Commons Sitting of 4 April 1876

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Partition Act (1868) Amendment (re-comm.)* [73].
Third Reading—Drugging of Animals* [85], and passed.

THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN G. E. PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a leading article in the "Morning Advertiser" of March 21st, upon
  1178
  the Newfoundland Fishery question, in which it is stated that the Report of Captain Erskine, whilst senior naval officer on that station, upon the relations existing between the French and English fishermen, was considerably abridged and modified by the authorities before presentation; and, whether, the facts are as so stated; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of Captain Erskine's original Report?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I have seen the article in The Morning Advertiser to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, and I may say it is the case that the Report of Captain Erskine was abridged. The reason for the adoption of that course was that the Report, which was in great part highly confidential in its character, contained references to matters of extreme delicacy, which are at this moment engaging the attention of a mixed Commission sitting in Paris. Under these circumstances the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that it is not possible either to publish the Report, or to lay it on the Table of the House. I hope, however, that the state of negotiations will very shortly admit of some further communication being made to Parliament.

THE WINDWARD ISLANDS—FEDERATION.—QUESTION.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the remonstrance of the Assembly of Barbadoes against being included in a federation of the Windward Islands, will receive due consideration; and, whether it is intended to abandon or modify the proposal for confederation?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Lord Carnarvon has, in a despatch written in January last, and published in the colony, explicitly stated that—
"Her Majesty's Government could not proceed with any measure of confederation in the Windward Islands except on the spontaneous request of each Legislature concerned."
It is not known here whether any proposal for confederation is now before the Legislature of Barbadoes; and until information is received as to the precise course which is being taken by the local Government it is impossible to express any opinion.

POST OFFICE—FEMALE CLERKS IN THE SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  Mr. JAMESasked the Postmaster General, If any classification is contemplated in the pay of the female Clerks at present employed in the Post Office Savings Bank Department of the Post Office; and, if so, on what basis it is to be made, and how soon it is to take effect?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, the classification of the female clerks in the Savings Bank department would be shortly made. The proportion of rates of pay of the different classes, as authorized by the Treasury, would be found in page 543 of the Estimates of the current year, and the clerks would be promoted according to their proved proficiency during their period of probation.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTT (for Dr. O'LEARY)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Public Health Committee of the Corporation of Dublin, as the sanitary authority under the Act of 1874, called a meeting by circular, for Wednesday the 8th of March, of the Medical Sanitary Officers of Dublin, to ascertain their opinion as to the cause of the high death rate (39 per thousand); if such meeting was held, and what opinion was expressed by the Medical Sanitary Officers, and what recommendation the said officers made; and, whether the Public Health Committee has taken any action upon such recommendation; and, if not, whether the Government will do so?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I am informed that such a meeting was held on the 15th of March, and that the opinion expressed by the meeting was that the cause of the high death-rate which has recently prevailed in Dublin was mainly due to diseases of the respiratory organs. Of 230 deaths within the three months in excess of the average of the corresponding quarter of the 10 previous years, 175 were due to diseases of this kind. The most preventible diseases, as fever and scarlet fever, show a marked decrease
  1180
  as compared with previous years. No explanation was given to or by the meeting on the subject. The Returns will be laid on the Table.

POST OFFICE—RURAL POST OFFICE MESSENGERS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a memorial signed by 415 rural Post Office messengers in Ireland; and, whether he has any intention to increase their pay to more than ten shillings per week?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: No, Sir, I have received no memorial whatever on the subject to which the Question of the noble Lord refers. There is no fixed rule as to the wages of the rural post messengers in Ireland. The pay in their case is regulated by the amount and value of the work done.

POOR INSPECTORS (SCOTLAND)—SUPERANNUATION.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is prepared, in the present Session, to introduce a measure providing for the superannuation of Inspectors of the Poor in Scotland?
THE LORD ADVOCATE,in reply, said, that he hoped to be able to introduce a measure this Session for the amendment of the Poor Laws in Scotland, which would contain provision for the superannuation of Inspectors of the Poor.

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS—GLENGARRIFFE.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Postmaster General, If he can state why postal telegraph service had been withdrawn from Glengarriffe, County Cork; and, when we may hope for its restoration?
Lord JOHN MANNERS: I can assure the hon. Member that I appreciate far too highly the charms and beauties of Glengarriffe to deprive it of postal telegraphic communication. The fact is that the postmistress there has resigned, and the postal communication has necessarily been suspended in consequence. I hope to see it soon restored.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: With the permission of the House I will put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to the arrangement of Public Business. The right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday that, subject to the progress of Business, he proposed that the House should rise at the conclusion of the Sitting on Monday next. I think it will be convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman can state what Business it is proposed to proceed with during the week, and upon the progress of what Business the arrangement he contemplates will depend. There is also another matter upon which I should like to put a Question. Hon. Members will have observed upon the Paper a Notice, which stands for Thursday, of a Motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) for an Address to the Crown on the subject of the Royal Titles. I may take this opportunity of mentioning that my hon. Friend placed this Notice on the Paper without any communication whatever either with me or, so far as I am aware, with any of my hon. Friends who sit near me. At the same time the House will, I am sure, observe that this is a Motion relating to a very important matter; and they will be anxious to know whether it is probable that this Motion will be brought on either before or shortly after the Easter holidays. I understand it is not the wish of my hon. Friend to bring forward the Motion before Easter, unless by not doing so he will lose the opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon the question which he has raised before the issue of the Proclamation contingent upon the passing of the Royal Titles Bill. I should therefore like to ask the the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he can give to the House any information as to the course the Government propose to take with regard to the Royal Proclamation in the event of the Royal Titles Bill becoming law?
  MR. DISRAELI: I sketched to the House a day or two ago, what I thought would be the probable course of Public Business, and I mentioned how many days were at the command of the Go-
  1182
  vernment. At present we have only two days at our command—Thursday and Monday—that is, provided the House adjourns on Monday night. The business of the Government on those two nights is exceedingly pressing. On Thursday we have to deal with the Budget Resolutions, and on Monday we have to take one of the most important Votes in the Navy Estimates, the nature of which, as the House is aware, will admit of no delay. In that case, even if there were no other considerations, the probable time that we have at our command is very limited, provided we adjourn on Monday. But the noble Lord has introduced another element into consideration, on which I am disposed myself not to favour delay. If the policy of the Government is challenged I think it is much better that we should at once encounter such opposition. And although it is a course extremely inconvenient, and at first sight seems almost impossible, consistently with the plan I have suggested as to the adjournment, to secure a day for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney, still perhaps we might arrange it if the House assist us. We shall have three days at our command if we can induce those hon. Members who have Motions for Friday to come to our aid. There are eight Motions for Friday, equally divided between the two great Parties in the State. Four of them are Motions by Followers of the noble Lord, and four by Gentlemen who favour the Government with their confidence. I think, under these circumstances, we may possibly, by making an united appeal, induce hon. Gentlemen to assist us. The Motions are all interesting, I admit; but they are not very urgent, and I have no doubt that in the course of the Session, hon. Members will be able to obtain other and favourable opportunities for their discussion. Now, if the eight Members equally divided between the two sides of the House would assist the noble Lord and myself in our common wish to secure a discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney, what I would propose would be this—that we should proceed on Thursday with the Budget Resolutions of which I have given Notice; that on Friday, if it is clear, we will take the Motion respecting the Royal Title; and on Monday proceed with the Navy Estimates. If that ar-

  1183
  rangement should be made, the House could adjourn on Monday evening. The Votes must, indeed, be reported on Tuesday, but that is a mere form, and virtually on Monday our sittings will close. We are, however, in the hands of hon. Members; but if the Friends of the noble Lord will assist us in this plan I have no doubt that the great object can be attained of securing a discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney, and of adjourning the House at the period I have named.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, there is one question which I should like to put to you with respect to the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman. I understood that you had expressed an opinion that it would not be in Order for my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney to bring forward the Motion of which he has given Notice as long as there is any possibility of the Royal Titles Bill being returned for the consideration of this House. I understand that the Bill will not pass its final stage in "another place" until Friday. Therefore, I should be glad to know, in the event of hon. Members complying with the request of the right Gentleman, whether it would be competent for my hon. Friend to bring forward his Motion on that day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is contrary to the practice of this House to consider any Resolution bearing upon a Bill before the other House of Parliament until that Bill has been read in the other House a third time. The Bill in question is ordered to be read a third time in the other House on Friday next, and if the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney were to come on that day before the Bill had been read a third time, the whole proceeding would be contrary to the practice of this House. The Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney could not properly be entertained until the Bill had been read a third time. I may be permitted to point out to the House that as on Friday the House has, by Standing Order, fixed the Committee of Supply as the First Order of the Day, the Navy Estimates might, for the convenience of the House, be taken on that day, and the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney on the following Monday.
  MR. DISRAELI: I have no objection to substitute Monday for Friday
  1184
  for the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney. From what I have heard I imagine that the Bill might arrive in time for the hon. Member for Hackney's Motion; but I shall have great pleasure, as I have said, in substituting Monday for Friday, provided the Government have the same assistance from the Friends of the noble Lord which I count on from Gentlemen on this side. Otherwise, it will not be in our power to do it.
  MR. FAWCETTexpressed his acknowledgments to the Prime Minister for enabling him to bring forward his Motion on Monday.
  MR. GOSCHENasked whether it was the understanding that hon. Members should have an opportunity of bringing forward their Motions on the Navy Estimates?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper for Friday with regard to the Suez Canal, and he postponed that with the greatest possible reluctance, and only on the understanding that the Government would give him an opportunity of bringing on his Motion before the negotiations which had taken place between Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps were brought to the knowledge of the general meeting of the shareholders in Paris.
  MR. DISRAELI: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will, as far as I can judge, have an opportunity of raising a discussion on the Suez Canal. I would express a hope that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney is to be brought forward on Monday it will be concluded that night. I may remind the House that the subject is one on which many hon. Members have expressed their opinions.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked whether the Navy Votes would be reported on Monday or Tuesday?
  Mr. W. H. SMITHsaid, on Monday.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: To prevent any possibility of misunderstanding I will just point out that there are one or two Members not present for whom it is impossible for me or any one else to speak positively until we have communicated with them about their Motions on Friday. Of course, I will do what lies in my power to facilitate what appears to be the wish of the House on this subject. But what I

  1185
  principally rose for was to point out what I understood to be our position, in order that there may be no misconception about it. I understand that on Friday the Navy Estimates will be taken, and that we shall be in exactly the same position as if those Estimates were to be taken on Monday; that is to say, any Motion relative to naval affairs which might have been moved on the Speaker's leaving the Chair on Monday would be equally entitled to be moved on the Speaker's leaving the Chair on Friday.
  MR. DISRAELI: Our object is, at all events, to obtain the necessary Vote.

INLAND REVENUE—EXCISE BLENDING OF IRISH WHISKEY.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN,in rising to call the attention of the House to the practice which is sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government of blending and thereby adulterating Irish Whiskey in Her Majesty's Customs and Inland Revenue Stores, and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the practice which has been permitted of late years of mixing Whiskey in Her Majesty's Bonding and Inland Revenue Stores with other spirits; to report to this House whether the practice is injurious to the public and to the manufacturers of Irish Whiskey, and whether, in the opinion of the Committee, the practice ought or ought not to be discontinued,"
  said, he felt he laboured under some difficulty in introducing this subject to the House, as the very mention of the word "whiskey" was sufficient to provoke a smile in the case of most hon. Gentlemen. He would commence by informing the House that he did not rise in the interest of the distiller; neither did he rise in the interest of the whiskey-drinker, as there was not a man in that Assembly, not even excepting the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who despised the habitual drunkard more than he did; he rose simply in the interest of the public, and with a strong love of justice and fair play. For a long time before he became a Member of that House he saw with regret how the distilling trade in Ireland was being undermined, and its good name destroyed by a practice which was carried on extensively in Dublin and
  1186
  Belfast—that was, of mixing a cheap spirit made by Coffer's "patent still" with some Irish whiskey, and then sending the mixture out for consumption as pure Irish whiskey. This practice was connived at by the Government of the country, and consequently was daily increasing in extent. His first effort to stop this fraudulent practice was made in June, 1874, when he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  "If it is a fact that spirits imported from other countries into Ireland are allowed to be mixed with Irish whiskey in Her Majesty's Custom House, under the sanction of the Custom House Officers; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government, with a view of doing justice to the manufacturers and consumers of pure whiskey, will take such measures as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such a system of trade?"
  He would read to the House the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his Question. Here was the statement—
  "It is illegal to mix spirits imported from foreign countries into Ireland with Irish whiskey in bond; but it is legal to mix spirits imported from one part of the United Kingdom into the other, and therefore spirits imported from England and Scotland into Ireland are occasionally mixed in bond. There is no desire on the part of the officers of the Revenue that that practice should continue, and, as far as they are concerned, they will be willing that every cask of spirits should be taken out of bond exactly as it was put in bond; but it would be a great inconvenience to the dealer if a rule to that effect were rigidly enforced, and there was therefore no intention to discontinue, or rather to prohibit the present practice; but when the spirits were so mixed, care was taken that the name of the distiller should be erased, and on each cask was impressed the word 'mixed' or 'blended,' to show that the spirit was not pure."—[3 Hansard, ccxix. 1268–9.]
  Was that a reply worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a great commercial nation? "'Blended' was substituted to show that the spirits were not pure." Then, again, he told the House that mixing was not permitted in the case of foreign spirits. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) was well aware it was not permitted in the case of foreign spirits. Foreigners had their Governments to protect them from such fraud; but the Irishman should depend on the Government of England for protection. The right hon. Gentleman had further stated that there was no desire on the part of the officers of the Revenue that this practice should be discontinued. In these

