gard to the Foreign Policy of the Government. He wished to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that everything which last August he affirmed with regard to the Foreign Policy of the Government had come true, and everything which the right hon. Gentleman asserted had failed to come true-whether, in view of these facts, the right hon. Gentleman would give him an opportunity on Tuesday of impeaching the Foreign Policy of the Government? MR. GLADSTONE: If the Rules of the House give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity, I have no doubt there would be no want of good disposition on his part to carry out the designs he has just announced. We should be prepared to stand the consequences, and meet them as we best may; but it is not in my power to give him any other opportunity. MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Yes, Sir; it is within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the precedence taken for Government Business. MR. GLADSTONE: Now that the hon. Gentleman has disclosed the full extent of his intention, I must answer emphatically in the negative. PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT-RE-ARREST OF MR. GEORGE. MR. JOSEPH COWEN wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question; but, as he was not in his place, perhaps he might ask the Home Secretary to answer it. It appeared that Mr. George had been re-arrested, and that that had taken place because instructions were given to the police to arrest him. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, as these re-arrests caused great inconvenience, it would not be possible for the Irish Government to issue some kind of passport, so that strangers wishing to travel in Ireland might have an opportunity of doing so without having to risk the indignities to which Mr. George had been subjected? MR. O'DONNELL asked whether the Government was aware that in similar cases passports had been issued by the late Government of Naples and by the present Government of Russia ? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he had no information at all on the subject of Mr. George's re-arrest beyond that which he saw in the newspapers. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had gone to Ireland, and that was the reason why he was not in the House. MR. JOSEPH COWEN said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to treat the question with indifference; but could the Government give them some reasonable assurance that innocent persons travelling in Ireland would not be subjected to these indignities? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I can assure the hon. Member I did not wish to treat this question with indifference. I was only able to say that I had no information. I am certain that as soon as the Chief Secretary arrives in Ireland he will address himself to the subject, and will see that every precaution is taken to prevent inconvenience being occasioned. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR asked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the fact that Michael O'Connor, a distinguished citizen of California, was arrested in Ireland a few weeks ago, when he was simply visiting his native place? He also asked whether it was not the case that, when the Prevention of Crime Bill was passing through the House, the right hon. Gentleman gave the assurance that the Government of Ireland would make every effort that this power of interfering with aliens should not be abused, so that persons visiting Ireland on pleasure or business should not be embarrassed; and whether the arrests of Mr. O'Connor and Mr. George were in accordance with that pledge? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he entirely recognized the undertaking which the Government gave as to arrests, and which they were bound to give. He was quite sure that the Government in Ireland would do all in their power to fulfil that undertaking. He could not answer, however, as to these particular arrests, because he had no information respecting them; but he was quite certain that if the Government of Ireland were of opinion that these arrests should not have been made and were owing to carelessness, they would take measures to prevent anything of the kind occurring in the future. MR. HEALY asked if there would be any Representative of the Irish Government in the House to answer the Questions relating to Ireland during the MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, who had given Notice that he would call attention to correspondence with the War Office respecting recent fires in Woolmer Forest; and to move these fires in the Forest were lighted by the officials for purposes connected with the preservation of game. Lord Selborne, who was a resident in the district, introduced Mr. Smith to the Secretary of State, and wrote stating that his impression was that the fires were not accidental, but originated through the most dangerous system of clearing wild ground for the preservation of game by burning the heather. The numerous inhabitants in this district had a right to be informed that the attention of the Secretary of State had been personally directed to what, to them, was a most serious question - namely, that steps should be taken to prevent the recurrence of these fires. MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, that a Committee of that House which sat many years ago unanimously resolved that Woolmer Forest should be sold; but that proposal had never been acted upon. Crown Forests were not saleable, except under Act of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought proper to introduce a Bill authorizing the sale of Woolmer Forest, he (Mr. Arnold) would give it any support in his power. MR. H. G. ALLEN, as a friend of Mr. Smith, whose complaint had been brought forward, could assure the House that whatever he said was thoroughly reliable. This mode of clearing wild land was very dangerous, and could be for no other purpose than that suggested by the Lord Chancellor, who was not very likely to have arrived at his conclusion with regard to the origin of these fires on insufficient evidence-namely, the preservation of game. He therefore trusted that until the suggestion of the hon. Member for Salford was acted upon, and the Forest sold, orders would be given from head-quarters for the discontinuance of so dangerous a method of clearance as that of