidates. In making selections he had always made it an absolute condition that the candidate should possess sufficient experience to enable him to perform the duties efficiently, but he was not prepared to say that experience was the only qualification to be considered. He attached great importance, for example, to the character and education of gentlemen seeking appointments. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not think that he would be doing right if he were to discuss the three cases to which the right hon. Baronet had specially referred. He would, therefore, content himself with saying that, with regard to the gentleman recently appointed for Cheshire, he had received a letter highly commending him from one of the auditors under whom this gentleman had gained his experience. In other cases he had received testimonials not less satisfactory, and he was confident that in respect of every appointment for which he was responsible, he had fulfilled the pledge which he gave to the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion. Passing to another subject, he said that since Question time he had received the Report of General Scott, who had been sent to make inquiries into the alleged diminution of the water supply in parts of the East End. General Scott said that a number of the buildings referred to in Mr. Hand's letter of the 30th ult. had been examined, and

"in every instance except one, water was available at the taps on the top storeys. The exception was Shepherd's Buildings, where the water reached the fourth floor only. The cistern contained water at 11 a.m. to-day, but at 2 p.m. was empty. Generally speaking, there seems to have been a scarcity or total absence of water during the greater part of last week, and a general recovery in the supply on Saturday. The total absence of water was in almost every case restricted to the upper floors of the buildings. The people seem to be comfortable as a rule and pursuing their usual occupations. The local authority state that the health of the district is normal."

He would also read certain letters that had passed between the secretary of the East London Water Works Company and the Whitechapel district authorities. On June 31 the secretary of the company wrote to the chief sanitary inspector of the Whitechapel district as follows:—

"In reply to your letter of the 30th inst. enclosing copy of a complaint from a Mr. D. G. White, I beg to state that the mysterious interruption between our Hornsey Wood reservoir and the mains supplying the district from it has now been discovered. It is reported to me from the works that the pressure is much better, and I trust the inconvenience is at an end."

Then there was another letter dated July 30 from the secretary of the company to the medical officer of health, in which he said:—

"In reply to your letter of the 29th inst. enclosing copy of a complaint from Mr. B. Morna, of 63, Davis Mansions, New Goulston, S.E., I regret to inform you that we have some mysterious interruption between our Hornsey Wood reservoir (which is quite full of water) and the main supplying the district from it. Every possible investigation is being made to discover the cause, and the engineer hopes soon to unravel the mystery. The accident, whatever it may be, is most deplorable, as we have upwards of 1,000,000,000 gallons of water in stock and some of the finest machinery in the world to get it to the consumers' houses. I trust the inconvenience will be of short duration."

On July 31 the general superintendent of the company wrote to the sanitary inspector—

"I had already received communications from 28, Spital Square and Josephine House, Tenant Street. In both cases, of course, the deficiency was due to the cause pointed out in the surveyor's letter to Dr. Loane, but I hear this morning from the district foreman that in every case the cisterns were filled up during the night, and I am glad to say we have discovered the cause of the trouble and the pressure is now excellent."

He hoped now that this trouble, which, of course, was a very grave one at this time of the year, would be at an end. No efforts on his part to bring that about would be spared, and every step would be taken by the Board to prevent a water famine, which in the part of London affected would be nothing short of a calamity. ["Hear, hear!"]

, the Chief Secretary not being in his place said, that in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of defending his salary, he would move to report progress.

called attention to the fact that 40 Members were not present.

said he rose to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 in respect of the salary of the Chief Secretary. This Vote had been put off to too late a day as to render it impossible for a large number of Irish Members, who had returned home, to express their opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's administration of his office. He could never be a party to any arrangement by which a fixed number of days should be set apart for Irish Supply. The amount of discussion on Irish Supply depended on the conduct of the Irish Government, and to some extent upon the amount of Irish legislation proposed during the year, and if the Irish Government was to be run on the principles which had characterised the action of the Government during the present year, he ventured to assert that four days would not be nearly sufficient to discuss Irish Supply. When the right hon. Gentleman first came into office he made a remarkable speech. On October 16, 1895, the right hon. Gentleman said that the people of Ireland were becoming tired of political agitation and would welcome in a kindly spirit anything Parliament might be able to do for them. The right hon. Gentleman continued:—

"We are ready to take the chance of our Measures being welcome. We should be glad enough, no doubt, to kill Home Rule with kindness, but whatever may be the result of our efforts, our intention is to do our utmost to produce and pass such measures as will promote the material interests and prosperity of Ireland."

Speaking as the right hon. Gentleman did, as the head of the Irish Government, and as representative of a party with a majority of 150 in the House of Commons, and with a solid House of Lords at its back, it was not unnatural that he should have aroused considerable hopes among certain sections of the Irish people. Great bodies of the people, and even large sections of the Nationalists, expected that while they would be denied the claim, which they could never surrender—namely, the right to govern themselves, they would at least grant large and generous concessions such as it was in the power of this Government to give. A large section of the Irish people not unnaturally expected that, amongst other things, great Measures would be passed dealing with the development of the material resources of the country; that money would be of little or no consideration; that there would be an attempt to settle the University Education question and the Land question; that the government of Ireland would be run on an even keel, and that the Party which used to be the Party of ascendancy would no longer control the machinery of the Castle. He had no hesitation in saying that every one of these expectations had been disappointed, and now, after nearly two years, the right hon. Gentleman had absolutely failed to carry out the fair promises of his speech at Leeds. [Nationalist cheers.] He had undertaken to kill Home Rule with kindness, but knowing, as the right hon. Gentleman did, the fidelity of the Irish people to the Home Rule sentiment, one would expect that he would have known it would have taken a good deal of kindness. ["Hear, hear!"] He should await with curiosity the catalogue of the measure of kindness by which the right hon. Gentleman expected to carry out his undertaking. He should recall to the right hon. Gentleman's mind his famous tour to the West of Ireland. According to his own account he was received with kindness and courtesy at Belmullet. What had he done for Belmullet? ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state to the House what he had in contemplation—if anything—to meet the cruel state of distress and fever which prevailed now in that very district through which he travelled in the autumn of 1895. The hon. Gentleman then quoted from a letter written in 1825, by the Statesman, George Canning, in which the writer drew a picture of the peaceable state of Ireland. He (Mr. Dillon) could almost imagine that the Chief Secretary had a copy of the letter, and repeated almost its very words in his Leeds speech. If Ireland was in this very peaceable condition, why did not the right hon. Gentleman set himself earnestly to govern according to popular methods? If he were acting consistently his business should be to avail himself of this wonderful peace, and prove to the people that under a Unionist Administration they could obtain good, honest government according to the will of the people. He (Mr. Dillon) entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that his Land Act, except in the case of those clauses which allowed farmers, not previously allowed to do so, to enter the Land Court, had nothing whatever to do with the lowering of rents, and he had proved what had been their contention, that the Act had failed to afford that just contribution to the necessitous which they were entitled to expect from any revision of the Land Acts. ["Hear, hear!"] But though some of the clauses of that Measure were good, and had been defended by them, he did not think the Chief Secretary was entitled to any credit for it, but rather the reverse, because when he dealt with the question at all he should have done so in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. They were entitled to complain if Members responsible for Departments did not take sufficient trouble to see that their Departments got proper opportunities of passing necessary Bills. They were doubly so entitled when the Minister united in himself all the responsible Irish offices. Ever since the present Chief Secretary had held his office they had not had a single reasonable opportunity of dealing with any Irish Bill. He had been told that the Irish Land Act was so badly drafted that it would eventually lead to endless law suits. If Clause 40, for instance, had been properly considered and amended in Committee it might have worked well. As it was it was brought up at half past five o'clock one morning, and the Chief Secretary practically said "take it or leave—"

said the hon. Gentleman was going rather beyond what was generally permitted in Committee of Supply. The legislative action of a Minister could not be criticised in Committee of Supply.