  1187
  few words the whole secret of this transaction lay, for the guiding star at the Revenue Department did not wish this fraud on the Irish manufacturer to be discontinued, but rather that it should continue until the trade of the Irish manufacturer was gone and his good name destroyed. He gave full credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a desire to have justice done to the Irish manufacturer; but he seemed to have been completely overruled by the authorities at Somerset House, the heads of which, when called on by the Lords of the Treasury to simply report on the subject of mixing whiskey, actually went out of their way to become the advocates of the Scotch manufacturer of silent spirits, and to traduce the character of the Irish distillers by making statements in their Report which were calculated to injure the Irish trade, and which they could not sustain when they were publicly challenged to do so. In the same reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be inconvenient to traders if the practice were stopped, and it might be urged that trade was unduly restricted. Well, he thought the very best answer he could give to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was to refer the House to 122 Petitions, which had been presented to the House since the opening of the present Session, and which had been signed by 1,987 dealers, merchants, and retailers of spirits in Ireland, praying the Government to prevent the system of mixing spirits in Her Majesty's bonding stores. He believed that the stopping of this practice would be no inconvenience to the large number of fair traders; but that it would be a great inconvenience to 15 or 20 traders who were making a fortune in. this manner at the expense of the public. Some time after the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to stop this mixing he received a letter from one of those Dublin blenders, who said that this blending was sanctioned by Act of Parliament, and wound up by enclosing his trade circular to the Chancellor, who thanked the writer for his information on the subject. He would not have troubled the House with this blender's letter, were it not that he wanted to show how the public were deceived by the protection which the Government gave to this fraudulent practice. Shortly after this letter was
  1188
  written he found an advertisement from the writer in The Wine Trade Review, headed "Dublin Whiskey," advertizing his bottled whiskey, and saying—"As this whiskey is bottled under the supervision of the officers of Her Majesty's Revenue, the trade have an absolute guarantee of its being pure unblended Dublin whiskey." Could anything be plainer than that, when it was a well-known fact that the Government permitted all sorts of mixing to be carried on under the supervision of the Revenue officer? This blender told the public that the trade had an absolute guarantee that it was not blended, because it was bottled under the supervision of Her Majesty's Revenue officers. Some men thought they were patriots when they could ascend a platform and make a long speech; but give him the patriot who would try to protect the trade and the interest of his country even at a little loss to himself. Pope told them that—
  "Wretches hang that jurymen may dine."
  He could parallel it with one for the special behoof of a few Irishmen in this case, and say—"Let trade and country perish that individuals may accumulate wealth." The next move made in this matter was on the 19th of April, 1875, when he moved an Amendment in Committee on the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill—
  "That no person shall be permitted to mix, colour, or stain any food while in Her Majesty's Custom House Stores."
  After some discussion on this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this clause to prevent the mixing of whiskey in bond went beyond the scope of the Bill. At the same time, he suggested that he (Mr. O'Sullivan) should make an appointment to meet him, together with the practical officers of the Customs. On the strength of that proposition he withdrew his Amendment, and a day was then named, and the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks), himself, and some Irish distillers, met the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his official residence. The distillers laid their case before him, and showed the injustice that was done to them by having an inferior article substituted for theirs. They even went so far as to say they would be satisfied if the following rules were carried out by the officers of the Inland Revenue:—

  1189
  That the word "blended" be painted on each cask containing mixed whiskey, and that the Government permit which accompanied the whiskey so mixed should clearly state that it was mixed whiskey, so that the purchaser should know what he was buying, and be protected from fraud. He was sure the House could agree with him in saying this was not too much to expect from the Government, who were trying to protect the public by passing a Food and Drug Bill, who had passed a Bill for the protection of trade marks, and who had passed a very elaborate Bill for sanitary purposes. This letter was referred to the heads of the Inland Revenue Department, from which emanated the famous Report to which he would have to refer by-and-by. Immediately after the interview between his deputation and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a deputation of Scotch gentlemen waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of protesting against any change in the law with regard to the blending of whiskey in bond, or branding of casks. They were introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). When his hon. Friend was introducing this deputation, he was reported by the papers to have made some extraordinary remarks on the subject. He was reported to have said that—"The duty of Government was a purely fiscal one—namely, the collection of Revenue arising from the sale of spirits." Did the hon. Member mean to convey that the Government owed no moral obligation to the people? that they were to be simply machines for the collection of taxes? Did he think for a moment that they were not morally bound to protect the lives, the health, and the sanity of the people? All he would say was, that if this was the hon. Gentleman's standard of moral law, he hoped he would keep it at the other side of the Border. Again, he would ask the hon. Member, did he not see the very inconsistent position occupied by himself and his Scotch friends on the occasion referred to? They were all aware that Scotland was celebrated for its herrings, and, he believed, justly so. Hon. Members must also be well aware how Scotchmen had continued to importune the Government every other day, until they got the Government to brand their herrings, so that no one in
  1190
  the Kingdom could impose on the consumer by saying he had Scotch herrings when that was not the case. And now these Scotchmen cried out to the Government—"Don't brand our whiskey," or, in other words, "If you do we can't sell it as Irish whiskey." A very able article appeared in The Times on this question in the early part of this year, but the writer fell into an error in this respect—that he seemed to make it appear that Dublin was the only part of Ireland in which pure pot whiskey was manufactured, when the fact was, that it was manufactured in many towns in Ireland. There was Cork, for instance, where the Cork Distilleries Company paid, he believed, over £500,000 a-year to the Revenue; and that from one company in Ireland would give some idea of the trade that was done. They—the Cork Distilleries Company—did not take much interest in the matter, for this reason—that, to the credit of the Cork merchants be it said, this fraudulent practice was almost unknown there. There was a very smart paper in Scotland called The Scotsman, which was furious with The Times for helping to expose this fraud on the public. In an article—on the7th February, 1876—in defence of the existing system, that paper made use of two extraordinary statements. First, it said that a number of the Irish distillers were Scotchmen, and that it was simply a case of Scotchmen outwitting Scotchmen. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) was not aware, so far as he could learn, that there were more than one or two Scotchmen engaged in the distilling trade in Ireland; but supposing, for argument's sake, that every one of them was a Scotchman, that was no reason why they should be allowed to deceive the public and destroy fair trade. The second argument used by this paper was still more curious. It stated that the fraud—if it was a fraud—was practised chiefly on Irishmen, who were incapable of telling the difference between good and bad whiskey. All he would say to this latter argument was, that though the writer might be a good judge of Scotch toddy, he was a very bad judge of an Irishman's opinion. The same paper, in the same article, stated that "in Scotland no whiskey is called Irish, for that name would not be regarded as commendatory in Scotland." He (Mr. O'Sullivan) held

  1191
  in his hand a circular from which he would read an extract. Let the House then judge whether The Scotsman was correct or not.
  "Sir,—My principals having just completed very important alterations and improvements in their pot-stills, are now running a most superior old still whiskey (Irish)"—
  the word "Irish" within parenthesis, to draw special attention to their Irish manufacture. The part of Ireland this circular came from was Cameron Bridge. It reminded him of a case he saw some time since in London, where some enterprising gentlemen advertised champagne of their own manufacture, at half the price of that which came from the champagne-growing country, and far superior. After a short time they were taken up and prosecuted, but this Scotch-Irish whiskey was still manufactured. He would have to trouble the House with a few extracts from the famous Report from the Inland Revenue, Somerset House. The authors of that Report commenced by admitting the fact that there was a considerable amount of blending of Scotch with Irish spirits, and they then tried to excuse it by stating that certain Scotch distillers made a very colourless and flavourless spirit, which for those qualities was well adapted for mixing with other spirituous liquors. Then those disinterested gentlemen went on to say—
  "They presumed that the mixture of this with Irish spirits made a palatable compound; otherwise it would certainly not be the interest of the dealers in spirits to encourage it."
  Any man who ever drank Irish whiskey in London must know the palatable compound they would get in half the places in that city; in fact, the people of that city seemed to know very little about pure Irish whiskey, or they would not drink the stuff they got for whiskey. He was sure that was the reason those blenders were able to deceive them. The Inland Revenue thought it was because it was more palatable that those dealers in whiskey continued to sell it; but they must have forgotten at the time of writing this Report that one of the blenders himself admitted in his letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this compound which they thought was so very palatable was 2s. per gallon cheaper than pure Irish whiskey. He thought this had more influence with
  1192
  the large dealer than its palatable qualities. The Report went on to say—
  "The allegation which is sometimes made that it is deleterious is quite unfounded; indeed, it is the very opposite of the fact, it being notorious that the Irish whiskey owes a great part of its peculiar flavour to the fusel oil which it contains, and from which impurity the Scotch silent spirit is nearly free."
  Was not that going out of their way to traduce the Irish manufacturer and advocate the interest of the maker of silent spirit, and more especially in making statements which they could not sustain when challenged in the public Press to do so? The writer of those statements, who, he presumed, was Mr. Sandy Young, of the Inland Revenue Office, shrank from the contest when he was publicly challenged to prove his assertions. The Inland Revenue gentlemen wound up their famous Report by stating that it was quite open to Parliament to protect them—the distillers—against their rivals in trade, provided the Revenue officers were not called on to give effect to it. The Irish distillers wanted no protection from fair competition; but they wanted to protect both their purse and their name from being undermined by fraudulent practices. The House could see from the outset the line of argument taken by the writer of that Report. He would now state to the House in a few words what he complained of. The Government placed officers in charge of all whiskey when it was made, and while in their charge in the Government stores, they allowed those blenders, who made a trade of this business, to bring into Her Majesty's Customs the cheapest spirits they could get, and there, in presence of the Custom House officers, they were allowed to mix pure whiskey with this cheap spirit, and send it out for consumption as pure Irish whiskey. Would any hon. Member deny that this was fraud of the grossest kind, and were not the Government of this country co-operators in this fraud? Was it not bad enough to have it "doctored" by the merchant and by the retailer before it reached the consumer, without having the practice carried on in the Government stores? The Government gained nothing whatever by permitting this practice; on the contrary, they lost by it, as they had to employ additional officers to watch those blenders. He would now give the House

  1193
  the contents of one or two of those huge "doctoring shops," called vats, in Her Majesty's stores. He held a Return of the contents of several of those huge blending vats, but he did not intend to occupy the time of the House with more than the Return of one or two from Belfast, and the same from Dublin. The first he would take was a Return from the Dublin Customs in December, 1875. No. 3,634 contained 6,794 gallons, and was made up of 4,610 gallons of patent silent spirit, and 2,184 gallons of Irish whiskey. The next vat, which contained 8,206 gallons, was taken on the same date. He would read out the contents—as it was a curiosity—for Irish whiskey. It was No, 3,504, and contained, from a Glasgow distillery, 1,162 gallons of patent spirits; from an Edinburgh distillery, 5,109 gallons; from Cameron Bridge, 1,633 gallons; and 299 gallons of Irish whiskey, or about 3½per cent of the whole contents. He would now give the contents of two vats from Belfast, which were even worse than the Dublin mixtures. No. 1 vat was taken in September, 1875. It contained 5,105 gallons in all; 534 gallons of that was Irish, and every other gallon was composed of silent spirit imported from Scotland. No. 4 vat in Belfast, taken in June, 1875, contained 6,417 gallons; 1,229 gallons of which were Irish, and the remaining 5,188 were composed of Scotch spirits. This was not to be wondered at when the House would recollect that this Scotch silent spirit could be bought from 2s. 7d. to 3s. 2d. per gallon, while the good Irish whiskey could not be bought for less than from 4s. 6d. to 7s. 2d. per gallon. Since the time of the Act of Union up to the year 1860 whiskey was never allowed to be tampered with while in bond; in fact, there were several Acts of Parliament which imposed heavy penalties for tampering with whiskey in bond. It had even been provided at one time that any cask which had been partially emptied should not be filled up at all with the same kind of spirit. By one short clause in an Act in 1860 the Government swept away all those safeguards in those old Acts of Parliament, and left the manufacturer of good whiskey open to the frauds now practised on him by clever traders. What, he asked, was the excuse to be offered for so sweeping a change, accomplished in this
  1194
  quiet and obscure manner? If he were to venture on a guess, he would say it might be traced to the same head that dictated the defence of silent spirit which came from Somerset House. There could be only one object in permitting this practice to continue, and that was to destroy that branch of Irish trade, and as he would show this was not the first attempt. They first increased the duty on Irish whiskey from 2s. 8d. per gallon to 10 s. per gallon—an increase of 7s. 4d. per gallon—from 1852 to 1860, while during the same period they increased the duty on English made spirits by only 2s. 2d. per gallon, or a little more than a fourth of the increase in Ireland. Was not this another attempt to destroy that trade in his country? Worse than the increase of duty was the encouragement afforded to the sale of an inferior article; while, if they would put a stop to the mixing practice, the good articles would be sure to go ahead, for it improved by keeping as much as the bad article deteriorated. In 1858 a special Act was passed to allow the manufacture of spirits from rice, from which the "fire water" of the Indians was made; and the distillation from rice was the probable explanation of the falling-off in the Malt Duty which puzzled the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for in 1875 Scotland paid duty on 2,722,790 bushels of malt, and made 16,300,161 gallons of spirits, while Ireland paid duty on 3,226,161 bushels of malt, and yet made only 9,381,456 gallons of whiskey and spirits. The Irish distillation was little more than half the Scotch, and yet Ireland paid duty on 500,000 bushels of malt more than Scotland. Were not the Government offering a premium to the manufacturer to make a low-class article, when they assisted him in sending it out under the name of a genuine article? The Government did not allow teas to be mixed in bond; they did not allow the white wines of France to be mixed with the sherries of Spain, or the Tarragona ports to be mixed with the fine wines of Portugal, or the brandies of Bordeaux to be mixed with Cognac brandy. Why, then, should they allow any and every sort of spirits to be mixed with Irish whiskey? The hon. Member for Glasgow might meet him by stating they made as good whiskey in Scotland as was made in Ireland. In that event, all he (Mr. O'Sullivan) would

  1195
  way was—"If you do, why not let it stand on its own merits, and not try to sell it as Irish whiskey?" He could see no reason whatever for allowing this practice to continue, unless it was that the speculative jealousy of a few manufacturers in this country seemed to have more weight with the Government to destroy any manufactory in his country than all the Irish Members had in prevailing on the Government to do a simple act of justice. What would the public say if the Government were to allow deeds which were deposited in the Registry of Deeds Office to be tampered with for the purpose of private gain? Yet their conduct in permitting Irish whiskey to be tampered with while in their custody was just as bad. It was the habit of some merchants to get over Scotch whiskey and then to re-ship it to England as Irish whiskey. That was not done for the purpose of mixing, but was a fraud upon the consumer, and the way to put a stop to it was to direct that it should be retained in bond until it was 12 months old. It was shipped to Ireland, the Scotch permit was cancelled, and it was then sent to England to deceive the English consumer. The Scotch would not send their whiskey to Ireland for nothing, or unless there was something to be gained by it. If instead of being immediately transhipped it was kept in bond for 12 months, the greatest benefit would be conferred upon society, because the whiskey would get rid of all the fusel oil and would not drive the people mad, as it did at present. Before concluding he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not rise for the purpose of asking any favour of the Government; neither did he rise to ask for any undue protection for any branch of trade in his country. If trade in his country was not able to exist without going back to the days of "protection," then let it perish; but he asked the House to extend to a branch of trade in Ireland—a trade in which millions of capital was sunk—that protection which they would give to a pinmaker in England—that was, to protect them from fraud and misrepresentation. He would now conclude by moving that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the practice, and to report to the House whether the practice should continue or not.
  CAPTAIN NOLANseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the practice which has been permitted of late years of mixing Whiskey in Her Majesty's Bonding and Inland Revenue Stores with other spirits; to report to this House whether the practice is injurious to the public and to the manufacturers of Irish Whiskey, and whether, in the opinion of the Committee, the practice ought or ought not to be discontinued; and that the Committee do also inquire into the effect of using new made spirits, and to report whether it would be in the interest of the public for the Government to detain all spirits and Whiskey in Bond until it is at least twelve months old."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
  MR. ANDERSON,in rising to move, as an Amendment,—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of 'blending' Whiskey does not necessarily cause adulteration; and it is inexpedient to deprive traders in British spirits of trade facilities that are allowed to traders in Foreign spirits, wines, and various other bonded articles,"
  said, that this was not the first time the House had heard of this great Irish grievance, but no one had as yet taken the trouble to explode the hon. Gentleman's fallacies; but, if fallacies were reiterated without being contradicted, some one at last was found to believe in them. The truth of the matter was that some of the Irish distillers found their trade shifting away. They were unable to charge the extravagant prices they used to obtain, because another spirit was now made by a different process—a purer and better spirit—which was sold at a considerably lower price; and because these Irish distillers were unable to keep up the price of their spirit, they wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to their help and assist in keeping up the price for them. Irish whiskey had been praised very highly by the hon. Member, and called the very best whiskey in the world; but he had said very little against the silent spirit mixed with it, and in all the analyses he had laid before the House there was no mention made to-day of the pernicious ingredients mixed with the Irish spirit, which on a former occasion the hon. Member said he had felt as if it were a torchlight procession going down his throat. Every stranger who visited Ireland knew what Irish whiskey was. It was the most dangerous stuff in the world for a stranger to touch. No one but a native could drink it with impunity. It was full of headaches to the brim. He believed a man required to be weaned upon it in order to get