burning the underwood. "That the management of Woolmer Forest by officials under the War Department has given just cause of dissatisfaction and alarm to the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands," said, that various fires had occurred in the Forest, doing more or less damage to adjoining lands; but on the 23rd of May a large and serious fire took place, by which damage to the extent of £2,000 was occasioned to the property of Mr. Smith, an adjoining landowner. An official inquiry was held under the direction of Major General Sir Henry Havelock-Allan; but the evidence on that occasion was restricted to the cause of the fire by which the damage complained of arose. Mr. Smith, the gentleman at whose instance he had brought this subject forward, was much dissatisfied with that inquiry, because he was not permitted to show that the same persons who had lighted the fires in the earlier part of the year were also the authors of that which caused his loss. It was reSIR ARTHUR HAYTER said, no one ported to the General Commanding the connected with the War Department could Division, as the result of the inquiry, complain of the calm and able statement that it was not caused by War Office made by the right hon. Gentleman in officials; but Sir Daniel Lysons recom- setting forth the grievances of those of mended that, instead of being under the his constituents who resided in the neighcharge of a warder, these forests should bourhood of Woolmer Forest. A Reguin future be placed under the manage-lation had been framed which provided ment of an officer of the Royal Engineers. Notwithstanding the inquiry that had been held, there was ample evidence that Mr. Healy that the Chief Engineer at Aldershot should be specially charged with the duty of superintending this property, and looking after the warders. The which the Commission had involved. right hon. Gentleman appeared to argue He could not fail to compare it with anthat because the fire of the 12th of other Commission in this list-he meant March was lighted by the Government the Commission on Technical Instruction, officials, therefore the subsequent fires which, though a travelling Commission, were lighted by them. After the fire in had spent the comparatively small sum May, Sir Daniel Lysons ordered a Court of £1,000. He deeply regretted that of Inquiry to be assembled. It was pre- the work of the Agricultural Commissided over by Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, sion had led to what he could not but and among its members was Colonel regard as a very considerable waste of Harrison, one of the Chief Engineers at public money. Aldershot. That Court was of opinion that the fire at Woolmer Forest on the 22nd of May was caused by some incendiary, and not by any Government official or servant. He confessed he thought it highly desirable that further precautions should be taken, especially in regard to the clearings. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the new Regulations, which provided, among other things, that an officer of the Royal Engineers should be present with a sufficient number of men to prevent the fires from spreading, and to extinguish them when necessary, and also that all residents in the neighbourhood should receive adequate notice before the fires were lighted. Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (In the Committee.) 'CLASS VII.-MISCELLANEOUS. The hon. Gentle MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, as he was the only Member of the Agricultural Commission who was now present, he must ask the Committee to consider the inconsistent character of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) statements. man told the Committee that the evidence collected was invaluable, but that the three volumes produced had cost £10,000 each, and that was too much. The question of cost ought to be taken in relation to the value of that which had been got; the question was not how much the Commission had cost, but whether the work could have been done for less money. In what way had there been this extravagance? Was it that thing of the kind. The majority of the the Commission had been paid? NoCommissioners had received nothing, but had paid money out of their own pockets. Farmers and professional gentlemen who came from different parts of the country to work on the Commission or to give evidence had been paid their travelling expenses, and, he (1.) £14,941, to complete the sum for thought, the very moderate sum of two Temporary Commissions. or three guineas a-day. The great cost of the Commission arose from the employment of professional experts who had been to all parts of the world to make inquiries, and to obtain information of a thoroughly authentic and reliable character upon the very important and multifarious subjects referred to the Commission by Her Majesty. He be MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he must congratulate the Committee and the country upon the fact that the Royal Commission on Agriculture had now finished its labours. This was a fitting opportunity to notice that the three volumes which the Commission had produced had cost the country more than £10,000 each. The cost of the Com-lieved that some portion of the labours mission had been extraordinary and extravagant. The Commission had produced volumes of evidence which were of great value, and which, for 20 years to come, would probably form the most useful text-books on agriculture in this country; but whilst he thought it was impossible to over-estimate the value of this work of the Commission, he must protest against the enormous expenditure, amounting in all to nearly £40,000, of the Commission had not yet been placed before Parliament. Some of the Returns-and the Committee must recollect that the printing of the Returns and the employment for two or three years, in point of fact, of shorthand writers, was one of the principal causes of the great expenditure-had not yet been laid before the House. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: No, no!] The hon. Member said No, no!" as though he knew all about it. The hon. Member complained of what had been done. He could only say the hon. Member's (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) own evidence had cost the country a very large sum of money. At the request of the hon. Gentleman the Commission called him; he gave his evidence at great length, and it would be for those who read his evidence to judge of its value. At any rate, he would say there was no witness who was examined who cost the country so much as the hon. Member himself. Then the hon. Member compared the Agricultural Commission to the Commission on Technical Education, very much to the disadvantage of the Agricultural Commission. Why, the hon. Gentleman made a comparison without knowing anything about the subject! Would the hon. Gentleman say how the expenses of the Technical Education Commission were incurred? If he had gone into the matter properly, he would have ascertained that the Technical Education Commission paid its own expenses, a fact which was exceedingly discreditable to the country. The Gentlemen who were ap; pointed upon that Commission received no pecuniary assistance from the Government, and that was a matter which it was not unlikely would be brought under the notice of Parliament on another occasion, because, without going into matters of a delicate nature, the Committee could easily understand that there might be even Members of that Commission who could not pay their own expenses. For the country to appoint a Commission and not to pay the Members of it was either to insure that only rich men should form the Commission, or to require persons of public spirit to put their hands in their own pockets and pay expenses which ought not to fall upon them. There was no kind of comparison to be drawn between the Agricultural Commission and the Technical Education Commission. Certainly the Technical Education Commission had done its labours admirably; and he thought, on the whole, the country would be of opinion that the Agricultural Commission, which had worked without pecuniary remuneration, so far as its Members were concerned, had also earned the good opinion of the country, and ought not to be criticized upon imperfect information in the perfunctory manner adopted by the hon. Member. Mr. Mitchell Henry MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, that, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry), he was still of opinion that the evidence given before the Commission might have been presented to the House for about £3,000, instead of £40,000. MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, that for the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee that work which had occupied three years, which required the sending to all parts of the world of highly-paid experts, could have been done for £3,000, was simply ludicrous. The Committee would know very well in what way to receive statements of that kind. Vote agreed to. (2.) £3,711, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses. REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. (3.) £793,155, to complete the sum for Customs. (4.) £1,557,822, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue. (5.) £3,043,300, to complete the sum for Post Office. (6.) £490,514, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service. MR. GRAY said, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the Post Office contract for the transmission of the Irish mails between Holyhead and Dublin. This was a matter of very considerable importance, and one which excited a great deal of interest in Ireland. The period of the present contract had now expired, or was about to expire, and the Department had advertised for new tenders. He did not understand that notice had been given for the termination of the existing contract; but advertisements had been published and tenders had been received from new contractors. The various Chambers of Commerce throughout the country had taken an interest in the matter, and they had forwarded Memorials to the Postmaster General in reference to it. A good many questions would arise in connection with the policy which would actuate the Department in giving away this contract. In the first place, it was important the Committee should know whether the Department intended to deal with the entire mail service between England and Ireland in connection with the new contract for across Chan One of the members of the Board of Directors was a Member of the Government, another member of the Board was a Member of the late Irish Government, and, therefore, the Company had a very great amount of influence and power. He would be loth to even suggest in the remotest way that any of its power or influence would be exercised in anything but the most legitimate manner; but the fact of the Company being so directly represented in this House should induce the Government to disclose to the Irish public, who were so deeply interested in them, the terms of the tenders before they committed themselves to one or the other. It was easy to be conceived that a Company with enormous capital and revenue, like the London and North-Western, might find it to its interest to tender at an unremunerative rate - at a rate at which an independent Company merely carrying on the mail business could not compete with-with the full knowledge that if its tender were accepted the small rival Company would be destroyed, and at the termination of the period of the first contract, the larger Company would be the masters of the situation and able to dictate its own terms. He was sure the Postmaster General would not be inclined to lend himself to anything of the kind; but there was an apprehension, which he thought was well-founded, that what might be deemed to be somewhat unfair competition of that character might militate against the chance of the Irish Company; that, in fact, an old and most respectable Irish Company might be destroyed by competition with an enormous Corporation like the London and North-Western. Moreover, there was a very strong feeling, in which he shared, and in which anyone who had any knowledge of Dublin must share, that it would be most detrimental to the public service if the mails were carried direct to the port of Dublin instead of to Kingstown, as at present. He was quite aware that new steamers had been put on for the purpose of carrying passengers to the port of Dublin, and that it was alleged they could carry mails just as well. From his own personal experience, he could say, without fear of contradiction, that it was a physical impossibility to carry mails to the port of Dublin with anything like the regularity which must be first essential of the postal service, 3 D nel, or whether they only intended to | this House. |