said that what he complained of was the action of the Chief Secretary in threatening to withdraw Bills if Irish Members discussed them.

said that the proper time to criticise such action was when the action was proposed to be taken. He founded what he said upon a decision of his predecessor. The hon. Member for Preston called attention to the action of the Board of Trade, and said that the President of the Board of Trade ought to put his foot down and insist upon securing for the Department a larger amount of the time of the House. The then Chairman ruled that the hon. Member could only call attention to the administrative acts of a Minister, and that it was not in order to refer to what a Minister had done or not done. That was a ruling which had obtained ever since. The hon. Member could, perhaps, raise the question he sought to bring up upon the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

said he would avail himself of that opportunity. Let him now turn to the right hon. Gentleman's action in Ireland. In March last at Knock, County Mayo, the Chief Secretary appeared to resuscitate the very worst conditions of the old coercion regimé. It had been the fortune of the right hon. Gentleman to have had a very quiet time since he undertook the administration of Ireland. Ireland was a very strange country, and he ventured to warn the right hon. Gentleman not to build too surely on that foundation, not to feel too confident that the whole term of his office would be as peaceable and easy, as far as disturbances went, as the period which had passed. But in the midst of peace and order the right hon. Gentleman was guilty at Knock of proceedings on a par with some of the worst acts of the coercion period. An ordinary agrarian meeting was summoned to take place at Knock, but just before the day it was to be held it was determined not to hold it as the land grabber had proposed terms, and it was likely a settlement would be arrived at. After Mass on the 21st of March the priest wanted to explain to the people that the meeting was postponed, but the police who had been drafted into the parish would not allow him to come out of the chapel. A considerable crowd collected and were advancing towards the place of meeting when they were charged by the police, and scattered in all directions. The meeting was not proclaimed, and therefore he maintained that the proceedings of the police at Knock amounted to a going back to the most odious practices of the old coercion days. There was a violation of the right of speech, a violation which would never have been attempted in this country. Immediately after the occurrence the Chief Secretary said the meeting was prevented because it was believed it would endanger the tranquillity. But any meeting to which the Government objected might be held to endanger the peace. The action taken amounted to an invasion of the right of public meeting, although happily it had occurred in only one or two instances recently. In reply to a question on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman used the expression that the people were warned that the meeting "was not allowed to be held." He did not say that; the Riot Act was read or that a proclamation was issued that the meeting was illegal. There was no allegation which constituted a proper warning, no allegation that the meeting was properly proclaimed. The police simply, without any legal justification whatever, scattered the meeting by charging the people with their batons. It all showed that the old spirit of the Coercion Act was still alive. It was said that this was done under the common law, but the common law meant one thing in England and another in Ireland. They were told that the people had a remedy at common law, that they could apply to a Court and get damages against the police. This was adding insult to injury. The people had no remedy. They could not take action in an expensive court, and even if they did, they would not have the smallest chance of recovering damages. If such a proceeding had occurred in this country the remedy would be sought in this House by an instant Motion for Adjournment, and the Minister would be brought to task, not only by Members of the Opposition, but he ventured to say, even by Members of their own Party. The case illustrated the supreme grievance of the Irish people, and that was that the Administration of Ireland was in no way responsible to the Irish nation. He had often been asked by Unionist Members whether some plan could not be devised by which Ireland could be reconciled to the Government of this House. His reply was that if they passed all the Bills for the time being that the majority of the Irish people required there would remain the great question of administration, which, after all, was the greatest part of government, because it was no use having good laws if the administration was bad. He would rather live under the worst laws, like those of Turkey, if they had a decent, honest administration responsible to the people. The insuperable difficulty which he saw in conducting the government of Ireland was that, whatever the intentions of the Chief Secretary, and even though he were an Irishman, thoroughly acquainted with the country by training, sympathy, and local knowledge, there was no machinery provided by this House by which he could be made responsible to the public opinion of Ireland. It was the fashion now-a-days to run this House down, and though Irishmen had good reason to run it down, still if Englishmen could get rid of this House for a year or two, they would soon be brought to reason. The greatest function this House discharged was, that it checked and controlled the action of the Administration, and it secured, as far as Great Britain was concerned, the Administration being of all countries in the world, most constantly in touch with public opinion. The right hon. Gentleman had still, he supposed, two or three years of office. During the last two years he had done little or nothing. If he had still any hope of achieving the great task he had set before him—the getting out of the minds of the Irish people, as he said at Leeds, "the fixed opinion which existed there that the Government of the country was a hostile and not a friendly Power"—he advised the right hon. Gentleman to make haste and show to the Irish people that they might hope, if not for good administration, at least for the redemption of some of the promises of this Unionist Administration.

said that he ventured to intervene in this Debate chiefly on account of the deep interest he took in the housing of the working classes in Ireland. At the recent international congress in Brussels reference was made to the housing of the working classes throughout Ireland. Unlike the hon. Gentleman opposite, he had the profoundest confidence that the Chief Secretary was capable of formulating and carrying out a policy which would redeem his pledges in this regard. The House was now in possession of all the information which could possibly be required either for legislation or administration. There had been no fewer than four inquiries into the subject. There was one in 1885, another in 1891, and one in 1893; lastly, they had the census report of 1890 and the reports of the Irish Local Government Board. He wished briefly to refer to the intensity of the evil where it existed, to give an account of the extent of the evil which prevailed throughout Ireland, and the failure of the administration hitherto, and lastly to make one or two suggestions which had arisen out of the recent international congress. As to the intensity of the evil, there could be little or no doubt, according to Mr. O'Brien, a Poor Law Inspector for 30 years in Ireland, that no population had been known to sink to such a low level of general wretchedness as the agricultural population. It contained no less than 54 per cent. of the adult males, and 22 per cent. of the whole population. In Munster and Leinster there had been a certain amelioration owing to the action of recent legislation and administration, but the misery remained intense all over Ireland and was not confined to the congested districts. There were districts at the very gates of Dublin where the Poor Law Inspector had to creep into the miserable huts on his hands and knees in order to administer Poor Law relief. The condition in the small towns was even worse, and the Commissioners of a recent English Commission, who examined the housing of the agricultural population throughout Great Britain, had stated, comparing the worst district, Monmouth, with the housing of the poorer population in Loughrea, that Monmouth was, comparatively speaking, a paradise. [IRISH MEMBERS: "Lord Clanricarde!"] New Ross for ten years had the highest death rate of the United Kingdom; and, according to the Commission of 1885, the great trouble at Waterford was, not the administration of the Chief Secretary or of his predecessors, but the difficulties that existed in the town council, who owned all the worst property in the town and drew considerable rents from it. How was it that the town council could hold these tenements and let them out instead of pulling them down? In Limerick and Galway the same state of things existed. Except Belfast and the north-east corner of the country, it appeared that there was not a great town throughout the length and breadth of Ireland where the greatest misery did not prevail. According to the Census Report of 1890 there were at that time 20,000 houses in Ireland containing one room and one window, and built of mud or a like material. This class of dwelling appeared to be rapidly diminishing, and there were now only 15,000 such houses in Ireland. But if accommodation were taken into consideration they had Dr. Grimshaw, the Registrar General, to vouch for the fact that the number of families in fourth class accommodation in Dublin was the same in 1881 as in 1841, and further, Mr. Henry Robinson, of the Irish Local Government Board, had stated to the Royal Commission on Financial Relations that there had been no improvement in the general social condition of the people since 1872.