  1197
  acclimatized to its use. The coats of the stomach then became indurated—tanned as it were—in time, and it was impossible to get used to it without going through a process of that kind. Irish whiskey had a peculiar flavour, as every one knew, and this depended on the great quantity of fusel oil in it. Every one knew that this fusel oil was a rank poison; and it was that which, while it gave the beverage a peculiar flavour, made it so deleterious to those who were not accustomed to it. Well, the process of mixing the Irish spirit with the Scotch spirit took place in private, and not in Government stores, and was effected by warehousemen and owners. There were Government officers appointed to watch them, it was true, but nevertheless the mixing complained of was really done in stores which were private property. The whole process was that perfectly pure spirit distilled from good grain—not from products such as those mentioned in the article in The Times, which had been referred to—namely, unsound barley, beet-root, and potatoes—was used in the admixture. Some one had spoken of "vitriolic" Scotch whiskey, but none of these articles were used in the manufacture of silent spirit. If it were distilled from inferior articles and were bad spirit, it would cease to be "silent"—that was, free from all flavour, and having no noxious qualities whatever. It should be remembered that silent spirit was not sent to Ireland by the Scotch—it was brought from Scotland by the Irish, and used by them to improve the native spirit—[a laugh]—well, to make it less poisonous—to dilute the fusel oil, and thus to improve the whiskey. It was only by diluting the fusel oil that the Irish spirit was improved, and it was to do that the Scotch spirit was taken over to Ireland. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) had admitted that the Scotch malt whiskey was the best whiskey which was made in the world. There was little room for doubt as to that; but there was little, very little, malt whiskey made in Ireland. A little, he thought, was made at Coleraine, but nearly all other Irish whiskey was made from raw grain, with only 15 or 20 per cent of malt to help the distillation. There was a great deal of raw-grain whiskey and very little malt, and it was made in the "pot-still," which was the still mostly used in Ireland. But in
  1198
  Scotland, the silent spirit of which the hon. Member complained, was made with a patent still, which produced whiskey purer, easier, and cheaper. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of whiskey being taken over to Ireland to mix with Irish whiskey for fraudulent purposes. He had failed to make out his case, however, for the people who bought the whiskey from the great dealers in Scotland were quite as good judges as the hon. Member himself, and if it were bad was it likely that they would buy it? The real fact was that they bought it because they got a better whiskey at a lower price. The hon. Member, in short, wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help the Irish distillers to keep up the price of whiskey; whereas the Irish dealers were entirely opposed to such a course being adopted. They were teaching the Irish people by degrees to use a more innocent spirit than they had been accustomed to. The hon. Member had referred to certain things he (Mr. Anderson) had said with reference to the duty of the Government to collect the Revenue. He had somewhat overstated the remarks he had alluded to; but there could be no doubt that the duty of the Revenue Department of the Government was mainly to collect the Revenue. It certainly was not to guarantee any one's brand of anything. It was true that the system had worked well in the case of the Scotch herring fisheries; but it was, nevertheless, a bad system, and was opposed to the principles of political economy. The hon. Member had changed his demand since last year. Last Session when the Irish distillers went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer they asked that he should give orders that every "permit" with reference to mixed spirit should have a red cross put on it to condemn it in the eyes of the trade. Now the word "blended" had been adopted, and was to be stamped on the casks containing the mixed spirit. Irish distillers in Ireland were making use of the word by issuing advertisements, asking all customers to look at every cask they bought, in order to see that the word "blended" should not be marked upon it. That was ordered to be put on the casks years ago, when there was a differential drawback on the waste of spirits. That had ceased now, however, so that there was no occasion for the casks to branded, and he (Mr. Anderson)

  1199
  intended to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal the clause of the Act in question. At a former time there had been a differential duty between malt whiskey and corn whiskey; and, at that time, it was necessary that the permits should be different for the two, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to draw a distinction; but as soon as that ceased, all branding and distinction of permit became unnecessary. When the Irish distillers asked to have a brand or a red cross put on blended spirits, it was clear how they would have got the better of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had listened to them. There was nothing to prevent Irish distillers from having both kinds of still, the pot-still and the patent-still, and some of them had the two, and they could make the two kinds of spirits, blend them in the same vat, and pass them through the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hands without the red cross. That would be the very whiskey the Irish dealers manufactured by mixing the Scotch with the Irish whiskey. Such a mixture by the distillers could not be supervised as it was when the spirit was mixed in bond. Methylated spirit could not, as was alleged, be put with it while it was under supervision of the Excise. It was after it left bond that it was in juriously adulterated; and it was in the retail trade that those articles were mixed with the spirit that caused the deaths and the filling of the lunatic asylums, and all the evils which had been referred to. Another charge by the hon. Member was that Scotch silent spirit was taken over to Ireland, stored there, and was sent back with an Irish "permit," and was sold as Irish. Well, what did that prove? Why that one was as good as the other, and that the Scotch whiskey, even unmixed with Irish, could be sold as such. For his part, he protested against the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing anything to assist Irish distillers in their trade. He had no objection whatever to the Chancellor of the Exchequer putting an end to all kinds of mixing and tampering with articles in bond—the fortifying of wine, the mixing of tea, and the manufacture of tobacco. But as those things were amongst the facilities of trade, no doubt, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to stop them there would be a great outcry against it. However,
  1200
  he did not care though all were stopped, but until Government were prepared to stop them all, he objected to stopping one of them, and particularly to preventing the blending of home spirits, while foreign spirits were freely mixed in bond all over the country. A great trade had grown up within the last few years in the blending of home spirits. In one Irish port alone—Belfast, he believed—it reached 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 gallons per annum—a trade which did not exist before the year 1860, and that immense trade would be interfered with, if it were not altogether stopped, if the course proposed by the hon. Member were adopted. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Mr. M'LAGANseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the practice of 'blending' Whiskey does not necessarily cause adulteration, and it is inexpedient to deprive traders in British spirits of trade facilities that are allowed to traders in Foreign spirits, wines, and various other bonded articles,"—(Mr. Anderson,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, the hon. Member for Limerick had given the definition of a patriot in his speech. He said that a patriot was a man who did not make speeches upon platforms, but who looked to the trade of the country. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not think that definition was full enough. What the hon. Gentleman meant by a patriot was a man who looked after the whiskey trade. He did not altogether dissent from the Motion in the shape in which the hon. Gentleman had put it, with the addition that spirits should be kept 12 months in the bonded warehouses. He wished they could be kept there altogether. If the hon. Gentleman had said 12 years instead of 12 months it would be all the better. He had a very few words only to say in reference to the Motion, as he could not say he felt personally qualified from practical experience to take part in the discussion. A grievance probably existed, as he had always heard from gentlemen who understood those subjects better than he did that it was a bad thing to mix your liquors. Still, he regretted that after the little conversation held last year upon the question the Chancellor of the

  1201
  Exchequer and the hon. Member for Limerick, when they had their private interview, did not get the matter settled, because in that case they would all be spared the present debate. Now, however, that the floodgates of talk had been opened he felt pretty sure—as every Irish Member took a warm interest in the subject—that they would have a prolonged discussion. They were asked for a Committee to report whether the practice to which the hon. Member objected was injurious to the public. It was absurd to suppose that the Motion of the hon. Member for Limerick was intended solely for the good of the public. The object of the Motion was to procure the appointment of a Committee, whose Report might possibly show that the practice of blending whiskey was injurious to the manufacturers of Irish whiskey, and ought, therefore, to be put a stop to, in the interest, not of those who consumed, but of those who were distillers of whiskey. It had been shown by the Report of a Commission issued in the summer of 1875 that much of the whiskey distilled in Scotland was very well adapted for mixing with other varieties of the spirit, and that in combination with Irish whiskey it made a more palatable drink than Irish whiskey alone. The Report to which he was alluding went on to state that there was no foundation for the allegation that Scotch whiskey of the kind objected to by the hon. Member for Limerick was deleterious. The Inland Revenue Commissioners, in a Report to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury dated May 25, 1875, stated as follows:—
  "As a matter of fact, we believe that there is a considerable amount of blending of Scotch with Irish spirits. Certain Scotch distillers make a very pure, colourless, and flavourless spirit, technically termed 'silent spirit,' which for those very qualities is well adapted for mixing with other spirituous liquors. We must presume that the mixture of this with Irish spirits makes a palatable compound, otherwise it would certainly not be the interest of the dealers in spirits to encourage it. The allegation which has sometimes been made that it is deleterious is quite unfounded; indeed, it is the very opposite of the fact, it being notorious that the Irish whiskey owes a great part of its peculiar flavour to the fusel oil which it contains, and from which impurity the Scotch silent spirit is nearly free. Such being the facts, the question is whether the Dublin distillers have any right to call for our interference with the natural course of the spirit dealers' trade, for purposes entirely unconnected with the interests of the revenue."
  1202
  That was quite sufficient ground for the Chancellor of the Exchequer voting against the proposed Committee. It was all very well for the hon. Member to talk about good and bad whiskey. It would be interesting to know his opinion as to whether society was not as much harmed by the consumption of what he would describe as good whiskey as it was by an indulgence in the spirit which he would describe as bad in quality. ["No, no!"] He knew somebody would say "No," so he had fortified himself with Irish authorities. He would venture to ask the attention of the House to some remarks which were made in the House last year in reference to this subject by an hon. and gallant Member who might be taken as a high authority on questions of the kind. ["Name."] He would give the speaker's name as soon as he had read a passage from his speech on the Irish Sunday Closing Bill of last year. The hon. and gallant Member said—
  "If we had an old Irish Brehon sage here how would he proceed? He would approach the question somewhat in this fashion. He would say—'This whiskey is the destruction of my people; it ruins their health. It deprives them of their reason. It lowers them in the scale of creation even lower than brutes in the field. … Let it never appear in our sacred island again. Go, my officers, to the bonding warehouses, drag out the puncheons, the pipes, and the hogsheads of this poison; swill the streets of my cities with it; and as the very dogs lap it up and fall prostrate under its influence, let Irishmen learn what a foreign nation has provided for their destruction.'"—[3 Hansard, ccxxiv. 115.]
  That was the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman). Could there be a better authority? Perhaps they might think there might be a better authority. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would give them that of a Judge, a man whom they used to hear with the greatest interest and delight in that House (Baron Dowse), who, in describing the effects of this good whiskey that the hon. Member for Limerick was so much enamoured of, and how drunkenness was increasing, said—
  "It might be that that was owing to increased vigilance on the part of the police, or the increased vigilance on the part of the drinker, and his own opinion was that it was the latter."
  The learned Baronet went on to say that some people blamed the fusel oil in the whiskey; but he was of opinion that it

  1203
  was the quantity consumed, and not the fusel oil that caused the drunkenness. If it were the best of Irish whiskey made in Dublin, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was afraid it would not be a good reform to increase the consumption anywhere. He remembered last year there was an election in Ireland, and a correspondent of a newspaper, writing about the election, said he was very much puzzled at first by the remarks which were always made when any rioting, and any window breaking was going on—"Oh, it was all John Jamieson." He thought John Jamieson was a very influential elector; but on making inquiries he found that it was the great distiller who was spoken of with all the affection which came by drinking his famous whiskey. It was the good whiskey—the Jamieson—the O'Sullivan whiskey—which produced all the riots in the town. Talk about their good whiskey; what did they mean by good whiskey? Whiskey that would make them drunk in the shortest possible time? The hon. Member turned round upon the hon. Member for Glasgow, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thought there was going to be an international combat; and he charged the hon. Member for Glasgow with disregarding the lives, the health, and the security of the people of Ireland, because he supported the bad whiskey; but it was the good whiskey in Ireland that could be proved to produce all those evils. What did the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) say? He did not say the people were improved by drinking bad whiskey; but he said that those who dealt in intoxicating liquors were the cause of the crime, the disorder, and even the madness of the country; and those were the people who sent Members of Parliament to that House. One word about the adulteration. It was said that the adulterated drink did all the evil. He should like to have more evidence of that. It was his business to pry into that evidence, and he believed he could say that of all the articles adulterated there was nothing so little adulterated as strong drink, which would be a great deal better if adulterated by pure water. It was all nonsense this talk about the drink being adulterated. He remembered a gentleman talking about adulteration, and he said—"Why, it has got to that pitch
  1204
  now that a man gets drugged before he can get drunk." The truth was that people drank this stuff because it made them drunk. The hon. Gentleman had moved for a Select Committee on this subject; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thought that the country was overburdened with Select Committees and Commissions. The country was completely overdosed with them, for they were appointed on every subject—from fugitive slaves down to oysters. He found that there were about 200 Members of that House appointed to serve on Select Committees. Some of these, no doubt, were duplicates; but it seemed to him that, after having selected such a number of first-rate men, there would hardly be a sufficient supply of them out of the other 400. He protested against the time of that House being wasted and taken up by a question of this kind. In the first place, he said that the matter was too small a one for an inquiry by a Select Committee; and, secondly, because no case at all had been made out as to the injury caused to the public; and, thirdly, they would offend the Home Rulers if they took this grievance away from them; and, in the fourth place, if they got a Committee to report that there was much difference between the evil effects of Irish and Scotch whiskey it would be propagating a dangerous delusion, because there was no trade doing more harm than this whiskey trade, whether the spirit was made in England, Scotland, or Ireland.
  MR. M. BROOKSdenied that this was a distillers' question, for the Association of Distillers in Dublin had individually and collectively refrained from taking any part in the agitation on the subject. They were quite content to rest upon the reputation their own whiskies possessed in the market, and upon their own trade marks, without asking for the assistance of that House; but the silent or blended spirit referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was produced from such inferior materials—such as damaged grain, rice, potatoes, molasses, and similar rubbish—that it was necessary real Irish whiskey should in some way be distinguished from such a villanous compound. The true Irish whiskey was distilled from pure malt and water only; in fact, from materials which

