Commons Sitting of 3 June 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Commons Regulation (Shenfield) Provisional Order* [183].
Second Reading—Post Office (Land)* [150].
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Cottingham, &c.)* [162]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.)* [173]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, Tame, and Rea, &c.)* [160].
Considered as amended—Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland)* [41].
Withdrawn—Church Boards* [14].
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 129 and 39 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Thursday the 9th instant.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF BARONIES IN THE KING'S COUNTY.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Why the baronies of Warrenstown and Cooleston, in the King's County, have been proclaimed under the Coercion Act, there appearing to have been no outrages reported as having been committed in those baronies?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, the only answer I feel myself at liberty to give to the Question of the hon. Baronet is that the Executive proclaimed these baronies because, having regard to the state of that part of the county, they felt it their duty to do so.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland must know that he was giving an evasive answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, who asked why those baronies had been proclaimed. Far better would it be if the Government, once for all, would let the Irish Members know they were to get no information in answer to any of these Questions. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask a Question, but not make a speech.
  MR. PARNELL: Very well, Sir. Then I shall ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it would not be more dignified for him to state, with respect to this Question, that the Government intended to give no information whatever as to the manner in which the law is being carried out in Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I deny having given an evasive answer. I have given all the information it is in my power to give with propriety, and this I am glad to do on all occasions.

  BRIDGES (IRELAND)—THE RIVER MOY, COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Board of Works are now prepared to order the construction of the bridge across the River Moy, near Swineford, for which a sum of £4,000 has been
  4
  passed by the presentment sessions and the grand jury of Mayo?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, I have communicated with the Board of Works in Ireland with reference to this Question, and they state that they have no information in regard to the bridge referred to. This bridge, I am informed, having been presented for at Presentment Sessions and by the Grand Jury of the county of Mayo, will be an ordinary county work, to be carried out under the county surveyor in the usual manner.

  POOR LAW—BOARD OF GUARDIANS— SWINEFORD UNION.
  MR.O'CONNOR POWERasked the Attorney General for Ireland, At what period it is proposed to remove the vice-guardians of the Swineford Union, and restore the functions of the elected guardians in charge of that Union?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, I am informed by the Local Government Board that they do not propose to order the reelection of the Board of Guardians of Swineford Union until the month of March next.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE ASSIZES.
  MR. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has as yet, and, if not, then when he is likely to come to a decision as to the best mode of diminishing the waste of judicial power, and the great inconvenience caused to jurors and others by the present system of holding four assizes?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that he had consulted with the Judges on the subject, and hoped shortly to introduce a short Bill by which the end desired by the hon. Member might be accomplished.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—MILITIA AND ARMY BATTALIONS—ASSIMILATION OF UNIFORMS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will give to battalions of infantry Militia, about to be assimilated to battalions of the regular army, as regards lace and frogs, the same increase of three mounted officers as he is about

  5
  to give to battalions of the regular Army (making them five instead of two for a Line battalion at home of only 480 rank and file) in order to place the Militia on an equal footing, as regards drill and field exercise, with the Line battalions of the territorial regiment to which they belong; and, whether such officers will receive the increased pay and allowances to which mounted officers are entitled?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I have to say that there is no intention to increase the numbers of mounted officers in the Militia.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES)—LAND THROWN OUT OF CULTIVATION.
  MR. HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can, before the end of the Session, lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the number of acres which have been thrown out of cultivation in each of the several counties of England and Wales?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that he had no information on the subject. He would suggest to the hon. Member that he should give Notice of his Question to the President of the Board of Trade, to whose Department the collection of agricultural statistics was assigned.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that some time ago, in answer to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), he had promised to furnish some Returns on the subject; but he was not sure whether the Returns then asked for were the same as those which were desired by the hon. Member. He would be prepared to answer if the hon. Member would renew his Question after Whitsuntide.

  STATE OF IRELAND—REPORTED INFLICTION OF PENALTIES FOR REFUSING TO SUPPLY THE CONSTABULARY WITH CARS.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph, which appeared in the "Standard" of 2nd June:—
  "The Sub-inspector of Police for the district called at the various posting establishments in Kilkenny yesterday, and exhibited a warrant
  6
  signed by the Lord Lieutenant, warning car-owners and drivers that, in the event of their refusing to supply cars to the Constabulary or Military in future, the former shall be fined £20 and the latter imprisoned for a certain period;"
  and, whether these statements are authentic; and, if so, what Act empowers the Lord Lieutenant to issue such a warrant and to inflict such penalties?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, he must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone his Question. He had telegraphed to Dublin, asking if there was any foundation for the statement, but had not as yet received an answer. He did not believe it was quite correct. That was all he could say at present.
  MR. REDMONDinquired, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew of any statutes under which punishments of this kind could be inflicted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes, Sir.
  MR. PARNELL: Have the police power to seize horses and cars without the consent of the owners; and are not the latter justified in using such force as may be necessary to resist the seizure?
  MR. FINIGANreminded the right hon. and learned Gentleman that similar conduct on the part of the Government had been pursued in Ireland in 1867, but that there was no legal authority for their doing so.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he hoped the hon. Member did not think him wanting in courtesy if he declined at present to answer these Questions; but he might say there were enactments under which carriages could be seized.