I cannot see how the hon. Member connects the social condition of Ireland with the salary of the Chief Secretary. If he can point out any administrative act which the Chief Secretary has taken or any administrative act which the right hon. Gentleman has failed to fulfil, then the hon. Member would be in order; but the matter he is now referring to seems to be one which can be dealt with only by means of legislation.

said he desired to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the failure of the administration of the sanitary laws.

That question does not arise on this Vote; it arises on the Vote for the Local Government Board of Ireland.

said that this was the first opportunity they had of connecting this matter with certain other branches of administration and of putting them all together. As to the suggestions made, one suggestion was indicated by the Financial Relations Commission which would be of great value in this connection. It was that loans should be issued at cheaper rates for local purposes, and especially for grants in aid of better dwellings for the poor. There should be a special grant made in aid of building houses in the congested districts. According to the last census there were 770,000 illiterates still in Ireland, and there was always a close connection between bad housing and want of education. The measures which the Chief Secretary might bring forward would be welcomed by the working classes of this country, who were, for the most part, ignorant of the profound depths of misery to which every foreign and English inquirer found the poorer classes in Ireland had sunk. They would, he was sure, back up the Chief Secretary in any step he might take to mitigate this stain on civilisation in England in the 19th century.

impressed on the Chief Secretary that they were criticising the office and not the man. The Chief Secretary had begun his career in office extremely well, and had endeavoured to get information as to the state of the country from all quarters. The right hon. Gentleman visited Ireland, and sought to obtain information from everyone; but a change had come over the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's dream, and the information he now gleaned was more or less strained through the official sieve. He did not think that the Chief Secretary had been entirely successful in divorcing himself from official influences, and he had not exercised so strong a personal will as he might have done. He drew attention to the New Land Commission, and asked why it had been constituted and what was the necessity for it? The new Commission was composed of an ex-Judge, two ex-valuers, and two military politicians. The objections which were raised to Mr. Justice Mathew as the head of the Evicted Tenants' Commission could with equal propriety be urged against the appointment of Sir E. Fry, because it could be pointed out that Sir E. Fry would as an ex-Judge mingle in an angry political and public controversy; and they could not forget that both the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary had inveighed against the appointment of Mr. Justice Mathew. These were two gentlemen of whom they knew nothing, except that one had been a valuer in Scotland, in cases between landlord and tenant, though not in connection with the Crofters' Commission, and the other was a landlords' agent and valuer in offices in London. He knew both the gentlemen who had been appointed in Ireland, and no one was more utterly unfitted to hold the scales evenly between landlord and tenant than Dr. Traill. He had a strong and almost extreme bias as a landlord, and he was a Tory politician. Dr. Traill was one of the subscribers to the battering-ram policy of a former Irish administration; and recently in the Land Courts his harsh conduct towards a tenant was severely censured. It looked unkind and unamiable to say it, but he believed that the effect of the mere appointment of the Royal Commission, although it had never sat, had had the effect of paralysing the sub-Commissions. A gentleman belonging to the Tory Party in Ireland, and closely connected with the landlord section—whose name, of course, he would not mention for any consideration—had told him that since the appointment of the Commission rents had been raised 10 per cent. What was more, he had special means of knowing. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what part of Ireland?"] Well, he would tell his hon. Friend in the smoking room. [Laughter and "hear, hear!"] He might inform the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who had just returned to his place, that he had been discussing in his absence the constitution of the Land Commission. He had stated that it was composed of one ex-Judge, two ex-valuers, and two military politicians. No doubt Mr. George Fottrell, who was a professional valuer, had theoretical instincts in favour of Home Rule, but it was perfect nonsense to put him forward as a representative of the Nationalists. The hon. Member for South Tyrone did not make speeches now. Would he be in perfect order in making a speech for him? (Laughter.)

I would rather not.

said he would faintly try to represent the hon. Member's sentiments on the constitution of the Land Commission. He would tell the Committee what he considered to be the probable views and sentiments of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The Commission had been forced on the Government by the pressure of the House of Lords, especially of Lord Londonderry; and why was it so forced on them? Because the Land Commissioners and the sub-Commissioners, who were the Government's own nominees, and completely under their thumb—even they did not come up to the mark; and so this Commission had been constituted, and, as he had said, the effect on the judgments of the sub-Commissioners had been already unfavourable towards the tenants. These tribunals were absolutely under the thumb of the Government. Every single, sub-Commissioner had been appointed, directly or indirectly, by the present Government, and he would say, in reference to the head of the Commission—

The hon. Gentleman is entering on a discussion of the personnel of the Land Commission, and, in doing so, he is not in order.

said he was only referring to it by way of illustration. He simply wished to say that this Commission had been appointed to coerce tribunals, every member of which was already under the thumb of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had any personal opinions, he thought he would be rather for the tenants than against them. But did he think that by doing this he was in the slightest degree conciliating Unionist opinion in Ireland? If he thought so he was quite mistaken. The so called Unionist party in Ireland was hopelessly severed. He would read a letter from a constituent of his right hon. Friend—an eminent constituent. The gentleman said:—

"I think the Government will miss the help of the Irish Unionists when they want it in England. If ever I again go before an English audience, it will not be to keep them in power, although I am no less a Unionist than before; and what I feel in this regard is felt by thousands."

That was a letter written by an eminent gentleman who had stood on many a platform in support of the Government's Irish policy; and the right hon. Gentleman must see in a letter of that kind, which was most certainly sincere, plain proof that all his efforts to conciliate that Party must fail unless he was prepared to be merely the outward and visible representation of politicians of the Dr. Traill type. [Laughter.] He was obliged to the House for having listened to him. There was one great objection he had to the Chief Secretary: it was a personal objection. He would rather have a Chief Secretary whom he could dislike and fight. [Laughter.] He would like a Chief Secretary who would give him genuine sport. But when he got up in his place, he saw the countenance of a right hon. Gentleman, with a charming personality beaming across the Table at him. [Laughter.] He could not help thinking that if the Chief Secretary were only left to his own inclinations, and could give the go-by to the Castle officials, he might achieve a reasonable success. As it was, he had done tolerably well, belonging, as he did, to a class of politicians whom O'Connell used to call "beggar-shavers" [Laughter.] What he meant was that the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the apprentices who were allowed to shave beggars, taking no fees in consideration of the gashes they made. [Laughter.] He objected to the right hon. Gentleman trying his 'prentice hand on Ireland. [Laughter and cheers.] At the same time, he had no doubt that if his abilities, and his genuine desire to do right, with perhaps some show of resistance to the Castle officials, could make him a success, he would be one. [Laughter.] In the meantime he would press his little Bill on the right hon. Gentleman, and ask him to answer him all about the Land Commission, and to say also whether he agreed with him in his character of Dr. Traill, and so on. [Laughter.]

said a good deal of ground had been covered by the discussion, and it might advance business if he dealt with it now. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was in the unfortunate position of being one of whom much was expected. He was expected to work miracles, and if he failed he was denounced as un unprofitable servant. The expectations so often formed by hon. Members opposite seemed to him to be unreasonable; and their disappointment at the non-realisation of expectations which were of their own creation was equally unreasonable. The hon. Member for East Mayo referred to a speech which he (the Chief Secretary) delivered at Leeds in the autumn of 1895, in which he used a phrase that had since attained a certain amount of notoriety. He said on that occasion that—

"the policy of the Government would be to endeavour to promote the material prosperity of Ireland; and the Government would, of course, be very glad if they were able by kindness to kill Home Rule. But whether that was so or not, he thought it would be their duty to persevere with their policy, no matter whether that policy was received with gratitude or not."