  1205
  had made the Burton breweries so famous all over the world. It was, therefore, not right to say that real Irish whiskey was an unwholesome or injurious spirit. What was complained of was, that an article under that name was thrown into the market, which traded upon the reputation of those who made good and wholesome spirits, and, being vended for what it was not, interfered with the sale of the article it counterfeited. In fact, the process was to send to Ireland spirits of wine, tasteless in itself, distilled from damaged Indian corn, coarse sugar, and raw grain, in order that it might be coloured, flavoured, and sent back to England, as Irish whiskey. It was well known that the Government had for many years exercised a close supervision—and a very wholesome supervision—over the sale and mixing of tobacco, coffee, mustard, &c., &c. What the hon. Member for Limerick wished to secure by his Motion was, that such a supervision should also be exercised over the dealings in Irish whiskey, that those who wished to use it might be sure they were obtaining a pure, and not an impure article. The Government did exercise that supervision with respect to many other articles of common consumption, and there was no reason why it should not also be exercised in this case.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENdid not imagine that this could be regarded as a national grievance, but it certainly was considered in Ireland as a Departmental grievance. Irish Members did not ask the Government to guarantee the whiskey of any Irish distiller; but they did object to the present arrangement, which under quasi-Government sanction, sent out of as bonded, and therefore he might, for his purpose, term, it a Government store an inferior mixed spirit under the denomination of Irish whiskey. During the discussions which had taken place in that House some 18 or 20 years past regarding wasteage in bond, he had acquired some knowledge, which he thought, bore upon the question then under consideration. There were both in Ireland and in Scotland two descriptions of stills in use—one which was called in Ireland the Patent Still, or Coffey's Still, produced only a perfectly neutral spirit, without any flavour, and which could therefore be used for rectifying purposes, to make brandy, gin, cordials, &c. This
  1206
  spirit when it attained to 60 degrees of strength over proof, was the "spirits of wine," of commerce. This "silent whiskey," to use another of its designations, contained no fusel oil, and in consequence of the economy as regarded fuel in using Coffey's Still, distillers could afford to sell whiskey thus made, at the least, 6d. a-gallon less than whiskey made by the ordinary "Pot Still;" but hon. Members should know that the best whiskey, both in Scotland and in Ireland, was always made in "Pot" stills as distinguished from "Coffey's" or Patent Stills, and all whiskey so made of necessity contained fusel oil, which was what imparted the flavour to the whiskey. Without some amount of fusel oil the whiskey would be like Coffey's still whiskey—mere neutral spirit, or spirits of wine, as it was popularly termed. It was plain then that to allow persons to blend this neutral spirit with Irish whiskey, it did not matter in what proportion, and in a bonded Government store, and then to sell it afterwards as Irish whiskey, was unfair to the Irish trader. Let the "blenders" mix their whiskey outside the bonded warehouse, and the Irish trader would have no cause for complaint.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he thought the subject was by no means so trivial as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) seemed to imagine. A recent case tried before a Judge in Ireland, and which resulted in a verdict for the defendant, against whom the vendors of a cask of this spirit brought an action to recover the value, showed that silent whiskey actually maddened those who drank it; and, in his opinion, the Government ought not to sanction the mixing of so villanous a compound. They had last year passed the "Sale of Food and Drugs Bill," for the prevention of the deleterious admixture of articles, and he did not see why the adulteration of spirits in Ireland should not be made illegal also.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he should not have ventured to intrude himself into the whiskey war, because it really was a very dangerous matter, but for the omissions in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. He made certain that, when the hon. Baronet got upon his legs, that his country was going to be defended, because the hon. Baronet sat for Carlisle,

  1207
  which was close on the Borders, and he must be acquainted with the virtues of Scotch whiskey. Yet he did not say one single word in defence of the Scotch distillers, or of the Scotch national beverage; and he (Sir Robert Anstruther) thought that he had a very great grievance against the hon. Baronet. This was a very serious matter, and the most vital interests were at stake. The Scotch distillers were accused of spreading madness, lunacy, disease, and every other possible form of evil into the Sister Isle; and the idea of an Irishman ever having been drunk at a wake, or a fair, or an election, until the Scotch silent spirit was introduced was, it appeared, the most monstrous fiction ever heard of. The House was told that an Irishman might drink a gallon of his own whiskey without any serious inconvenience, but for the fact of the introduction of this Scotch silent spirit. So far from that being the case, he believed that the real source of the complaint was that the Scotch whiskey was not strong enough. He remembered a story told by the late Dr. Norman M'Leod, of Glasgow, of a Highlander who visited Glasgow, and there partook of the Lowland whiskey, which was so weak that he said—"It's just a taste in your mou', and then its awa'; but a Hieland dram gangs down whumblin', and up and doon your wame a' the day, and as a kind o' a friend tae ye." If these monstrous iniquities were to be perpetuated, and if Scotland was to continue to send this silent spirit, he could only say that the days of the Union must be short indeed. There was no compulsion on people to buy blended whiskey if they did not like it, and they should surely be at liberty to buy what they liked. The fact was the Irish manufacturers simply used the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion as an advertising board for their own wares. It was admitted that Scotch spirit was silent—that was, harmless. It was admitted that blending had become a work of art or science, and it was simply because the Dublin manufacturers could not undersell those who had made a study of blending that they now came to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked him to interfere. If there were no other reasons for not appointing the Committee, he ventured to mention one which he thought would be sufficient. If the Members of the Committee were ex-
  1208
  pected to taste all the different kinds of whiskey, together with the fusel oil and other abominations that had been stated to exist, let them try to conceive the state in which these 21 Gentlemen would be. Why, there would not be one of them but would have delirium tremens; and, for his own part, he implored the hon. Member not to ask him to serve on the Committee, because he feared his health, as well as that of all the other Members, would be permanently injured. The real truth of the matter was that this was merely an attempt to get an inconvenient competition out of the way, and he therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would oppose the Motion.
  DR. WARDsaid, that if there was so little difference between the Irish and Scotch whiskies, it was remarkable that the Scotch Members should be so anxious to oppose this Motion. He admitted there was no compulsion on the Irish people to drink this whiskey; but there was compulsion on the Irish retailers to sell it. Referring to the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), he admitted it would be a good thing if he could induce everybody to give up drinking; but the best answer to his arguments was that the people had not given it up, and were not likely to do so, and so long as the people drank whiskey, the Government were bound to protect them from ruinously adulterated supplies of that article. When Irish Members said that the article was bad and the Scotch Members that it was good, who could decide but a Committee? Adulterated whiskey produced more drunkenness than unadulterated whiskey, because it destroyed more quickly the power of nervous resistance in the individual; though the hon. Member for Carlisle did not seem to agree in this. [Sir Wilfrid Lawson: I referred to whiskey adulterated with water.] He (Dr. Ward) did not deny that alcohol produced immense mischief, but it was not necessarily a poison. There was not a particle of grain food that did not contain a considerable portion of stimulant, and the making of whiskey, beer, and wine was nothing but taking this form of food and cooking it. He called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember this—that if he drove out of Ireland by the present system a fair and honest article, all the bad articles that would be imported would do harm to the Exchequer.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped to be allowed to speak a few sentences in order that he might not continue to suffer great personal injury. He seemed to be considered by the country as having been "blended" with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). He received from day to day letters asking him to consider this matter; and he was looked forward to as the saviour of the country; whilst he believed that the hon. Member for Limerick was often favoured as though he were a member of the United Kingdom Alliance. He was, therefore, anxious to have it understood that he was not the Member for Limerick, and that his hon. Friend was not the Member for Louth. He hoped the question would be divested of the national element which had been thrown into it by the exuberance of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He should vote with his hon. Friend because as between the battle of the poisons, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to intervene for the protection of what was euphemistically called blending. Not, however, that he believed these fanciful stories about the evils of Ireland being attributable to what was called "honest" whiskey not being drunk, for before the Patent Still was patented there drunkenness, madness, gaols, and lunatic asylums existed in Ireland. If they believed some people, they would think that the more a person drank of this honest Irish whiskey the soberer he would go home in the morning, whilst if a man were seen reeling along the street, a licensed victualler would say—"Ah, he has not been drinking honest whiskey; he has been fusel-oiling himself; or he has been drinking at some low beer-shop." Although it was not a national Irish question, he thought that it was one that invited inquiry. Yet, notwithstanding all this, he was of opinion that whether it were Irish whiskey or Scotch whiskey the whole system was pernicious to society. The hon. Member for Limerick said that it was not so bad if taken in moderation. That was the excuse for all whiskey-drinking—"it was always excellent if only taken in moderation." That was the slang of the whiskey-trade—yes, of all who admired the alcoholic business; all such drinks were good—provided that you did not take too much.
  MR. DUNBARalso supported the Motion, What the Irish distillers com-
  1210
  plained of was that the Government should give facilities for this blending and the mixture of deleterious stuff. If Scotch whiskey was better than Irish whiskey, let it drive Irish whiskey out of the market, if it could; but let each stand on its own merits, and each have fair play.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this question had been for a considerable time under his notice; he had had a good deal of correspondence and conference upon it; and he had also the advantage of having the opinions of the Board of Customs and Inland Revenue upon the subject. He had listened with great attention to the discussion upon the proposal of the hon. Member, and he was bound to say that it had not brought out any new facts or arguments, and he saw no reason for departing from the conclusion at which the Government had already arrived. The object which the Government and the Board of Inland Revenue had in dealing with a matter of this kind was simply the protection of the Revenue. As far as possible they desired to collect the Revenue for Imperial purposes without in any way embarrassing the operations of trade. If the Government simply had to look to the convenience of the collectors of the Revenue, they should desire that no operation should take place with the spirits when once they were placed under the charge of Government officers, and they would be only too glad to adopt the simplest possible principle. But with regard not only to whiskey, but to other articles, they were met by this consideration—that those who were interested in dealing with them—namely, the manufacturers themselves, said to the Government that measures for the protection of the Revenue "not only impose upon us an inconvenient burden in the shape of a certain amount of duty, which is necessary, but they impose upon us restrictions in the natural operation of our trade, which are necessary." They said that if there were no duty they would be at perfect liberty to mix articles with other articles, whether it were tea, or wine, or spirits, so that they might command the market for which the thing was intended. Whether the mixture of whiskies was done for the purpose of improving the quality of the spirits or for reducing its cost

  1211
  was a question with which the Government had nothing whatever to do. If it were not for fiscal regulations the manufacturer would be enabled to choose his own course. An hon. Member had spoken of the practice permitted of late years of mixing the whiskey in Her Majesty's bonded stores, and it had been noticed that it was a practice which had prevailed since 1860. That was perfectly true, but the reason was obvious. Before that time the duty upon spirits in different parts of the United Kingdom was different, and it would have been exceedingly inconvenient, and indeed dangerous, to the Revenue to allow spirits paying different rates of duty to be mixed together. Therefore, for fiscal reasons, this was prohibited; but when the spirit duty for different parts of the United Kingdom was equalized, the fiscal reason came to an end, and then the Revenue officers, not desiring to interfere unnecessarily with the operations of trade, said to the manufacturers—"So long as you do not prejudice the interests of the Revenue, do what you please in the way of manufacturing the article." What were called the bonded stores of the Government were really the premises of the manufacturers themselves; they carried on the manufacture in their own premises, but these premises, for the purpose of protecting the Revenue, were placed under the Government lock and key, so that the manufacturer could not conduct his own business without the supervision of the Government officer to see that the Revenue did not suffer. If a man could, without having the Government lock upon his premises, blend his spirits, why should the Government interfere, unless there was some fiscal reason for it? As a matter of fact, they did interfere to some extent in the direction required by the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan); because when spirits which were under the Government lock and key were blended, they required that the word "blended," or a mark showing that the spirit had been blended, should be placed upon the cask. Undoubtedly, this was in the first instance adopted for fiscal reasons; but it was still continued, and the mark warned the wholesale dealer who purchased the cask that it did not contain spirit which was simply the produce of one distillery, but spirit from different distilleries which, had been
  1212
  mixed together. If this blending were not allowed in bond, the purchaser could afterwards blend spirits, and there would be no possible way of interfering. He was told there were many cases in which spirits mischievously adulterated were sold by retailers; but he believed that adulteration was effected, not in the Government stores, but in the hands of the retailers themselves. The principle on which the Government acted was to abstain from interfering with the operations of trade, and from attempting to give a character to articles which had been in their hands for a particular purpose. It was said that a character was really given, for the effect of their having passed through Government hands caused them to be advertized as having come straight from the Government bonded warehouse. There was a parallel instance of this in a different matter. It was said, some time ago, that insurance companies doing business among the poor tendered to them policies bearing the Government stamp; and it was therefore conceived that the company was under the sanction of or patronised by the Government. There was just as much connection between the Government stamp upon policies of insurance and the sanction which was supposed to be given by the Government in reference to the spirits which had passed through their hands in order that duty might be raised upon it. The Government would follow a false policy if they were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. He had considered the matter carefully, and he had no desire at all to take a prejudiced view of it; but, on the contrary, he had gone into it with the view of meeting the wishes of the Irish distillers. He repeated the Government would not be doing their duty if they assented to the proposal. Feeling as he did that they ought not to encourage false ideas, and that the time of the House ought not to be occupied with inquiries which they did not expect would have a good result, he should depend upon the House to reject the Motion.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he thought the object of the Mover of the Resolution could be obtained if, instead of the mark "blended" being perfectly undecipherable, the casks were painted red or blue, showing that the article was not what it primâ facie purported

  1213
  to be. They were told by the hon. Member for Glasgow that Scotch whiskey was as good as the Irish, if not better. If that were the case, why did they not take the Irish whiskey to Scotland, and let it be blended with the Scotch whiskey in bond there, and then come across the Border direct as Scotch whiskey? If the Government would undertake that the brand of blending should be so complete that those who ran might read, he had no objection whatever to urge against the practice of blending in bond. But if the practice of blending in bond was used, as upon good authority they were told it was, for the purpose of palming off an article called Irish whiskey which was not Irish whiskey, he thought it was the duty of the Government to counteract that practice in every way possible.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, there were two questions which might fairly be asked in this debate—first, why Government permitted the blending of Irish whiskies in their bonded stores; and second, why Scotch whiskies were brought over to Ireland and blended? He was sorry to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no satisfactory reply to give to the first question. It appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that the right hon. Gentleman took a narrow and restricted view of his duty when he said it was only the province of the Revenue Department to look after the Revenue. But when they found, as had been proved that evening, that the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was used to adulterate and disseminate a poisonous liquid amongst the people of Ireland, they must admit that the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Revenue Department were used to very bad purpose. Then as to the second question, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) appeared to put it on this basis—that according to the principle of free trade whiskey or other goods might be sent to any part of the United Kingdom, and that therefore there was no reason why Scotch whiskey should not be sent to Ireland and sold there. No doubt there was no good reason why it should not be sent to Ireland and sold there; but there was great reason why it should not be sent to Ireland and mixed with and sold as Irish whiskey, and brought into competition with Irish whiskey. What they complained of was that
  1214
  this inferior and poisonous Scotch silent spirit was brought over to Ireland, mixed with Irish whiskey, and was then taken to all parts of the world, and back again to Scotland, and sold as Irish whiskey. The issue before the House was a very plain one. He did not complain of Scotch whiskey going over to Ireland; but he complained that Government sanction and protection was extended to Scotch silent spirit, which, at the price of 2s. per gallon, was used to destroy Irish whiskey, and not only the whiskey itself but the people who drank it. He believed that as much would be done to prevent drunkenness and crime in Ireland by improving the quality of the whiskey as by the Sunday Closing Bill, for which he intended to vote. He asked the House to look at this question dispassionately. If the regulations of the Government were such as to render it necessary that good Irish whiskey should be mixed with the wretched Scotch stuff, and that the Irish people should be poisoned by it, then he thought that every Irishman, whatever might be his politics, would admit that the sooner they had their own Customs House under the control of an Irish Parliament, and their own Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, the better.
  SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME,who had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that "the blending or mixing pure malt whiskies be not in any way interfered with," remarked that this question had been debated as if it were a question between Ireland and Scotland. It was so, no doubt, to a certain extent; but it was much more a question between Irishmen and Irishmen. If bad Scotch whiskey was prevented from being mixed with Irish, bad Irish would be used instead. As far as his inquiries would enable him to form an opinion there was very little good whiskey distilled in Ireland at all. There were only four distillers in Ireland who distilled from malt. This was a question between them and all other distillers, Irish as well as Scotch. He objected to the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick, because if it were assented to it would prevent any blending or mixing of whiskey of any description. There was a large bonâ fide trade carried on in mixing the highest class of whiskies to improve their flavour, and it could not