  RAILWAY STRUCTURES—WIND PRESSURE.
  SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Committee, which he stated in the House of Commons in July 1880 was appointed to consider what rules it might be desirable to make with regard to wind pressure upon Railway structures, has yet made a report; and, if so, whether he will be prepared to lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that the Report would be made shortly after the Whitsuntide Recess, when he would consider it carefully, and see whe-

  7
  ther it was desirable to lay it upon the Table.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE POLICE AT RAILWAY STATIONS ON DERBY DAY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Metropolitan Policemen are employed at certain Railway Stations on the Derby Day; whether these men are withdrawn for that purpose from their ordinary duties in preservation of the peace of London; whether the regular force on street duty is thereby lessened; and, whether the policemen employed at Railway Stations on Derby Day are paid by the Railway Company?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that it was the duty of policemen to be at places where crowds were collected. The police assisted the officials at the railway stations in keeping order at the stations on the Derby day. Their services were paid for by the Railway Companies. The reserve from which the officers were detailed for duty was strengthened on these occasions by the suspension of leave.

  STATE OF IRELAND—LORD KENMARE'S ESTATE—EXPLANATION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can inform the House how many of the tenants on the estate of Lord Kenmare have been threatened with proceedings for nonpayment of rent? He must admit that there was something unusual in the character of the Question. He should not have asked the Question, but for the statement made the day before by the Prime Minister with reference to the estate of Lord Kenmare. That statement had a tendency to mislead the House and the country.["Oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that he would put himself in Order by concluding with a Motion. He was far from ascribing to the right hon. Gentleman any intention of misleading the House or the country. It was, however, clear that impressions inconsistent with fact had been made upon the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he was, perhaps, naturally anxious to reproduce those impressions on the mind of the
  8
  House. It was true that recently there had not been many evictions on the estate of Lord Kenmare; but that was owing to the revolt which was going on in Ireland against eviction, for which Her Majesty's Government was mainly responsible. The origin of this revolt could be traced to the speeches delivered last year by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant during the discussions on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, and it had reached a culminating point since the speech of the-Attorney General for Ireland on the second reading of the Land Bill, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with a can dour that did him infinite credit, admitted—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to refer to debates in this House which have taken place during the present Session.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that it was absolutely necessary for his purpose that he should refer to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in order to answer the statement made by the Prime Minister on Thursday.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not at liberty to refer to the speech which he mentions.
  THE O'DONOGHUE, continuing, said, that the tenantry on the estate of Lord Kenmare were in a most depressed and discontented state in consequence of their being harassed by his Lordship's agent, under agents, and bailiffs. There were no tenants on any property in Ireland standing more in need of the protection of the Land Bill. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(The O'Donoghue.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot answer any Question in the nature of a speech made at this time on a Motion for the adjournment of the House without systematically recording my protest against the licence that prevails upon this subject. From these constant Motions a mass of evidence is being accumulated, which cannot fail to lead the House to adopt some very stringent Resolutions. In reply to the statement and Question of the hon. Member, I am bound to say that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, from anything I have seen or known of him in this House, would,