Well, the Government had carried out the policy which he then announced—he trusted with some degree of success. [Cheers.] However, he need hardly point out to the Committee that two years was not a very long time in which to effect a considerable improvement in the prosperity of the country. But the hon. Member for East Mayo said that great expectations were formed in consequence of that speech; that it was anticipated the Government would immediately introduce Measures on a large scale for increasing the material prosperity of Ireland; and then the hon. Member went on to state the kind of Measure which he thought, after the promises which had been given, should have been introduced by the Government. And what were the Measures? One was a Bill to establish a Catholic University, and the other what he called a good Land Act.

I said in addition to large Measures for developing the material resources of country.

I think not. I think the hon. Member said we had not carried out our promise, and then he said:—

"He has not introduced a Bill for establishing a Catholic University nor a good Land Act."

As to the establishment of a Catholic University (the right hon. Gentleman continued), the views of (ho Irish Government and of the First Lord of the Treasury were well known. He need not pursue the matter further. It obviously had no direct connection with the material prosperity in Ireland. As to the Land Act, after the ruling of the Chairman it would not be appropriate on his part to defend the policy of that Act, or to argue what the hon. Member professed to be its shortcomings. The picture which he drew, not in October, 1895, as had been said, but in 1896, of the condition of affairs in Ireland was not overdrawn, and at the present time there was in that country a state of peace, contentment, and tranquillity such as had not prevailed for a great many years. The hon. Member said that the Government ought to take advantage of this period of peace to pass measures which would carry out what he called the "will of the people." But if the hon. Member meant by that measures which would please the majority of the Irish representatives, he must mean that it was the duty of the Government to introduce a Home Rule Bill, which certainly was not their intention. The duty of the Government was not to give effect to the will of the majority of the Irish representatives when they differed from them as to what was desirable in the interests of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Their duty was to do the best they could according to their lights for the country which was committed to their charge. The hon. Member averred that nothing had been done for Ireland during last Session and the present Session. The hon. Member must have forgotten that last Session a very considerable number of Measures of importance were passed for Ireland. In fact, the Irish legislation last Session would compare very favourably with the legislation for England and Scotland respectively during the same period. Scotch Members, he had reason to know, were very much dissatisfied because so much time was devoted to Ireland and so little to Scotland. If during the present Session the Government had not been able to carry a large number of Irish measures the hon. Member must know the reason, although he had not thought fit to allude to it. The Government had prepared a Measure for establishing a Board of Agriculture in Ireland and also a Measure deeding with the administration of the Poor Law, and those Measures were abandoned because it was not deemed expedient to proceed with them in view of the promised legislation for Ireland next Session. As the First Lord of the Treasury had said more than once, a Government must not be judged by what it did in the course of a single Session for a particular section of the United Kingdom; its performances must be judged as a whole. Last Session was largely devoted to Irish legislation, and next year again there would be an Irish Session in the fullest sense of the term. He now came to the strictures that had been passed on his administration. Reference had been made to the condition of affairs at Belmullet, and he had been asked what the policy of the Irish Government was with regard to the distress of that district. The policy of the Government had been to throw upon the local authorities to the extent of their powers the responsibility of carrying out the work which the Legislature had intrusted to them. A period, however, came when the Board of Guardians thought that that responsibility was heavier than they could bear, and the Union of Belmullet was now being administered by vice-Guardians, and at the end of September it would be the duty of the Government to consider whether the amount spent in the relief of distress had been such as to throw a greater burden upon the rates than the Union could reasonably bear. If it should be proved that was the case the Government would be prepared to consider whether public money ought to be used so as to relieve the rates. The difficulty in Belmullet had been increased by the unfortunate outbreak of fever in the island of Inishea, which had thrown an additional burden upon the Union. He was happy to think that the fever was now abating. The next subject which had been referred to was the meeting at Knock. There had been in the district several rather aggravated cases of boycotting the holders of evicted farms, and meetings had been held practically to stimulate the boycotting. In these circumstances it became necessary to stop this particular meeting. He regretted that no proclamation was issued, and if it should be, his misfortune to have to prevent other meetings he would take care that that omission should not occur again. He might, however, observe that there was no legal compulsion upon the Executive to proclaim a meeting which it was desired to suppress. This meeting was the only one during his two years' tenure of office which it had been necessary for him to prohibit, and he congratulated himself upon such a record.

complained that the police charged the people though there was no resistance or disorder.

said that the police had warned the people beforehand that the meeting must not be held. The people not dispersing the police did charge, and in the confusion that ensued the drums were broken, but he had no reason to suppose that anyone was injured. Passing to the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, he said that he agreed with the hon. Member as to the grievous want of proper accommodation for the labouring classes in many parts of Ireland. The Executive, however, could not fairly be blamed for the existing state of things, for in legislation respecting the housing of agricultural labourers Ireland was better off than England, and only last year a Bill was passed which greatly facilitated the process by which Irish labourers could secure cottages for habitation. The administration of the Acts dealing with the subject rested primarily with the Boards of Guardians, and the Executive could not do more than bring to bear what pressure was possible upon the Guardians. In the last resort they could take the administration of the Acts out of the Guardians hands and transfer it to the hands of Government officials, and, though they were anxious to avoid having to do this, they had been compelled to do it in a number of cases. [Mr. KILBRIDE asked whether the cases in which the administration of the Acts had been taken out of the hands of the unions had all occurred in Ulster?] He believed that nearly all, if not all, had occurred in that province. [Nationalist cheers.] He had been asked by the hon. Member for South Donegal why the Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of the Land Acts and the Land Purchase Acts had been set up? The reason was that the Government thought that an authoritative inquiry into this subject would be better and more to the interest of the Land Commission than an agitation carried on on the one side by the landlords and on the other side by the tenants. If the Government had not appointed this Commission, what would have been the inevitable result? He would call as a witness the hon. Member for East Mayo himself. On April 9th the hon. Member wrote in a letter which had been published:—

"The reductions given by the Sub-Commissioners are not proportionate to the very heavy fall in prices, and I have always maintained that the present reduced rents are more difficult to pay under the present circumstances than the unreduced rents were in the circumstances prevailing before 1879. That being so, it is plain that in making reductions no real consideration has been given to the interests of the tenant. But, insufficient as reductions are, you will have observed that the landlords have opened a campaign in the House of Lords and in Ireland with the avowed purpose of intimidating the Commissioners. The effect of these operations is already manifest in the recent action of the Land Commissioners in raising nearly all the rents on appeal. I have no doubt that, if the landlords' campaign is not met by a united and national movement on the part of the farmers, the reductions given by the sub-Commissioners will grow less and less."