  1215
  be doubted by anyone who knew what whiskey was that a good blend was very much superior to the best whiskey by itself, whether Scotch or Irish. He did not wish to have this judicious, proper, and beneficial mixture of the best high class whiskies in bond interfered with for the sake of four Dublin distillers. If interference with blending of high class pure malt spirits could be avoided, he would be inclined to go with the hon. Member for Limerick in wishing to see articles sold as far as possible under their own name.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that the hon. Baronet (Sir William Cuninghame) was as ignorant as to Irish whiskey as was the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He (Mr. Callan) protested against the assumption that no really good whiskey was made in Ireland. The name of Jamieson was as well known in England as it was in Ireland. Near Belfast, which was the principal city in which this fraudulent blending was carried on, the Coleraine distillery was exceedingly well-known for its whiskies. What he rose for was to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every permit for blended whiskey should have on the face of it some distinct mark, so that it could be distinguished at once by the person ordering the whiskey. The Government should not be silent parties to the perpetration of a fraud on the English dealers; and if what he suggested were adopted, it would partly meet the object of the hon. Member for Limerick.
  MR. GREENEsaid, a debate of this sort was nothing more than the advertising of the wares of certain manufacturers, and there should be a charge for such a debate, in order that the Revenue might get benefit from it.
  MR. O'SULLIVANdenied that his Motion if agreed to would have the effect of restricting trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about fortified wines, but he did not see what that had to do with whiskey. Wines must be fortified in bond to keep them. He denied that he stood up in the interest of any distiller. He stood up in the interests of the public, and considered it a shame that any Government should sanction a fraud on the public as it was practised in the Custom House. The large trader was able to protect himself. It was the small trader and consumer who wanted protection. If the Govern-
  1216
  ment would mark the permit so that the buyer would know what he was getting he (Mr. O'Sullivan) would withdraw his Motion, or otherwise he should go to a division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 145: Majority 76.
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'in the opinion of this House, the practice of 'blending' Whiskey does not necessarily cause adulteration, and it is inexpedient to deprive traders in British spirits of trade facilities that are allowed to traders in Foreign spirits, wines, and various other bonded articles,' be added, instead thereof."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SLAVE TRADE (EAST AFRICA).

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYrose to call attention to the great development of the traffic in Slaves, by land, within the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, since the conclusion of the Treaty of 1873, as also to the want of systematic provision for the slaves liberated by Her Majesty's cruisers, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should invite and assist the Sultan of Zanzibar to take such further steps as may be necessary for the total suppression of the Slave Trade within his dominions, and that at the same time more adequate provision should be made for the care and maintenance of the liberated slaves."
  The traffic had been put down by sea, but there had been an increased traffic by land, and unless stringent measures were taken to put a stop to it the good we had already effected would be undone. The slave traffic was still going on, and the poor wretches, who were marched in chained gangs across the country, suffered great cruelty. Within the last few months some captures had been made by our cruisers, and the question of disposing of those liberated slaves now arose. We had to deal with 500 slaves a-year captured by our ships of war. These were carried to Aden and to Bombay, at a cost of about £3,000 a-year. Since the Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar numbers of them had been sent to Natal, where they were well treated; 250 had been sent to the foreign mission

  1217
  at Bagamayo, and some others to the establishment of the Church Missionary Society at Mombas. The fact remained that Her Majesty's Government had taken no practical steps to relieve philanthropic societies from the expense of taking care of the old, sick, and infirm persons thus liberated and placed under their charge. The country, he contended, had made itself responsible for the good treatment of the slaves whom they liberated. In old times large numbers of slaves were captured on the West Coast of Africa by our cruisers, and by the Act of 1824 persons were appointed to receive and provide for the slaves thus liberated. By the Act of 1873 it was provided that the liberated slaves were to be handed over to such persons as the Consuls might select, subject to the regulations of the Treasury; but as far as he could learn the Treasury had not made any regulations, and nothing had been done to relieve the philanthropic societies of the burdens which had been thrown on them. The question then arose, What further steps ought to be taken in the matter? He did not think the Government would find any great difficulty in dealing with the land traffic, which it was most desirable to suppress, because of the horrible cruelties which it entailed on the wretched slaves. Admiral Cumming, writing in July last, said he saw no difficulty in stopping the land traffic, but that a further Treaty might be necessary with the Sultan, and that he should be provided with a few soldiers to stop the caravans of the slave dealers. Commander Foot suggested that a raid might be made from the ships for the same purpose. Sir Leopold Heath was also of opinion that something should be done to stop the caravans, and Dr. Kirk thought that it would be expedient for the British Government to establish a free settlement on the coast. Sir Bartle Frere also considered that an establishment under the protection of the British flag was the best arrangement that could be made for the permanent improvement and civilization of East Africa. He believed the time had arrived when they should call on the Government to form such an establishment. He was certain that the carrying out of such a policy would not involve us in diplomatic troubles, nor had we anything to fear from it such as the war in Abyssinia. Were the Government to
  1218
  take courage and establish such a settlement they would be supported by the country. In such an establishment there should be absolute liberty for the liberated slaves, and provision made for educating and training them, and enabling them to become self-supporting communities. The Government might say the time had not come for them to do this. The alternative was to throw themselves on the good offices of those charitable societies who were ready to undertake the care of the slaves, and to follow the conditions laid down by the Government. The establishment of the Church Missionary Society at Mombas was one which was in every way deserving of their support. They had at present 375 liberated slaves entrusted to them by Her Majesty's Government, of whom a large number were children. They had an estate of considerable extent, with every facility for the training of the negroes, and the establishment was carried on in an admirable manner. This establishment was about to be placed under the command of a half-pay officer, and what the Government might now do was to invest that officer with the Consular dignity, and so place under his direction the care of these liberated slaves. That would involve little expense, while it would be one practical method of dealing with this question, which at present urgently demanded the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The Sultan of Zanzibar had nothing that could answer to the name of a preventive force. He was very poor, and had lost £20,000 a-year by the abolition of the duty on the export of slaves, which was only partially made up to him by the subsidy of £8,000 a-year which he received from Her Majesty's Government. Now, if a Consul were placed at Mombas charged with the care of that establishment, if the Sultan were assisted in providing a preventive force, and if grants were made from the Treasury for the support, education, and training of the liberated slaves, the expense would be very small indeed in proportion to the duty that devolved on this country and the sacrifices which she had already made for the suppression of this accursed traffic. The capabilities of that portion of Africa where this traffic was carried on were almost boundless. Once put an end to the slave traffic, and smiling villages and prosperous communities

  1219
  would spring up, which, would lead to a large amount of trade, by which the people of England would be benefited. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) had told them in a recent article in The Fortnightly Review that the industrial capabilities of Africa were immense, and that it was a country even of greater importance than India. No one who contemplated the great continent torn by the slave trade could hesitate in doing everything that was possible to suppress that horrible system. To do so would be worthy of our high traditions, worthy of the name of Englishmen, and it was now for them to determine that the lust of slaveholding gain should be conquered by the indomitable perseverance of the Englishmen.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER,in seconding the Motion, said, that having served on the Committee on this subject, he could fully bear out the facts stated by his hon. Friend. There was, however, one fact which he would add to it, as to the number of slaves annually exported from Africa. The Report of the Committee stated that the number was20,000; but Sir Bartle Frere brought it up to 35,000. Practically the state of the slave was worse now than when this country first undertook to deal with the question—not that the Sultan of Zanzibar had not tried honestly to fulfil his obligations, or that we had not honestly tried to deal with the question, but because the horrors of the land passage exceeded those of the sea passage. He believed the Sultan of Zanzibar was desirous to give us assistance; but the slave dealers had altered their route, and the Sultan had not power to stop them. The British Government might assist him by paying troops and he could occupy the frontier, running inland across the track which the slave caravans must pass in going North. It would be a very simple matter so far as money was concerned. It need not, so far as he could see, lead to any complications, while it would effectually prevent the passage of the slave gangs. They could also do much by establishing a settlement at Mombas, and giving Consular power to the superintendent of that station, by which they would still further narrow the line across which the slaves were carried. He expressed a hope that, notwithstanding the absence of the Foreign Secretary, the Under
  1220
  Secretary would be able to tell them that this odious and accursed traffic should be finally put a stop to, as it might be beyond question if we exerted with effect and determination the power and influence at our command.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should invite and assist the Sultan of Zanzibar to take such further steps as may be necessary for the total suppression of the Slave Trade within his dominions, and that at the same time more adequate provision should be made for the care and maintenance of the liberated slaves."—(Sir John Kennaway.)
  MR. MARK STEWARTwas of opinion that the able speech of the hon. Baronet must prove that there was a very great grievance in the matter which he had brought under the attention of the House; although it must be admitted that that grievance had been in a great degree abated by the wise measures which had been adopted in the last few years.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MARK STEWART,resuming, said, that the Treaties which had been made with the rulers of the East Coast had not been made in vain, for they had had the effect of putting down the slave traffic at sea, and it was for the Government to see whether the same result could not be achieved on land. On this subject we now had more precise information than was ever in our possession before. We now knew that there was only one main road northward, and if we could blockade this road and prevent the slaves being carried along it we were masters of the situation. We knew also that many of those districts contained some of the most fertile land in Africa and were very suitable for sugar plantations. In fact, there was a great future in store for the country if our Government would devise the means of putting down the slave trade and for helping the liberated slaves. At present, owing to the suppression of the traffic at sea, the gangs had increased enormously by land. The Arab traders said that last year was the best year they had had, because they were able so easily to elude pursuit. Besides, it was much cheaper to convey slaves by land

  1221
  than by sea. For about $1½ the Arab slave trader could convey a slave by this inland route instead of paying $2½ for Customs dues alone, in addition to freight. The great difficulty was how to suppress this land traffic. Should we plant our flag on the Eastern shores of Africa and found an Eastern Empire there? Or should we place British Consuls at various stations on the coast and give them power to stop the sending of slaves to the coast? The Sultan of Zanzibar was the superior of a very great territory, and through him he suggested that we might purchase land at different points of the coast at a very cheap rate. Each of these stations might consist of about 2,000 acres, and at these stations liberated slaves might be educated, might receive industrial teaching, enjoy freedom of action, acquire an improved civilization, and be taught to maintain themselves by daily labour. He trusted they would hear from Her Majesty's Government that stations such as he had suggested would be formed on the East Coast with a view to put down the traffic in slaves, and that steps would be taken to convince the Sultan of Zanzibar that it would be for his material interest to do all in his power to put down slavery. The question was one which ought to be dealt with and that speedily.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, Her Majesty's Government had no cause to complain of this matter being brought before the House, and certainly not of the mode in which it had been brought by the hon. Member for East Devon. For his part, he was always glad when the question was discussed, because without the co-operation of the House and the entire sympathy of the country it would be impossible for the Government to effect any radical cure of this great evil. It was a curious fact that on so important a matter public opinion had blown hot and cold; and no doubt the oscillation of public opinion had in a great measure prevented the carrying out of the policy of the country. That difficulty had been felt by all who gave attention to the subject, and by no one more than by Sir Bartle Frere, who, in his evidence before the Select Committee of 1871, made special allusion to the fact. He said the cardinal evil was the change of our own opinion in this matter, and that our Government, repre-
  1222
  senting public opinion, appeared to him to have been of late years very half-hearted in the matter. Since that time public opinion had very much changed, and from being cold was now, he (Mr. Bourke) hoped, becoming a little warm upon this great subject. The more they knew of the interior of Africa the more the House and the country would feel that it was their duty to resume, as far as possible, their old policy upon this subject: for he was quite certain that all the atrocities which they had read of for the last 40 or 50 years had not been overrated; and he believed that the desolation that had been caused for many years past, and which was still increasing in the interior of Africa, had never been too strongly described, and it certainly demanded the serious attention of every civilized nation in the world. There were some persons who thought that all our expense, and trouble, and anxiety, had been, in a great measure, thrown away, because the necessity of surreptitiously bringing the slaves to the coast aggravated their misery; but all the difficulties which now stood in the way in reference to the East Coast existed in the olden time in reference to the West Coast. Fortunately, those difficulties did not prevent a great and successful effort being made—the result of which was that the slave trade on the West Coast might be said to be entirely extinct. He hoped that as long as he held the office he now occupied he should disregard such misgivings, as coming from faint-hearted and irresolute men; for he was certain that if we were resolute and determined we should be able in the end to put down this great evil on the East Coast, and also, he trusted, in the interior of Africa. But they ought not to conceal from themselves the fact that the difficulties before them were enormous. An enemy had to be dealt with who was always on the alert; he had nothing to lose and much to gain, and there was no kind of trickery and chicanery to which he would not resort to uphold the nefarious traffic. It must also be recollected that it was not a very long time ago since in their own colonies slavery existed, and when it was remembered that slavery in the East dated from time immemorial they should not conceal from themselves that it would take a very long time to get people there to look upon the trade as a sin or as any-

  1223
  thing to be ashamed of. The more that was known of the interior of Africa the more difficult appeared to be the task before this country. Owing to the ravages of the small-pox and other causes, the demand for labour on the East Coast had greatly increased since this business had been commenced by the country. Various settlements were springing up where either the slave trade or the traffic under a disguise was carried on, and slaves might be carried to such islands as Madagascar and Réunion. Still, we had cause to feel satisfaction with the progress made within the last few years, and the Report of the Committee of 1871 gave very good reason for encouragement by showing that the inquiry on that occasion was directed solely to the possibility of stopping the traffic by sea, which was now entirely at an end. The Report also referred to the slave market in Zanzibar, which had since disappeared, and described a state of things which had ceased to exist under the Treaty of 1873. He could confidently state that the traffic by the sea route was stopped, and that the Persian and Arabian markets could no longer be supplied on the coast of Zanzibar. The Sultan had given up the export trade, and by so doing he had lost a revenue of from £20,000 to £30,000 a-year. He thought the House would see that the changes which they had made since the Report of 1871 ought to encourage them to go on in the same lines. The Treaty of 1873 put an end to the slave market and bound the Sultan to do what he could to put an end to the slave trade in his dominions. It called on the Sultan to do the best he could to put down slavery within his dominions, and when it was considered what the Sultan had accomplished he thought every one would consider that he had done all in his power. No one could have taken more important steps than the Sultan did last year when he signed a new Treaty with this country, the importance of which it was impossible to overrate. The reason was this, owing to the interpretation put upon the Treaty of 1873 by the Law Officers of the Crown it was perfectly possible for slaves, under the guise of domestic slaves, to be carried along the coast, and for the slave trade to be carried on in a disguised manner. Before slaves could be detained it was
  1224
  necessary to show that they were for sale, and the onus of proof rested upon the captor. The Arabs very soon saw that they could carry four or five slaves in their dhows under the pretence of their being domestic slaves, and yet it was impossible for the captors to prove that they were for sale. The object of the new Treaty was to cure this defect. It provided that no matter whether a slave was a domestic slave or not, or if he were for sale or not, if he was serving on board a dhow against his will, he might be captured, taken to a Consular Court, and receive his liberty. By this means he hoped that the slave trade which was springing up owing to a defect in the Treaty of 1873 would be effectually stopped by the Treaty of 1875. At the same time, he was anxious that the House should believe that the land traffic was of a serious character, and so far from thinking that hon. Members who had spoken had exaggerated, he was inclined to think that they had underrated the numbers of slaves that proceeded along the land route. It was also caused by the great scarcity of land labour which had sprung up along the whole of the coast, and also in Madagascar. He had no doubt that if the Sultan of Zanzibar saw his way to going further than he had hitherto done in the way of prohibiting the slave trade in his dominions that he would do so, and, in that event, it would be possible to stop the traffic entirely. That the traffic did exist at present there could be no doubt, and so long as it did exist all the horrors they had read of and all the desolation which they had heard of in regard to the interior of Africa must go on. There could be no change so long as the Arabs had access to the interior of Africa and could carry on the trade from there. Unless they could persuade the Sultan in the first instance, and afterwards the people on the south coast, to see that it was their interest not to have slave labour, and unless they could further persuade other persons not to engage in the trade on the coast, he believed that the traffic would go on for some time. But the Government had great hopes, from certain signs which had come under their notice, both privately and officially, that the interior of the country would be opened up to legitimate trade some day perhaps not very far distant. The Government had

  1225
  directed our Consuls to give every facility in their power to private ventures in the direction of legitimate trade, and he believed that the result would be the opening up of a trade which would stop the slave traffic. One circumstance which had taken place at Zanzibar was deserving of notice. The Sultan had only a few weeks ago abolished the status of slavery in certain parts of his dominions, and that was a very great advance. He did not wish to conceal from the House that this resolution had been adopted with regard to a portion of his dominion where, he was afraid, that the Sultan was not in a position to carry out his intentions; but still it was a great step in advance, and would show the Arab slave dealers and the Sultan's own Chiefs that the Sultan was in earnest in putting down not only the slave trade but slavery itself. With regard to the valuable suggestions of the hon. Member for East Devon, the Government had no intention of making any territorial acquisition; but there was no reason why they should not sanction the purchase of a certain area of land for the purpose of establishing places to which emancipated slaves might go. They had received great encouragement to proceed on these lines from what had been done by the Church Missionary Society, who had already been of great service to the Government and to the cause of emancipation. To show this he read a letter from Consul General Smith, who was acting with Dr. Kirk last year, and which contained an account of the manner in which a cargo of 241 liberated slaves had been dealt with. The House would see that the Government was much indebted to the Society, and it had, therefore, given favourable consideration to its request that a Consul should be appointed at Mombas. The matter was now before the Secretary of State, and the proposal of the Foreign Office when made would require the sanction of the Treasury; and, though he was not prepared to say what the result would be, he hoped that satisfactory arrangements would be made. Care, of course, must be taken that Consuls were not appointed in places where they would be exposed to personal danger. The expediency of assisting the Sultan of Zanzibar with a force to enable him to maintain order while putting down the slave trade would also
  1226
  be considered; and if such assistance could be rendered with the prospect of attaining the object in view, the Government would not be deterred by mere considerations of expense. He wished to bear his testimony on behalf of the Government to the zeal with which they believed they were served on the East Coast of Africa. He did not wish to mention names, for he might do injustice to those whose names were omitted. Every one, from Consuls down to the humblest sailor in the fleet, seemed to be anxious, not only to obey instructions, but to carry out what they believed to be the policy of the Government and of the people of England on this subject; and nothing would stimulate them so much as a knowledge of the fact that their trials and privations, which were very great, were known and appreciated in this country. He was also anxious to bear witness to the energy of the new French Consul, M. Gasparin, at Zanzibar, the more so as the French flag had hitherto been often misused for the carrying of slaves. To show how admirably the French Consul was seconding our own efforts, he read a despatch from Dr. Kirk, who spoke of a remarkable change of policy since the arrival of the new Consul. He had determined to put an end to the abuse of the French flag by Arabs and half castes and to make examples in serious cases, and already some offenders had been publicly flogged in front of the Sultan's Palace and were undergoing their additional sentence of a year's hard labour with a gang of chained convicts. Dhows carrying the French flag were being rigidly inspected with a systematic vigilance which was checking irregularities; and there could now be no doubt that the Consul's energetic action would exercise great influence on the Arab mind, and the French flag would be regarded with more respect and less jealousy. The Naval Commanders had established satisfactory relations with the Governor of Mozambique, who had offered his assistance in the pursuit of slave dhows in the Mozambique Channel, and Her Majesty's Government had thanked the Portuguese Government for the way in which the Governor General was acting. We were much indebted to the Sultan of Zanzibar for the assistance which he had rendered, and instead of putting any forcible pressure upon him, it would

  1227
  be wiser to carry him with, us in regard to our policy, because in that way the Sultan could do more than we could do, whatever force we might have at our command. There was no difference whatever in principle between the Government and those anxious to carry out the abolition policy. The only difference there possibly could be was with regard to the means of carrying out that policy. The question was receiving at this moment the attention of the Government, and any suggestions which were made would be carefully listened to and adopted if the Government saw its way to arriving at any good result. It must be borne in mind that considerable outlay was necessary for the carrying out of our policy with reference to this slave trade. The squadron could not be permitted to cease its vigilance, and it now cost nearly £200,000 a-year. Sometimes the Admiralty was accused of profligate expenditure; but he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would assist the Government to keep the Navy in such a state of efficiency that they would be able to spare ships to perform the important duties on the East Coast, as well as others which naturally fell upon the Navy. The whole subject was receiving, and should continue to receive, the attention of Her Majesty's Government, who were much indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devon for bringing it before the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it would have been a misfortune if the means which were sometimes used to secure them a holiday had been successful, and the hon. Member opposite had not been able to make his statement. He thought there would have been surprise in the country if it had been found that they could not give a little attention to this important subject. The difficulties of attempting to stop the traffic were almost overwhelming. Success in one direction seemed to make the evil worse in another direction, and the only comfort they had was that the Government were doing all they could to stop it. He was satisfied that the Under Secretary was working with will and heart, and. doing all he could to render the crusade against the slave trade successful. When they heard that stopping the sea traffic had the result of increasing the land traffic, some hon. Gentlemen might think that it would be better to leave the matter
  1228
  alone. But that was not his opinion. He did not think the land traffic was so great as had been supposed. He was very glad to hear the promise held out by the hon. Gentleman as to the appointment of a Consul at Mombas, and as to the still stronger measures to be taken in conjunction with the Sultan of Zanzibar. He rejoiced that the Sultan had shown, to the disappointment of every one, an earnest resolution to put down the slave trade. It was not that people cared less about the horrors of the slave trade than they did formerly; they were accustomed to the West Coast, but it was some time before they realized the horrors of the East Coast traffic, and resolved to put it down. In reply to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, he might safely say that there could be no doubt of the Opposition supporting the Government in any reasonable measure to stop the iniquitous traffic. If they left off their efforts now the wretched slaves on the East Coast would be left without any protectors or any help. They had undertaken the duty of abolishing the East Coast slave trade, and they would be dishonest if they did not persist in their resolution to put it down. He sympathized with the difficulties the Government had to encounter; but he was persuaded that they would not give up, and that they would be supported by the House and the country.
  CAPTAIN G. E. PRICEsaid, he did not think that the extent of the slave trade in East Africa had been exaggerated; on the contrary, he believed it had rather been underrated. Recent communications from Bishop Steere and from Mr. Young, an enterprising Englishman who had taken up his quarters at Lake Nyassa, showed that a vast number of slaves were brought across that lake on their way to the coast. There were but three modes by which the traffic could be stopped. One was by a sea blockade, but from its nature it could hardly by that means be entirely stopped. It was easy enough to capture the dhows in which the slaves were conveyed along the coast; but owing to a strong current which ran from south to north, when the monsoon came on, it was necessary for our vessels to leave the coast, and they often found it difficult to get to their starting-point again. Another difficulty was this, that when the commanders of the dhows found

  1229
  they were in danger of capture they ran their boats ashore, dragging the slaves through the surf and into the bush; and the slaves were such abject creatures, worn down by sickness and hunger, that they never thought of making the slightest resistance. If, however, a depôt were established well to the North the liberated slaves might be kept there until the passing of the monsoon, when they could be brought to whatever settlement might have been provided for them on the coast. The difficulties of the land blockade were great, but not insuperable. From the eastern extremity of Lake Nyassa to the mouth of the Zambesi, 800 miles, the whole line was in our hands, the tribes were favourable to us, and a very small force of Englishmen would be able to stop the slave traffic which was carried on at a particular point across the lake. The slave dealers could not go to the North, for not only would it carry them a long way out of their direct route, but the country was at present occupied by a race of Kaffirs who had taken up their quarters there within the last two years, and who were neither a slave-owning nor a slave-dealing tribe. Another way would be by entering into negotiations with the Powers who had settlements on the coast, but it would be a delicate matter to deal with the Portuguese. They supposed that we were dealing unjustly with them on this subject, and in some letters recently published in the London papers they assured us that they had put an entire stop to slavery of every kind on the West Coast, but no reference was made to the East Coast; and recent information of the escape of seven dhows with 250 slaves each from the harbour of Mozambique, and which, notwithstanding pursuit by a Portuguese gun boat, contrived to get away to Madagascar, showed that the slave trade with that island had not been suppressed. In his opinion, too great importance could not be attached to the putting down of domestic slavery. Most of the slaves captured on the East Coast were marked on the shoulder by sores entirely caused by carrying down merchandize, especially ivory, to the coast. It might be thought that one of the easiest ways of bringing down merchandise would be by means of that great watercourse, the Zambesi, and so it would be but for the heavy and almost prohibitive duties im-
  1230
  posed by the Portuguese, which it was most desirable, if possible, to get reduced. The value of the ivory which a slave could carry down the coast used to be greater than the value of the slave himself. The whole subject was a most important and interesting one from other points of view besides its philanthropic aspect, and any light that could be thrown upon it would be valuable.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed his satisfaction at the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. There was, he thought, some truth in the remark that in the eager pursuit of wealth there had been some relaxation of the national conscience in regard to the slave trade. The hon. Gentleman had expressed the sanguine hope that, as they had put down the slave trade on the West Coast of Africa, so they should put it down on the East Coast. That abominable traffic by sea, he was inclined to think, had been diverted and interrupted, but he did not gather that it had been suppressed. From Mozambique it still continued, and as regarded the trade formerly carried on from Zanzibar, and now diverted to other channels, that traffic was not only a land traffic, but partly also one by sea. The Under Secretary hoped that the Navy, by supplying the necessary vessels, would assist in the suppression of the East African Slave Trade; and if it should cost an additional halfpenny in the pound on the income tax to effect that object, he trusted that means would be adopted to accomplish it. The slaves which were captured and taken to our colonies were only nominally set free. They were indentured to the planters under contracts of what he must call compulsory labour; and their position was, to some extent, one of modified slavery. He thought it would be most desirable that we should establish a foothold in East Africa where the released slaves should be really free, and an example of free labour should be set to all the neighbouring countries. It might not be difficult by purchase and negotiation to obtain on the East Coast of Africa a small colony, which would be the centre and nucleus of a very great work for humanity, just as we now had various small settlements on the West Coast. We should not incur the same risk of an Ashantee war, or encounter the same difficulty in securing access to the inte-

  1231
  rior from the East Coast as we did on the West Coast of Africa. The Portuguese claimed a coast-line of some 1,200 miles, but they had only a few posts where they exercised dominion, and the Sultan of Zanzibar had a great extent of coast over which he exercised little or no practical dominion. The possession of a small British colony in that region would enable us to check the slave trade more effectually where it had now assumed a very severe form, and was attended with more loss of life and greater horrors than had previously marked it.
  MR. D. DAVIESfelt very much obliged to the hon. Member for East Devon (Sir John Kennaway) for having brought forward this Motion. Although, unfortunately, it was brought forward when there were very few Members in the House, and although the debate was not so lively as that on the Motion with reference to whiskey, yet he could assure the hon. Baronet that the country took very much more interest in his Motion than it did in the Motion brought forward earlier in the evening. He took the greatest interest in this question many years ago, and he trusted we should not be satisfied until we had liberated the last slave. He could understand that there were many difficulties in our way; but if foreigners perceived that we did not now take the same interest in the suppression of the slave traffic as we did many years ago, they would begin to think that we were wrong and they were right with regard to the slave question. He was sure that the country took a great interest in this question, though the Under Secretary of State might think that such interest was not taken. The little mishap of the Government in connection with the Fugitive Slave Circular showed the popular interest in it. It was the duty of every Government to look well after the slave trade and suppress it as much as possible. He wished that some more fiery speeches had been made on the subject; indeed, had he known it would have been necessary he would have prepared one himself. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer was poor at present, the country ought not to grudge any money spent in putting an end to this disgraceful traffic.
  Motion agreed to.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Sir, before I submit to the House the Resolution which stands in my name, I must ask the attention of hon. Members to the exceptional and unconstitutional position in which so large a portion of the United Kingdom as Ireland still continues. I am not about to open up at present any discussion on the policy of the law under which Ireland is placed at the mercy of the Executive Government for the time being; nor am I about to charge Her Majesty's Government with any abuse of what I may describe as the unconstitutional powers confided to it by Parliament. I am simply concerned to explain, to the best of my ability, the grounds on which I contend that the Executive Government of Her Majesty in Ireland ought now to put an end to what may be fairly termed a state of siege. Hon. Members will understand that I do not describe the existence of the Peace Preservation Act as in itself constituting a state of siege; but I regard it as an act which enables Her Majesty's Government to declare and keep in force a state of siege, and at its pleasure to put an end to that state. My present object is to show to the House that the condition of Ireland warrants, nay, demands the restoration of the country to its constitutional relation as an integral portion of the Empire. In 1847 the Crime and Outrage Act—as the Arms Act of that Session was called—was passed for two years. Parliament was easily induced to pass that Act, because of the short period proposed for its duration. It was, however, renewed in 1850, 1852, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1858, 1860, 1862, 1865, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1874. It was never renewed on any of these occasions for a longer period than three years; but last year the Act was renewed for five years. I admit that the Act passed last Session was shorn of many of the most repugnant provisions of former Acts, and I also admit that there has been no indication on the part of the Government of the Duke of Abercorn to abuse the powers which were confided to it by Parliament by the issue of fresh proclamations; but the only acts of the Duke's Government for which I can offer any acknowledgment are those by