He would also quote one sentence from a speech made by Mr. William O'Brien on December 20th, 1896.

"Even when the rents they fixed were impossible the resources of civilisation were not exhausted, the tenants had still the resources of their own organisation and their own combination, and they manage to extort pretty substantial reductions, even to 20 to 25 per cent., upon the judicial rents. Believe me, that as far as the Land Commissioners are concerned their reductions are up or down according to the strength of the agitation."

Was it possible to imagine a better argument for an Inquiry than the statements of hon. Members opposite and their friends? Was it not obvious that the landlords having made strong representations and the tenants being equally dissatisfied—the Commissioners themselves being the subject of attack from both sides—in the interest of the Commissioners themselves, it was desirable that an impartial Inquiry should be held? ["Hear, hear!"] Although such an Inquiry had been condemned by the hon. Member for East Mayo, it had not been condemned by all the individuals representing the tenants in the North of Ireland. For instance, at the meeting of the Liberal and National Union at Belfast a resolution was passed heartily welcoming the appointment of a fairly constituted Commission—[Nationalist cheers]—with power fully to consider all sides of the case; and a further resolution was passed to protect the tenants' interest before the Commission. And he had seen a good many statements to the effect that before a fairly appointed Commission the tenants would have no difficulty in making out their case. The Government took sides neither with the one party nor the other; but it was impossible for them to see the Courts of the Land Commission attacked in this way from both sides without feeling that, whatever disadvantages might attach to an Inquiry into the proceedings of a judicial body, those disadvantages were less than would result if they allowed this condition of things to continue, without any effort whatever to get an authoritative pronouncement on the grounds on which the sub-Commissioners were proceeding. ["Hear, hear!"] That was the reason why they thought it their duty to appoint a Commission, and he thought that even hon. Members opposite, with very few exceptions, had not complained of the fairness of the personnel of the Commission. [Nationalist laughter.] He was perfectly aware that the hon. Member for South Donegal had devoted a considerable portion of his speech to a criticism of the members of the Commission, but he believed that if the gentleman appointed had not on the whole formed a fair and proper tribunal to arrive at a conclusion on the matter there would have been a howl all over Ireland, very different from the subdued criticisms that had been passed. The hon. Member for South Donegal said that the Government ought not to have appointed Sir Edward Fry, because they previously criticised the appointment of Mr. Justice Mathew. But they criticised the appointment of Mr. Justice Mathew because he was at the time acting in the capacity of a Judge. Sir Edward Fry had ceased to be a Lord Justice of Appeal. Did the hon. Member mean that the Government ought not to appoint any one of a judicial character? Sir Edward Fry was no longer a Judge, and therefore the criticism passed on Mr. Justice Mathew did not apply. Now he would look at the two experts. The hon. Member had been able to say nothing against them. These two gentlemen were eminent in their profession, and one was a Scotchman and one an Englishman. It would have been impossible to find any distinguished valuer in Ireland whom both sides would have regarded as fair, and for that reason the Government had appointed an Englishman and a Scotchman. He then came to the Irish Members of the Commission. The hon. Member contended that Dr. Traill represented the landlords rather than the tenants. When the Commission was started the Government had hoped to find impartial men in Ireland, but further consideration made it painfully evident that it would be absolutely impossible to obtain two perfectly impartial Irishmen—[laughter and Nationalist cries of "Oh!"]—who, being such, would also be recognised as being impartial by both sides. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not say there was not an impartial man in Ireland, but there was no man who was not known to have held opinions inclining in one direction or the other. The Government had endeavoured, therefore, to appoint two Irishmen, one of whom should be an acknowledged representative of the landlords and the other a recognised representative of the tenants. [Cries of "No, no!"] Any fair-minded man would hold that Mr. Fottrell, who was a very able man indeed, was identified with the cause of the tenants rather than with the cause of the landlords. [Cries of "No, no!"] He had absolute confidence himself in the impartiality of this Commission. The personnel had been selected with great care and trouble, and he did not believe that a better tribunal could be found to inquire into the difficult matter committed to them. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the right hon. Gentleman's argument, summarised, was this—

"because you cannot get absolutely impartial men in Ireland, therefore, you ought to appoint a tribunal strongly partial to the landlords."

The hon. Member for Derby, whose intervention in a Debate on Irish affairs Irish Members were quite ready to welcome, expressed some difficulty in endeavouring to discuss this Vote. He quite appreciated that difficulty. The Chief Secretary reminded him of the extraordinary character, Pooh Bah, in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado," for the right hon. Gentleman was President of the Local Government Board, head of the Fisheries Department, head of the Veterinary Department, Education Minister, and was responsible for the whole Irish policy. But the hon. Member for Derby had brought some rather interesting matter into the discussion, and he would like to point out that the housing of the labouring classes in Ireland had much improved, and was an improvement on what it was in many parts of England. That this was so was due to the fact that the Act had been administered by Nationalist Boards of Guardians. ["Hear, hear!"] There was one other point on which the hon. Member might wish to be enlightened, and that was in connection with the small towns and the improvement of their condition. In Loughrea, for instance, there was a ground landlord and no local board, and no improvement could be looked for at the hands of the ground landlord of Loughrea. The right hon. Gentleman was neglecting a great opportunity for settling the Education Question. When, eight years ago the First Lord of the Treasury occupied a seat on that Bench as Chief Secretary, he made a strong speech in favour of the settlement of the University Question, and he promised that the Government would take an early opportunity of dealing with it, but from that day to this nothing had been done. The right hon. Gentleman was now in a higher position, and he had now a great opportunity—a most golden opportunity—for grappling with the question. He had heard the declaration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He had a majority of 150 at his back. Again, surely it was easy under the circumstances to settle the burning question of primary education.

This is a matter which should be raised on the Education Vote.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not neglect this matter of primary education. He indulged the hope that between this and next Session the right hon. Gentleman would devote some attention to the subject, and do something to settle a great grievance. With regard to the Land Commission, the right hon. Gentlemen said the Government were trying to satisfy the agitation on both sides, but if the agitation had been on the part of the tenants would a Royal Commission have been obtained? ["Hear, hear!"] He thought not. This Royal Commission would not settle the matter—it would unsettle it. The Commission was granted in answer to an agitation skilfully effected by the landlords in another place. Still he doubted whether the Commission would do any good. They were told that it was to be impartial. No one believed that. Mr. Fotterill was put on as a kind of balance, he supposed, to Mr. Traill, the latter a landlord of the reactionary type. He was one who thought that legislation had been carried to a revolutionary extent. This was the man who was placed on the Commission to counteract Mr. Fotterell, who had frequently acted for landlords. Therefore, instead of settling the question, they had, in his opinion taken a wrong and dangerous step towards the dissatisfaction of the people of Ireland. They were pulling up the plant to see how it was growing, and this they were doing in answer to the clamour of a small section of Irish landlords. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mayo, why should they apply indifferent doctrine to Ireland from the law as it was applied to Trades Unions in England? The Irish constabulary did to an Irish crowd what the police in this country would never dare to do to the people. The reason was that Parliament was amenable to public opinion, and the Irish Executive was not so amenable. That Executive did not care a button about Irish public opinion, but the Government did care for public opinion here, because it was strong and returned a large number of Members to the House. If the Executive found themselves constrained to order the police to enter into conflict with the people they ought unquestionably to issue instructions to the effect that the operation should be carried out with as much regard to decency as possible. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance that if meetings were to be prevented in future they would be prevented with the least possible violence.