  1233
  which he has restored the inhabitants of certain districts to the protection of the law, by withdrawing the proclamations which had so long subjected them to grievous penalties for acts in no way immoral, nor opposed to natural law. Sir, I know that there is a political party in Ireland—perhaps I should better term it a somewhat extensive clique—which still retains the prejudices and clings to the traditional policy of a governing class. These people, if I may be permitted to appropriate the expressions of an eminent Judge, probably go wrong rather from unconscious bias than from intention; but, however that may be, they have been the constant and consistent advocates of coercion at all times, and so far as their counsels have hitherto prevailed, they have been effective in bringing home, not merely to the bulk of the Irish people, but to all who sympathize with Ireland, the disagreeable fact that Ireland is legislated for in a spirit of severity and coercion which prevails in no other portion of the United Kingdom. I say this because in Ireland acts which are not offences against any natural, or moral, or religious law, are converted by proclamation into offences under a penal statute. Politicians of the class I refer to reverse the merciful maxim of the British law, which says that it is better that 10 guilty should escape than that one innocent should suffer; for they openly avow that it is a matter of slight account that a dozen of innocent men should be arrested and imprisoned without evidence in order to have a chance of punishing a single offender. I cast no censure on the Irish Government for anything it has done. It has administered what I believe to be a harsh law, with tact and consideration. What I desire to say is, that the circumstances of Ireland warrant—nay, call for—the Government proceeding more rapidly in the restoration to the inhabitants of Ireland of the protection of constitutional law. Sir, I have at all times counselled obedience to the law; but it is right to show to the Irish people that their Representatives in this House are watchful of the interests of Ireland, and are not wholly overborne when they try to preserve for the people, or to restore to them the protection of the Constitution. I know that the class of people in Ireland who clamour for the maintenance of coercive laws in their most re-
  1234
  pressive and severe form try to make out that the existence of crime, even in isolated cases, justifies the continuance of proclamations in force over large districts unsullied by crime, and over millions of people against whom there is not a particle of evidence of criminal acts, or of complicity with the evil-disposed. Is there any hon. Member of this House who will undertake to show, or even to say, that crimes of violence, or any other class of crime, prevails in Ireland in a greater proportion to area or population than in England or Scotland, and if this cannot be shown, is there any valid reason for maintaining in force proclamations which are a serious source of danger and wrong to persons? If Parliament showed confidence in the people of Ireland as it has done with the people of England, Ireland would be the more easily governed country of the two. I must now, Sir, refer to the Parliamentary Papers, which show what districts of Ireland remain under the operation of proclamations. I think hon. Members who sympathize so warmly with the sufferings of the Herzegovinians and other struggling races at a distance, can scarcely be conscious that constitutional law is abrogated by proclamation in the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Clare, Cork, Cork City, Donegal, Dublin County and City, Galway County and Town, Kerry, Kilkenny County and City, King's County, Leitrim, Limerick County and City, Londonderry, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Monaghan, Queen's County, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary, and Waterford County and City. In 21 of the 32 counties—the part of some, the whole of others—the ordinary law is suspended, and people live under a police code. But, say the advocates of coercion, crime still exists more or less, and these laws are requisite to keep it down. Indeed! Then why confine it to 21 counties? No doubt, these people would have the law superseded over the 32 counties, so that I need not use that or any other argument to them; but the House will, perhaps, bear with me whilst I refer to the comparative statistics of crime in England and Ireland, and to the Report presented to Parliament last year by command of Her Majesty. To my mind, there is an eloquence in these statistics—a logic, I should rather say—that is more con-

  1235
  vincing, and that ought to have greater weight with Parliament than the isolated dicta of learned and eminent Judges. These dicta are, indeed, of great value in the trial of each particular case. Even where they are erroneous they may tend to the elucidation of the truth, for they enable appellate tribunals to discern wherein the Judges of first instance have erred, and they enable justice to recover its equilibrium; but whatever may be the respect due to those dignitaries, this House would commit a grave error if it legislated for a great community on the suggestion of one whose whole mind is intent on the symptoms of the particular case he has to try, and who, very properly, leaves most other matters out of sight. I am, therefore, not about to trouble the House, or to edify it, by quoting from the charges of learned Judges at the late or at any other assizes. I do not say that fair use may not be made of such charges in debates in this House; but for the reasons I have already offered, I refrain from using some which appear to support my own views. I have other materials at hand with which I prefer to prove the case which I have undertaken to bring under the consideration of this House. I must now refer to the introductory and explanatory observations in the Report issued by the Government on Irish criminal statistics, page 11, which showed that the number of indictable offences in Ireland had fallen from 10,865 in 1864, to 6,662 in 1874, and the proportion per 10,000 heads of the population, from 19 in 1864, to 12 in 1874. I will also show how small the proportion of agrarian crime is to the total of crime; but nevertheless, such as it was, and is, it has fallen from a yearly average of 324 in 1862–3, to. 233 in 1873 and 1874. Agrarian outrages had, on the whole, decreased 41 between 1873 and 1874, notwithstanding that I have to admit an increase of 28 such offences in Ulster. The indictable offences of all kinds decreased as between 1873 and 1874, from 6,942 in the former year, to 6,662 in the latter. As for the offences determined summarily, they showed a slight decrease between 1864 and 1874, but not proportionate to the decrease of the population of Ireland in the meantime. They decreased from 232,363 in 1864 to 228,501 in 1874; but, nevertheless, owing to decrease of the population, the
  1236
  proportion per 10,000 head of the population had risen from 411 to 430. There is nothing, however, in these offences to call for the proclamations of the Lord Lieutenant being continued in force. The offences of drunkenness and common assault constituted 128,000 out of the 228,000 offences determined summarily, and there were about 57,000 to 60,000 of the nature of civil offences. I admit, however—and I will hide nothing from the House as to the facts—that there was an increase of 4,658 of those minor offences in 1874, as compared to 1873; but I will read the note on this subject of the able and impartial statistician (Dr. Neilson Hancock) who compiled those tables. These were Dr. Hancock's words—
  "It appeared that more than a third of the increase in offences disposed of summarily in 1874 may be ascribed to drunkenness. The increase under that head was 1,815. The other large increase, 1,227 against Police Acts; 1,063 against Local Acts, and 606 against Weights and Measures Acts. All mark increased vigilance of the police in prosecuting for minor offences."
  Yes, that is what it marked, and nothing else; there was no indication that general peace was in greater peril in Ireland in 1874, than in any other portion of the United Kingdom. I will now deal with the bugbear of agrarian outrage, so far as my present observations are concerned, once for all by this proposition—namely, that crime is least in the agrarian or country districts, and greatest in towns, where there can be no reason for attributing crime to agrarian causes. Hon. Gentlemen must not mistake me: I do not mean merely to say that crime is less in the country than in towns—in proportion to their respective areas—for, of course, that would be so everywhere; but what I mean to say is, that the country population as a whole, and relatively to their numbers, are ten times more free from crime than the population of the large towns. I am anxious not to weary the House; but, perhaps, the surprise with which some hon. Members might learn the result of Dr. Hancock's able and exhaustive analysis, might compensate them for giving attention to these dry statistics. I will only read two short paragraphs from the Report, which summarize its results. This is what the learned Doctor says in reference to his own table—
  "The most marked feature disclosed by this table is one that was particularly noticed in the

  1237
  past three years, viz., the extent to which crime is concentrated in towns in Ireland. Thus whilst the average of all Ireland of indictable offences is 12"—
  I ask the House to mark this—
  "the crime in the metropolitan police district reached 110 in the 10,000 of the population; and it gives a more definite conception of the matter to notice that of the 6,662 indictable offences in Ireland, 3,734—or more than one half—occurred in the Dublin metropolitan police district."
  The learned doctor (the Lord Lieutenant's statistician, be it observed) gives us another interesting table, and follows it up by these remarks—
  "It appears from this table that the excess of crime in urban districts, as compared with the adjoining county, is—in the case of Dublin, 91 per cent; in Cork, 57 per cent; in Waterford, 51 per cent; in Galway, 49 per cent; in Belfast, 44 per cent; and in Limerick, 42 per cent."
  Immediately following the paragraphs I have quoted, Dr. Hancock refers to the exceptional amount of criminality in Kildare county, and he accounts for it, no doubt, truly, by referring it to the concentration of troops in a rural district; and I am glad to see that the Lord Lieutenant has withdrawn the proclamation from that county. Now, I ask, in the name of common sense, if the condition of Ireland be as Dr. Hancock describes it, what excuse is there on the score of agrarian outrages, for the maintenance of proclamations over wide districts of Ireland, where the population is nearly ten times more free from crime than the population of the City of Dublin, in the vicinity of Dublin Castle?
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. SULLIVANspeaking, seated and with his hat on, said, he believed he was in Order in announcing that these attempts to count out the House were quite useless, because there were 44 Irish Members who were determined that a House should be kept, if it were necessary, until 6 o'clock in the morning.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthen proceeded with a further analysis of Dr. Hancock's tables, and then said: I will now advert to the plea which has been
  1238
  put forth more than once by certain persons who attribute the excess of crime in England to the fact that a large number of Irish have immigrated to this country, and so swelled the English Returns of crime. Dr. Hancock, at page 23 of his Report, most conclusively and unanswerably demonstrates the fallacy of this plea; he shows that in London, Liverpool, and Manchester—the three towns where the persons of Irish birth reside in greatest numbers—the criminality of the Irish population was only 64 per 10,000—as compared with 76 per 10,000—the average criminality of persons of the same age in the general population of those cities. These are Dr. Hancock's precise words—
  "The criminality of persons of Irish birth in England appears from this comparison to be not excessive, and so cannot account for the less amount of indictable offences in Ireland than in an equal portion of the population of England and Wales."
  I will not lose time in dilating upon this evidence. The man who rejects the conclusions with which it is fraught will not be moved by anything I may say. Now a few words as to Scotland. Amongst the observations which are often addressed to Irishmen both in this House and in the Press is this—that they should take example from the people of Scotland. Let us see. My Scotch Friends—and some of my most respected Friends in this House are Representatives of Scotch constituencies—will bear with me whilst, in company with Dr. Hancock, I review the criminal statistics of Scotland, and compare them with those of Ulster, where six out of her nine counties still lie under proclamation by the Lord Lieutenant. The Report shows that in the crimes against human life the proportions are nearly alike for Ulster and an equal proportion of the population of Scotland; the figures being 95 for Ulster against 90 for Scotland, in the two years compared. With respect to all other crimes, he says—
  "The crimes against veracity were only 3 in Ulster, as compared to 11 in Scotland. Crimes against morals"—there is no occasion to mention their ugly names—"were only 31 in Ulster, as Compared with 82 in Scotland. The offences against property in Ulster were only 3,820, as Compared with 12,526 in Scotland. In police Offences there were 54,027 in Ulster, as compared with 58,604 in Scotland."

  1239
  I ask hon. Members what excuse there can be in favour of continuing a penal code for Ulster, whilst Scotland enjoys—what I certainly do not grudge her—that liberty for which in past ages she poured forth her blood, not in vain. Sir, I now come to another part of this case, in which I have to work my way through a positive concrete of ignorance and prejudice. The general opinion in England—the resolute assumption of most of those with whom I have conversed on Irish affairs—has been that it is infinitely more difficult to trace out and punish criminality in Ireland than in England. The Return, which will be found at page 26 of the Report from which I have been quoting, will wholly dispel this delusion, for it is nothing else. Dr. Hancock's figures show that in proportion to offences the apprehensions in England and Wales are only 49 per cent, and those in Ireland are 73. But I suppose it will now be urged as a further plea that the complaint is not as to the proportions of criminals apprehended, but as to the proportion of convictions. I will not leave a vestige of that further plea in existence. It will follow as an absolute result of the facts I shall set before the House, that, although the number of acquittals in Ireland is greater than in England in proportion to the number of persons placed upon their trial, the number of persons convicted in Ireland is much larger than in England in proportion to the number of offences committed. The possibility of such a disparity has to be accounted for, and I account for it by this fact, generally overlooked, that in England the people accused are not even put upon their trial in the same proportion that the accused are sent for trial in Ireland. But a large proportion of Irish acquittals arises also from a still more potent cause, and the most legitimate of all reasons—namely, that a little more than a third of those put on their trial in England are known criminals, whilst not a fifth of those sent for trial in Ireland belong to a criminal class, or are known offenders: but there is another reason. Dr. Hancock shows that the proportion of those who being apprehended were discharged without trial in England and Wales for want of evidence is 49 in every 200, as against 31 in every 200 for Ireland. It is due to these
  1240
  premises that the proportion of acquittals in Ireland should be greater than in England. Is trial by jury to be rendered indeed a mockery and a delusion, that you are to expect a proportion of convictions in Ireland equal to those in England—when the number of those accused is in Ireland, in proportion to actual offences, so much greater than in England! The proportion of acquittals in Ireland is 30 per cent, and in England 21 per cent; nevertheless, the proportions of convictions in Ireland to offences is between 20 and 30 per cent greater than the proportion of convictions to offences in England. Sir, I shall not trespass on the patience of the House much longer. I am conscious that I have not said all that I might say with propriety. There are many other points of view from which the severity practised towards Ireland casts gloomier shadows than I have attempted to depict. I pray the House not to allow their execration—and their proper execration—of isolated crimes which do occur in Ireland, as everywhere else, to induce them to countenance the maintenance in force of proclamations which are powerless to repress solitary criminals, and rankle in the hearts of many who have never been guilty of violence, and are wholly free from complicity with crime. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, while viewing with satisfaction the withdrawal from several counties of Ireland of the proclamations issued under the Peace Preservation Act, is of opinion that the present condition of Ireland does not justify the retention of the powers of that Act over so large a portion of the Country as still remains subject to its provisions."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  GENERAL SHUTE,having commanded two Irish regiments, bore testimony to the good qualities of the Irish people, when unmoved by political agitators and treated with kindness and firmness and the certainty of punishment. In considering the amount of crime in England as compared with that in Ireland, regard ought to be had to the proportion of the criminals that were of English and of Irish birth. Now, in England he found that while the Irish only formed one-fortieth of the population they committed

  1241
  one-seventh of the crime. The total number of Irish-born residents in England, according to the Census of 1871, was 566,540, of whom no fewer than 498,733 were above 20 years of age. The number of all ages committed to prison in 1873 was 155,413, of whom 22,100 were Irish born, or 14·2 of the whole. Lord Aberdare stated at the meeting of the Social Science Association at Brighton that the Dublin Metropolitan Police District, with a population of only 337,000, produced more serious crimes than the remainder of Ireland, with its 5,000,000 and upwards. The indictable offences committed were to the entire population of Ireland 12·8 per 10,000 inhabitants, while in the Dublin district they were 112·8 per 10,000. He quoted these figures not to disparage Ireland, but to show that the hon. Gentleman had not been fair to England in the allegations which he had made, and he would further find, by reference to the Census of 1871 and judicial statistics of 1873, that the before-mentioned Irish contingent of 566,000 furnished annually about 22,000 prisoners to English gaols.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he wished to make a few observations, as he had seconded the Motion. It was pretty generally allowed that Ireland was more free from crime than either England or Scotland; but it was urged by the Government that the crime which prevailed in Ireland was of an exceptional character, and must be dealt with in an exceptional manner. Now he admitted that agrarian outrages were peculiar, generally speaking, to Ireland, and that they should be treated exceptionally; but he maintained that the exceptional legislation by which they ought to be met should be of a remedial and not of a coercive description. The real remedy was by fixity of tenure, to secure to the Irish tenant the fruits of his labour, and so do away with that sense of injustice which prevailed among the people. The Motion of the hon. Member for Youghal was one of a very moderate character, and he hoped it would be received by the House in the spirit in which it had been proposed.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) did not dispute the statistics of the hon. Member for Youghal, but wanted to show that a large por-
  1242
  tion of the crime in England was owing to the Irish element in the population of the country. He might, however, retort on him, and say that a large portion of the crime in Ireland was committed by the English and Scotch who resided there, but he would be above doing so. The question before the House related to proclamations of a local character, and the just argument of the hon. Member for Youghal was, that if districts in Ireland ought to be proclaimed in consequence of their crimes, a fortiori, districts in England ought to be put under proclamation also. The hon. and gallant Member (General Shute) said that there were 22,000 Irish prisoners in the English gaols in the course of one year, but he did not venture to say that these were either murderers or thieves. The fact was that they were men committed for a day or for 48 hours for drunkenness, and when the Irish wished to free themselves from that temptation, Parliament refused to pass for them the measure which they asked for the closing of public-houses on Sundays. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in quoting Lord Aberdare, omitted what the noble Lord had said in favour of the Irish. He said that the Irish in England were worse than the Irish in Ireland, and he attributed that to the seductive influences to which they were subjected here. The reason of that was that in Ireland the people had their priests to look after them; whereas the Irish in this country were often separated from the services of their religion and were not under the control of their clergy.
  GENERAL SHUTEsaid, he did not quote from Lord Aberdare only. He quoted from the Judicial statistics of 1873, statistics which he had himself examined, and from the Census of 1871.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that no doubt there were weaker points in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech than those which he derived from the statement of Lord Aberdare. To show the folly of the attempt to put down crime by proclamation, he might state that the murder which was committed the other day was committed in a proclaimed district, where the Government thought the people were without arms. The remedies they had tried had failed, and the only remedy which could

  1243
  put an end to Irish crime and discontent they had refused to try.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the question was not the relative proportions of crime in Ireland and in England, but whether political offences and agrarian crime, to meet which the Coercion Act was passed had so far disappeared as to justify the repeal of that measure. The noble Lord had alluded to a recent murder in the country. He, as much as any man, condemned the atrocity of that crime; but it supplied no reason why a law passed under exceptional circumstances should be kept in force in districts of the country in which crime and outrage did not exist. Our duty was to show the people of Ireland that the British Government was inclined to treat them with kindness and consideration. Lately, under the operation of this coercive law, a gentleman having a commission in the Army, and well known for his loyalty, was arrested and and treated in a very rude manner in the neighbourhood of Booterstown. On complaining to the Police Commissioners they made no inquiry, and afforded no satisfaction or redress to this ill-used gentleman. The law was not justified by necessity, and therefore he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) would support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion told the House that the greater part of Ireland was outside the pale of the Constitution, and in a state of siege, because it was subject to the restrictions imposed by ordinary proclamations under the Peace Preservation Act. He would not further notice an exaggeration which would seem sufficiently absurd to all who were acquainted with the facts; but would state to the House precisely what the Government had done in this matter. When they came into office two years ago they found Belfast and several counties under provisions which certainly were very stringent. They were subject to a special proclamation. Persons out at night under suspicious circumstances were liable to arrest, public-houses might be closed at any time, and all strangers unable to give a proper account of themselves were liable to arrest. Last year in asking Parliament to re-enact certain portions of the Peace Preservation Acts, they had not
  1244
  retained those provisions, and he was thankful to say that the result had so far proved the wisdom of the course they then pursued. Ireland was not less, perhaps it was even more orderly, peaceable, and contented than before these provisions were repealed. Two years ago Tyrone was the only county in Ireland which was entirely free from the ordinary proclamation imposing certain restrictions on the free possession of arms. But now, in addition to Tyrone, Wexford, Wicklow, Carlow, Kildare, Fermanagh, and Down, with the exception of Belfast—a portion of which was in Down—had been placed in the same condition as any portion of England. The Government hoped to proceed in that course, after careful inquiry into the different parts of the country. But it was of little use to compare the records of ordinary crime in England and Ireland with each other when dealing with the question of the Peace Preservation Acts. They had to remember, in spite of the great improvement in the condition of Ireland of late years, and in spite of the decay, at any rate on this side of the Atlantic, of the Fenian organization, there still remained in many parts of Ireland a spirit of disaffection and dislike to this country, which rendered the circumstances of Ireland exceptional as compared with any other part of the United Kingdom. They must also bear in mind that it would still be very dangerous that a population so liable to excitement, and more apt to be carried away at certain times and in certain moods than the steadier race on this side the Channel, should have free and unrestricted use of fire-arms, more particularly at a time when so many returned emigrants had come over from America, in whose hands the revolver would be a familiar and deadly weapon. They had also to remember that a strong and bitter party feeling existed in Ireland; and there was another point which could not be overlooked in dealing with this question. Hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies must admit that agrarian crime was peculiar to Ireland, it being an offence that was unknown in Great Britain. He would not enter into details on the subject; but he might point to cases of agrarian crime which had occurred during the last winter which showed that the state of Ireland in this respect was still by no

  1245
  means satisfactory. As to the recent terrible outrage to which, reference had been made, he remarked that it was a deliberate attack upon a gentleman against whom even his enemies had alleged nothing worse than that he had carried out, perhaps somewhat harshly, the lawful directions of his employer; and the worst part of the case was that no assistance whatever had been rendered by the people of the neighbourhood towards bringing the offenders to justice. Such a state of feeling in the district was even worse than the crime itself, and showed the necessity there still was for exceptional legislation. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had said that the proclamation of districts did not put a stop to agrarian crime; but although there might be some foundation for his remarks, he must admit that, by rendering the possession of arms comparatively rare, the temptation to commit such offences was lessened, and therefore, for this reason as well as for others, it was important to retain a restriction upon the possession of arms in certain parts of Ireland. He did not wish it to be supposed that he was taking isolated cases as proofs of the condition of the whole country; but the fact that such offences did occur pointed to the need of the greatest caution and prudence on the part of the Government in relaxing the present law. Her Majesty's Government felt deeply the responsibility they would assume in revoking the restrictions upon the possession of arms without the clearest evidence that it could be done with safety; because any disturbance resulting from such a course might drive capital, the resident gentry, and all that promoted the prosperity of Ireland from the country, while the existing restrictions involved but little inconvenience. Looking to the action taken by the Government, he trusted the House would continue that confidence which Parliament reposed in them last year. The administration of the Act must be left to those who were responsible for it, and who alone possessed the necessary knowledge. There was, however, a part of this exceptional legislation to which reference had been made that was of a very stringent nature—namely, the Protection of Life and Property Act, which applied to Westmeath, Meath, and some adjoining districts. That, he admitted was a law
  1246
  of exceptional severity, and he hoped that before long the day might arrive when the operation of that law would be no longer necessary to preserve peace and good order in that locality. Hon. Members opposite complained that the Government proceeded slowly in this matter. Well, he hoped that would enable the Government to act the more surely; and he could assure them that the Government had in view, as an ultimate result, precisely the same object that they themselves would desire—namely, that the law should be uniform through the whole of the Kingdom.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had nothing to complain of in the tone of the remarks of the right hon. Baronet. When this Act was passing through the House last year he called attention to this—that almost all the proclamations then in force in different counties and districts in Ireland had been in force for, he thought, more than 10 years, and he therefore very strongly urged that there ought to be a general revision of those proclamations, because the fact that a county or a district was in a disturbed state 10 years ago was no proof that it was at present in that condition. The right hon. Baronet said he would carefully review all the circumstances of each county affected by a proclamation. He now pressed for the fulfilment of that promise. He perfectly appreciated the difficulties under which the right hon. Baronet was placed. He would advise the right hon. Baronet to act on his own opinion as to the advisability of withdrawing proclamations, and not to allow any pressure to be put on him against such withdrawal. If the right hon. Baronet acted on his own opinion in that matter, he (Mr. Butt) believed that in a short time nearly all Ireland would be free from the operation of this Act. In the greater part of Ireland there was not, at the present moment, the slightest excuse for continuing the proclamations. As for the agrarian outrage which had just been committed the less said about it the better. He was not acquainted with the facts of the case, and if he were he would rather not in his place suggest the possibility of excuse for such a crime. He said the other day there were indications that the Irish landlords were beginning to renew their oppression, and he could only repeat now his strong conviction that as long as Par-

  1247
  liament refused to give protection in his home to the Irish tenant, no laws they could pass would put an end to agrarian disturbances. After the statement which the right hon. Baronet had made there was no necessity for continuing the discussion, and he would only add that in his belief the more the people were trusted, the more would peace and tranquillity prevail in Ireland.
  MR. WHALLEYmust state that it was not creditable in some points of consideration for the Government to be trifling with this question. There were foreign influences in operation in Ireland, and the Government should put a stop to them. He could not understand why the Government kept their reasons to themselves for not putting a stop to these foreign influences in Ireland. They were favouring veiled rebellion in doing so. They should say, as the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland had said—"There is a power in Ireland greater than the legitimate power of the British Crown," and he (Mr. Whalley) must say that it appeared to be so. The remedy for the evils complained of in Ireland was freedom of discussion, of public meetings, and power to explain to the public the tyranny under which they suffered, and the danger to which it subjected them.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that after what, on the whole, he would designate as the satisfactory answer of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the manner in which his (Sir Joseph M'Kenna's) statement had been received by the House, he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERthen put the Question whether the hon. Member for Youghal be allowed to withdraw his Motion—but an hon. Member objecting—
  MR. PARNELLmoved the Previous Question.
  MR. SPEAKERaccordingly having stated the original Question put the Previous Question, "That that Question be now put."
  Resolved in the Negative.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—THE SERPENTINE.—RESOLUTION.
MR. PEASErose to call attention to the mounds of earth now being erected on the south bank of the Serpentine; and to move—
1248
"That the mounds at present being erected on the south of the Serpentine are unsightly, and will, when planted, be detrimental to the picturesque character of Hyde Park, and ought to be removed."
The hon. Member said, these earthworks had been already carried on to so great an extent as nearly to obliterate the view of the ornamental water for all pedestrians, and, generally speaking, for those who rode on horseback, for nearly half the distance of the southern bank of the Serpentine. He ventured to say that the sum of £350, which was set down in the present Estimates for completing these mounds, would be far better spent in removing them. As regarded the mounds being a protection for bathers, he contended that they did not answer that purpose, since there were large openings between them, and viewed from the opposite shore bathers were actually placed in relief against the mounds, and were far more conspicuous than before. It was a disgrace that there was so little suitable accommodation for bathers, and some remedy in this matter was much wanted. His chief objection to the mounds was that they were opposed to the whole spirit of landscape gardening, and would destroy some of the prettiest parts of the Park.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the mounds at present being erected on the south of the Serpentine are unsightly, and will, when planted, be detrimental to the picturesque character of Hyde Park, and ought to be removed."—(Mr. Pease.)
MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he entirely agreed with what had been said. The works which were being constructed would destroy one of the most beautiful views in the Park, and it would be real economy to spend some money in removing them. The Park was large, and ladies need not go near the bathers. The first thing that might shock the delicate feelings of a lady on entering the Park at Hyde Park Corner was the statue of Achilles. Yet it was dedicated to the memory of Wellington by the women of England. Now, however, it was said that women would be shocked by seeing bathers at a distance of 300 or 400 yards. He hoped the mounds would not be allowed to remain.
MR. ADAMtrusted that they would be able to express the sense of the House in such a way as to induce the First

1249
Commissioner of Works to revert to the plan which was originally proposed in reference to this matter. It was a great mistake to take a part of the Park, which was very pretty in itself, for the purpose of planting shrubberies upon it, and thus preventing it being used by the public, in the way it ought to be.
LORD ELCHOregretted that the question, being urgent, had to be brought forward in the absence of Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works, but it was desirable that the House should intervene before the works that were objected to had proceeded further. The question, however, really at issue was one of much wider scope than that of the erection of these mounds, as it involved the constitution of the Office Her Majesty's Works and the question whether a First Commissioner should have it in his power to alter the Parks, cut down trees, and erect public buildings according to his own taste. It was important that there should be some sufficient check in these respects. He hoped that the Government, seeing the strong opinion which existed against the erection of these unsightly mounds, would give orders to stop them. The ladies who had objected to what the First Commissioner had called "nude bathers" had an easy remedy in their own hands—they could either not go to the Park when the bathers were permitted to use the water of the Serpentine or go to Regent's or Battersea Parks, or when in Rotten Row turn their eyes away from what shocked them.
MR. DILLWYNalso supported the removal of the mounds.
Mr. DAVENPORT-BROMLEYconsidered that no real annoyance or indecorum was caused by bathing in the Park.
Sir WILLAM FRASERsaid, these mounds were objectionable in every respect: seeing the strong feeling against them he hoped the Government would gracefully yield the point. The First Commissioner of Works was unfortunately not able to be present; but there were several other Commissioners in the House, and he hoped they would give the House an assurance that further progress would be stopped.
EARL PERCYsaid, there were many grave questions involved in this Motion, which could not be discussed at that
1250
hour of the morning, and he should therefore move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that in the absence of the First Commissioner of Works, it was undesirable to come to any conclusion. He could, however, say, on the part of the Government, that there was no disposition to continue the mounds if there was a strong feeling against them. The mounds, however, being there, he thought they would agree with him that they should not be removed until the matter could be more fully considered than was possible at that hour, and there would, therefore, be no objection to the adjournment of the debate.
MR. GOLDSMIDdrew attention to the bad state of Rotten Row, which was full of holes, and might occasion the loss of a Cabinet Minister.
MR. PEASEconsented to the adjournment of the debate, and expressed a hope that the works, for the present at least, would not be further proceeded with.
MAJOR O'GORMANbegged to congratulate the House on the proceedings of that evening, and upon the fact that a considerable number of the Members of that House had remained at that hour to discuss the question of a few dirty little shrubs, whilst no less than four attempts at count-out had been made whilst they were discussing coercion laws forIreland—the coercion of the Irish people. Those mounds and shrubs were more important in the eyes of hon. Members than the coercion of the Irish people.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.