wished to say a few words with regard to the administration of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gerald Balfour) in Ireland. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in agreeing to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Land Acts in Ireland—["Hear, hear!"]—because he believed that it would not have the effect of satisfying either Party. ["Hear, hear!"] There was one grievance which sometimes the Irish people laboured under, and that was that when the Chief Secretary had the appointment of members to representative bodies, he did not always see that the true feeling of a district was represented. There was the case of the Board of Control which had forced the County of Londonderry to build a new asylum, the county having no proper representation on the Board. It might be that the Board of Control was free of his authority and that the Government could not exercise a ruling voice over that body, but he thought that it should not have been allowed to decide finally without consulting local opinion.

The Board of Control has statutory powers.

said it was true that the Board of Control had statutory powers under which it acted. The Asylums Board for the County of Derry did not represent the county; all the Local Boards passed resolutions against the proposed asylum which was to be erected at a cost of £150,000. A more gross action, contrary to the old maxim that taxation and representation should go together, he did not know. Only little more than the City of Londonderry was represented on the Board, while the barony of Magherafelt, which would have to bear one-third of the taxation, would have only one representative on the controlling body consisting of 15 or 20 members. The Attorney General for Ireland represented a division of the county which was equally poorly represented. He hoped that this matter would have the careful consideration of the Chief Secretary, because North and South Derry alike cried out against the present state of things. He did not see why the opinions of the local authorities, the Board of Guardians should be ignored, and he trusted that in making any further appointments the Chief Secretary would bear these facts in mind. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Chief Secretary had renewed the pledge he gave the other night that within the present financial year he would come to the relief of the ratepayers of the Belmullet Union. He understood that in the Poor Law Relief Bill the right hon. Gentleman included four other unions, the Listowel, the Oughterard and two others.

said he stated that of the distressed unions, the case of Belmullet was amongst the hardest.

said that the late Board of Guardians at Belmullet estimated that a rate of 12s. 6d. in the £ would be necessary. Surely if that estimate was at all correct, there was no need for further delay in coming to the relief of the ratepayers. The Chief Secretary also said that at the present time peace and contentment prevailed in Ireland to a much larger extent than it had for many years past. As far as outward appearances went, peace did prevail in Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman had no evidence that contentment prevailed. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman went on the old supposition that when the Irish tenant farmers were not shooting landlords they were contented. He feared that some fine morning the Chief Secretary would have a rude awakening that the Irish tenant farmers were not satisfied with the Land Act. If there was no agitation in Ireland why had the Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the procedure, practices, and methods of valuation of the Land Commission? Did the right hon. Gentleman not tell them it was better to appoint this Commission than that agitation should continue both on the part of the landlords and of the tenants? Lord Salisbury told a deputation of Irish landlords that at this time of day the class or section of the community that did not agitate would go to the wall. He did not often agree with the Prime Minister, but in that contention he agreed with him entirely. The Chairman of the Commission was to be an English ex-Judge of Appeal. No doubt he was an able and learned man, but what special qualifications did he possess for the position of Chairman of this new Commission? As far as he knew, this gentleman had no qualification whatsoever for this office, because he had no practical experience of the administration of the Irish Land Laws, which were entirely different from those of England. They were told this Commission was appointed to stop agitation. Whatever way they reported, it would only have the effect of increasing agitation on the other side, and would do much to unsettle what had been settled in the past. This Royal Commission was a body that was to sit in judgment on the Land Judges of Ireland. For the first time in the history of this country a judicial body, by the sanction of the Government, had to have their conduct inquired into by a Royal Commission. They had thus the extraordinary circumstances that a Conservative Government were the first to appoint a Commission to inquire into the action of Judges whose salaries were in the Consolidated Funds, and who were as much Judges as those of the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer. He wanted to know how an Englishman's respect for law and order would be increased if this or any other Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the action of English Judges? Respect for law and order in Ireland was little enough as it was, and it would not be increased by the appointment of this Commission. As for Dr. Traill, another member of the Commission, he was notoriously a landlord partisan, and as for Mr. George Fotterell, he would like the Chief Secretary to point to a single case where he sacrificed a penny in the interest of the Irish tenant farmer. He knew of no case where Mr. Fotterell was actuated by any desire to benefit the tenants at all. He was simply desirous of increasing his own professional business and of earning the 2 per cent. to which he was entitled for every purchase transaction which he was instrumental in bringing about between landlord and tenant. He would ask the Chief Secretary, Did the Report of the Cowper Commission—a Commission which, to a large extent, was analogous to the present one—stop the land agitation in Ireland? It did not; neither would the Report of this Commission. The result of the Report of this Commission would be exactly the same as that of the Cowper Commission, and instead of bringing about a cessation, it would be a fruitful source of continued agitation both on the part of the landlords and tenants.

observed that he had had experience since he had been in Parliament of three Irish Chief Secretaries—namely, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the present Chief Secretary—and he was bound to say that under the rule of the last-named right hon. Gentleman Ireland had been more peaceable and, as far as all outward evidence went, more prosperous than under that of his two predecessors. He was encouraged to take part in the discussion by the reference of the hon. Member opposite to English Members. On Saturday he was in an outburst of temper assailed by an hon. Gentleman near him for taking part in an Irish discussion.

said he did not raise any objection to English Members taking part in the Debate, he simply recommended that they should understand the subject under discussion.

said he did not on a Saturday afternoon deem it his duty to weary the House with facts and figures which had been presented over and over again and were to be found in reference books. He had wished to make his remarks as short as possible, and if he might make a suggestion in reply it was that before he proceeded to lecture an English Member on the propriety of taking part in an Irish discussion, the hon. and learned Gentleman should qualify himself by becoming the representative of a popular constituency and not creep into the House by the back door of Dublin University. ["Hear, hear!"] He heartily agreed in the protest of the Chief Secretary in regard to the action of certain Unionist Members. When hon. Members on the other side urged claims against the British Exchequer he, though he might vote against the demand, quite understood their attitude, but he protested against Unionist members joining in these attempted raids on the British Exchequer. He congratulated the Chief Secretary on his resistance and assured him that in continuing this resistance to such insidious attacks he would retain the confidence and support of English and Scotch Members in spite of jeers and gibes and sarcastic sneers.

said the Chief Secretary must not take to himself the credit for the present peaceful state of Ireland; the present state of peace was due to the poverty of Ireland, the state of depression from which the country suffered and did not indicate that the people were reconciled to the administration of the Land Acts, for reductions in rents had not been in conformity with the fall in prices. The right hon. Gentleman claimed approval of the appointment of this Commission because he said if it had been otherwise there would have been a howl of dissent all over Ireland. From this he was glad to learn that the expression of public opinion had some weight with the right hon. Gentleman, but he must not conclude that because in the present condition of things there had been little agitation the Commission was approved. In excusing himself for not bringing forward measures for the material advantage of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman could not see that legislation for University education was in that direction, but surely it could not be deemed that higher education had nothing to do with the material progress of a nation and the fact that four-fifths of the population were debarred from this higher education, certainly in his view retarded material progress. The primary education of the country was discussed last year, and some sharp criticisms were passed upon the national system. He would be glad to know if the right hon. Gentlemen had directed the attention of the National Commissioners to the points brought under discussion.

said these were matters which should be raised on the Education Vote.

said he was referring to this as a matter of general administration. Several Questions had been asked in the House on the Fee Grant and matters of that kind, and the answers of the Chief Secretary had not been satisfactory.

said the proper place to raise these questions was on discussion of the Education Vote.

turning from that subject referred to the observations of the Chief Secretary upon the letter of his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo. Without doubt it was of vital importance to the tenants of Ireland that their rights under the Land Act should not be frittered away at the instigation of a combination of landlords, and a counter combination became necessary. If the industries of England had not been well organised and combined in trades unions, the rights of labour against capital would not be maintained in the safe position they now occupied, and in the same way tenants representing the main industry of Ireland must combine for protection. The Chief Secretary must not deceive himself by the apparent state of tranquillity in Ireland. Continual disregard of the complaints of farmers of the Land Act administration would lead to an eruption of feeling, and again there would be a disturbed and turbulent Ireland to deal with. It must not be supposed that the state of Ireland was the result of Government administration, it was the result of a keen struggle against poverty and of dissensions among the Irish Party.

said he was unaware that a discussion on the appointment of the Commission would have been in order or he would have dealt with the subject in moving the reduction of the Vote. The Chief Secretary had made some singular and astonishing statements in his reply. He had been asked why the Government had adopted the policy of appointing a Commission of inquiry, and he replied, because they thought it was the lesser evil as compared with agitation on the part of landlords and tenants. This was surprising when the history of the appointment of the Commission was recalled. The landlords started strong opposition when judicial rents were being fixed on reductions from the first term. They appealed to the Prime Minister, who told them in words already quoted to go home and agitate, because the party that did not agitate would go to the wall. So then the great evil of agitation was started on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the letter from himself the Chief Secretary had quoted, he took up a position that he maintained that the present reduced rents were more difficult to pay, were comparatively heavier under the present prices of labour and produce than were the old rents before 1879. It was a practical truth, no farmer would deny. He pointed out that there was a combination of Irish landlords, and that there were evidences that the pressure of their agitation was beginning to have effect, and he told the tenants that if they did not meet the combination of landlords by counter combination their interests would go to the wall. He believed the Chief Secretary would find that this Commission would have no effect whatever in staying agitation in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted certain resolutions which had been passed in the North of Ireland welcoming his inquiry, but he must have noticed that what they welcomed was a fairly-constituted inquiry. There was no one on the tenants' side who would object to a fair inquiry. On the contrary, they would be perfectly willing to meet it, although they would still hold to the opinion that it was an absurd policy to inquire in the second year into the operations of a Court dealing with great interests. The reason for the outcry against this inquiry in Ireland was that it was given in answer to a request of the Irish landlords, which was based on the one ground that the reductions given by the sub-Commissioners were entirely too large. In all sincerity he asked the Chief Secretary whether, supposing the sub-Commissioners, who, it must be remembered, were all appointed by a landlord Government, had, in fixing the second term judicial rents, given no reductions at all and the tenants' representative had demanded an inquiry, would they have got it? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that such a demand would have been absolutely refused. This inquiry was granted for the purpose of stopping the reductions of judicial rents given by Judges, every one of whom was named by the right hon. Gentleman himself. To grant such an inquiry for the purpose of checking, controlling and limiting the action of those Judges was, in their opinion, to pile injustice upon injustice. The Court had been packed in the interests of the landlords. In saying that he did not moan to charge the right hon. Gentleman with packing the Court. He honestly believed he was guilty of no such intention, but that the circumstances of his surroundings made it impossible for him to man the Land Courts either with impartial Judges or with an equal number of men representative of each side of this great question. Yet, in spite of the fact that, by an enormous majority, they were partisans of the landlords, they had been forced by the overwhelming strength of the case to give these reductions, and it was an absolute injustice to appoint a Commission to override what they had done in the interests of the landlords. He had a word or two to say with regard to the composition of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman had taken one gentleman who was a very particular friend of his own and a man of the strictest integrity and honour, but it was preposterous to represent him as a partisan of the tenants. He was nothing of the sort. He was a professional gentleman who had taken neither side, who had acted as the employé of the landlords, and who had, notoriously, conducted the greater part of the business for the landlords under the Ashbourne Acts. As for the other Irishman, he was not only a partisan of the landlords, but actually had recently been a suitor before the Court which he was now to be called upon to try. He thought that was an indecent appointment. This man, who was notoriously in Ireland, one of the most rabid, hot tempered and unreasonable partisans of the landlord cause in the whole of the country, was put into a position which he would venture to say, he was absolutely and utterly unsuited for. He might just as well have taken one of the most active and prominent Members from those Benches and put him in that position. So much for the Irish members of the Commission. What of the English members? The right hon. Gentleman had selected a Judge whom he knew to be a man of the very highest character in every respect, but he very much doubted whether an English Judge, accustomed to the ordinary procedure of the English law, was the best person to preside over a Commission which was to investigate and report upon a code of the most complicated laws which was as different from anything known to the English law as one thing could possibly be from another. He thought it would be found that Mr. Justice Fry would be utterly at sea, and would not be at all suited by his previous training for the work he had been asked to undertake. As to the other two gentlemen, they had no surety whatever that they would not be very strong partisans of the landlord interest. They were landlords, he was informed, but he knew nothing in their favour and nothing against them. They were asked to accept blindly the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman that the English members of the Commission were strictly impartial, but if they judged them by that part of this Commission which they knew, then he was bound to say that he pitied the fate of the Irish tenants if their fate was to be dependent on the Commission. He took the strongest exception to the argument that because there was peace in Ireland at the present time, therefore there was contentment. The Irish people never were more discontented, and he defied the right hon. Gentleman to go to any place outside Belfast and one or two other large places in the north, and obtain at a public meeting a vote of approval of his administration or legislation. He was sorry that the Unionist Government had not availed themselves of the interval of peace to pass some really beneficial legislation for Ireland.

wished to call attention to one department of the Vote, and that was the Board of Control.

intimated that he could not raise the question of the Board of Control on the present Vote.

said he would raise the question later on.

reminded the Committee that in December last it was the duty of the Chief Secretary to select a large number of sub-Commissioners for the administration of the Land Acts in Ireland. He believed he was correct in saying that of the whole sub-Commissioners, two-thirds, or about 60 in all, were appointed by the Chief Secretary. If they were not to take it that the right hon. Gentleman exhausted the entire number of impartial persons, they must come to the conclusion that in making the appointments he had selected persons who admittedly were not impartial. The hon. Member for East Mayo had referred to the history of the appointment of this Royal Commission. When the Irish landlords visited London for the purpose of interviewing the Prime Minister, they were told by Lord Salisbury that a Commission would be very inefficient to attain the ends they had in view. Perhaps he might give an explanation which would account for the change. On that very occasion when the Prime Minister told the deputation that he regarded a Royal Commission as a very inefficient instrument for the objects they had in view, he also used the remarkable words which had been quoted that the party or body of persons which did not agitate would go to the wall. Acting on that recommendation the influential deputation representing the landowners' convention went back to Ireland, and what happened? Steps were taken to summon a large convention of landlords, and at that convention a resolution was passed calling on the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the alleged enormous reductions given by the sub-Commissioners. Soon after the Government decided to appoint the Commission. In considering the personnel of that Commission, the Chief Secretary had to resort to the expedient of putting on one man to balance the other. But Mr. Fotterell, who was supposed to be the representative of the tenants' interests, had never been known to take the tenants' side publicly, while Dr. Traill, the representative of the landlords, was well known as an active partisan of landord interests. Then Mr. Fotterell was solicitor to a number of the men who took part in the deputation to Lord Salisbury in March last. The hon. Member for Derby had asked why the Housing of the Working Classes Act was not put in force in Waterford. The reason was that the working men in Ireland had no votes for the municipal councils as they had in England. The same explanation applied to the non-application of the Labourers' Acts in Ireland. As to Lough Rea, Lord Clanricarde was the landlord there. In Limerick, Lord Clarina was a member of the Board of Guardians, and he declared last year that any man in his employment who took possession of a house erected by the Board of Guardians would be dismissed.

I do not see how this arises out of the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary. There is a separate Vote for the Local Government Board.

said that the Chief Secretary was President of the Irish Local Government Board, though he received no separate salary for that office.

I have ruled that the hon. Member is out of order. The question ought to be raised on the Local Government Board Vote.

said that he would not pursue the point. The effect of the appointment of the Royal Commission had been that within the last year a complete transformation had taken place in the percentage of the reductions granted by the sub-Commissioners. Where, in the south of Ireland, the sub-Commissioners were last year giving reductions of 30 per cent., now they gave reductions averaging less than 20 per cent. On some estates the reduction granted by the sub-Commissioners had been much less than the voluntary abatements considered a year ago by the landlords. The sub-Commissioners and tenants both realised that the Royal Commission was appointed to serve the landlords' and not the tenants' interests.

said that as the axe of the Executive was to fall in three-quarters of an hour, this Vote could only be discussed sub terrore. The Vote ought to be considered much more seriously than was now possible. It had been deferred until the last moment, when it was not possible that there should be a full attendance of Irish Members. He was not prepared to beslaver the Chief Secretary, whose sua-viter in modo possibly excelled his fortiter in re. What had the right hon. Gentleman done? He had done little else than answer questions during the present Session.

pointed out that this was not an administrative action.

said that the only administrative work accomplished by the Chief Secretary consisted of the Land Act of last year and the Labourers' Bill.

observed that neither of those were administrative Acts. They were both legislative. The action of the Chief Secretary in bringing in Bills or his omission to bring in Bills could not be discussed upon this Vote.

said that in view of the Chairman's ruling he would confine his remarks to the subject of the Royal Commission that had been appointed to inquire into the administration of the Land Acts. The Government had appointed 43 temporary sub-Commissioners and 28 permanent Commissioners. The temporary Commissioners' position would depend upon the findings of the new Commission that had been appointed. That could hardly fail to influence them, and it looked as if the object of the Government was to bring pressure to bear upon these sub-Commissioners. Already they were raising-rents, and the same reductions as were given a few months ago were no longer being given. Mr. Fotterell, who had been appointed on the Royal Commission, had been employed by some landlords as their local agent. The position of the temporary sub-Commissioners was very precarious, and he believed that the appointment of the Royal Commission was the result of a conspiracy on the part of the landlords. The appointment of the sub-Commissioners—

The question of the nomination, of the sub-Commissioners ought to be raised on the Vote for the Land Commission. It is only the Royal Commission that can be discussed in this Vote.

said that the administrative Acts of the Chief Secretary came to next to nothing, and it was difficult to find fault with nothing. A cypher represented what the Chief Secretary had done. The right hon. Member believed that things were going on smoothly in Ireland, but he was in error. The right hon. Member ought to do more for his salary. He hoped that before very long the right hon. Gentleman would come down and pay some personal attention to the country, notably to the western portion of the district he represented. If he did so he expected they would get more work and less promises from the right hon. Gentleman. After all fine words buttered no parsnips. [Laughter.] He had got a good deal out of some of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, and it was by urging them to come down and give a little more personal investigation to the subject. If that were done the people would not be so dissatisfied. They were called upon to pass a large and unmerited salary, for the right hon. Gentleman did little in Ireland except paying attention to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and occasionally getting himself up in gala dress.

said he had put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Crook haven Pier, and the answer had been that the pier was private property. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Congested Districts Board in order that this pier might be put in an efficient state of repair.

said the proper place to raise a question connected with the Congested Districts Board would be when the Vote for that Board was taken.

, continuing, said he wished to refer to the action which the right hon. Gentleman approved of in connection with the breaking up of a public meeting in the West of Ireland. They were told that they were to have the same treatment as Scotland or England, but he would remind the Committee that the action of the dockers in the East-end and the miners in Durham had gone far beyond the action of the men who took part in the meeting in Ireland which had been broken up. The right hon. Gentleman would not be able to govern Ireland by brute force. With regard to the new Royal Commission to inquire into the Land Acts, he denied that Mr. Fotterell was a friend of the tenants. The people of Ireland would not be contented if the finding of that Commission were such as to deprive the tenant farmers of Ireland of the fruits of their industry.

said he wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord said on the point of order that no question could be discussed on the Appropriation Bill which could not be discussed in Supply.

said he wished to direct attention to a department which the Chief Secretary said did not come within this Vote. He would like to know how the Committee was to get at the Board of Control?

The Board of Control is not under the control of the Chief Secretary. He is not responsible for that Department.

I should like to ask who is?

Nobody is responsible. It was set up under Statute, and it is not responsible to this House.

Notwithstanding what the decisions of the Board of Control may be, we have no control over them?

That is the decision of Parliament.

rose to move the reduction of the Vote by £200,000. He said that as a body the Royal Irish Constabulary was in reality an army of occupation. It cost £1,400,000 per annum to police a diminishing population of 4½ millions. In England there were about 28 millions of population, and if the police in England cost the same amount per head, the cost of policing England would be between seven and eight millions per annum. That did not give the full idea of the extravagance and iniquity of the system, because the Irish population was mainly rural, and of course a mainly rural population required a very much smaller proportion of police than a mainly urban population; and he had no hesitation in saying that if the calculation was made on the proportion of population in England and Ireland, it would take at least £10,000,000 a year to police the English people on the same scale the Irish people were policed. But there was another aspect of the question. In 1844 the Royal Irish Constabulary cost about £400,000 per annum, and the population of Ireland was 8½ millions. Now with a population of 4½ millions the constabulary cost more than three times that amount. It did not require very much argument to show that there must be some monstrous extravagance in an expenditure like that. The main part of the duty of the constabulary had been to support the landlords in exterminating the people. Nothing showed the good taste of the Government more than the fact that they chose a squadron of the Royal Irish Constabulary to represent Ireland in the Jubilee procession. It would not have been possible to do anything more characteristic of the whole course of British Government in Ireland. It being Ten of the Clock, the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 29th day of January last, proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in the Committee of Supply.