  9
  willingly commit injustice to any individual; but he must see that it is not just that attacks of this kind should be made without the smallest opportunity being given to the persons concerned to provide for their defence. He objects to my statement yesterday; but that statement was strictly, and in every word of it, drawn forth by the previous statement of an hon. Gentleman in putting a Question to me on that side of the House; and I do not think it was unnatural that a person holding the Office of a Member of the Queen's Government should feel that it was not fit to allow himself to stand in a doubtful position in the view of the House. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the necessity on Lord Ken-mare's estate of the intervention of the Court to secure moderate rents. I do not pretend to be in possession of all the facts relating to the estate; but this I will say, that within a generation—within the last 20 years or so—Lord Kenmare has laid out £70,000 on that estate without making any addition to the rents in respect of such outlay. As regards the immediate matter of the Question, all I have to say is that I am not informed how many tenants have been threatened with proceedings for non-payment of rent; but if, in a large number of tenantry, when there is a great state of excitement, and when most immoral doctrines are preached on the subject, I find that the number of evictions has been very small, and has been strictly confined to those who could pay and did not, I think the natural conclusion is, that if any of them have been threatened with eviction they have been threatened with a very good cause.
  MR. PARNELLwould remind the Prime Minister that, in replying on Thursday to one of his own supporters—the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard)—he did not commence by threatening future penalties upon the hon. Gentleman for moving the adjournment of the House at Question time. The patient demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was, perhaps, due to the fact that the hon. Member who moved the adjournment was one of his supporters. He would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that he did not deprecate an attack made the other day on an absent individual, by one of his own supporters. The right hon.
  10
  Gentleman accused some persons in Ireland of preaching an immoral doctrine in the advice which they gave to tenants not to pay unjust rents, even if they were in a position to pay them. It was true that that doctrine had been preached in Ireland, and he held that it was a most moral one. The doctrine was based upon this—that the stronger should protect the weaker, and that when the Government of a country failed in its duty of protecting the property of either the majority or minority of a community, combination was allowable among individuals for the purpose of protecting themselves by lawful means. Tenants in Ireland had undoubtedly refused to pay unjust rents, many of those who had so refused being perfectly able to pay. But those who could pay had other resources than the land from which they derived emolument. They had recently heard of a case in point—he referred to the case of Mr. Butterley, who had refused to pay the rent of his farm, near Dublin, though in a position to do so out of the profits derived from his business as a shopkeeper. Mr. Butterley, who had joined the combination for the protection of the weaker tenants, had acted in a patriotic and manly, and not in an immoral way, and would have allowed his stock to be sold at considerable sacrifice if it had been necessary. The people of Ireland were perfectly guiltless whether able to pay or not. The Government had been called upon time after time to protect the tenants who were unable to pay unjust rents; but the appeal had always been in vain. The Chief Secretary, too, had violated his solemn engagement, entered into last Session, which was that if he should find it necessary to apply to Parliament for exceptional powers of repression against the Irish people, and if he should find the landlords using their rights unjustly, he would accompany any request for special powers with a Bill designed to release the Government from being obliged to support injustice. But before the Coercion Act left the House of Commons, the landlords were already using their powers extensively, and forcing the Government to inflict injustice on tenants who could not pay their rents; and yet the right hon. Gentleman failed to keep his promise, and refrained from asking the House to give him power to prevent unjust evictions.

  11
  The Government thereupon lost their opportunity of ruling Ireland, and of making coercion effectual, which might have been effectual if with it justice had been simultaneously dispensed. The Government had thrown in their whole weight with the landowning class, and were now meeting with the reward which they deserved. Three weeks ago he had asked the Government to put a stop to ejectments in Ireland, undertaking that if they would do so he would ask all the tenants who could pay their rents to pay them, whether unjust or not. The Government, however, did not accept his invitation, and now matters had proceeded so far that the only course left to them was to allow the contending parties to fight the question out. He believed that the victory, as in every case where a people had struggled against landlord tyranny, would be on the side of the majority, protected though the minority might be by the rifles and bayonets of the military and the police.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he had made no statement with regard to the justice or injustice of the, evictions threatened on Lord Kenmare's estate; he had merely called attention to the fact that evictions were being carried on by Lord Kenmare. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have extended his inquiries, for though his statements might be correct with regard to the evictions on the estate of Lord Kenmare, he would have seen that the allegations were true as regarded the estates of the Earl of Arran and others. The Prime Minister's statement had been interpreted as meaning that in nearly every case evictions were just; and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman, if he desired to be just, should have given the particulars of unjust as well as just evictions.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not object to the Prime Minister's defence of Lord Kenmare, who had the advantage of being a Member of the Government; but he wished to dispel what seemed to be a general assumption, that Irish tenants were not capable of responding to the actions of generous landlords. Within the past two days, the Earl of Portarlington, who was a Member of the Conservative Party, had received a most gratifying expression of esteem and respect from his tenantry, to
  12
  whom, although his was not one of the most distressed districts, he had accorded Griffith's valuation; and the noble Lord, in replying, said that while landlords had indisputable rights, tenants had indisputable rights also. The case, it would be admitted, was a very gratifying one, and presented a contrast to that of Lord Kenmare, who had certainly not been the subject of grateful enthusiasm on the part of his tenantry.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had that morning had the pleasure of receiving a letter from Lord Portarlington detailing the circumstances to which the hon. Member alluded; and that he had at once written to the noble Lord expressing his great gratification at the news.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Premier did not, perhaps, understand all that was implied by his statement that in two of the eviction cases Lord Kenmare had obtained for his action the sanction of Dublin juries. What that meant was, that Lord Kenmare had not chosen to obtain his ejectment processes in a local Court, as he might have done, but had subjected his poor tenants to the expense and trouble of going to Dublin, hundreds of miles away. A Bill to prevent such scandals was brought in last year by the hon. Member for Longford, but was thrown out in the House of Lords, no doubt with Lord Kenmare's assistance. The state of Ireland at the present time might be likened to that of a person who was asked to pay £1 and could only pay 10s. What was needed for the country was a sort of Bankruptcy Bill. When merchants in the City became unable to pay their debts they were not threatened and coerced by military and police; but the poor tenants in Ireland, when they found themselves in that position, were at once throttled in the name of the law. Ireland, in fact, lay at the mercy of the foreigners sitting on the Treasury Bench, who had not the smallest sympathy with her wrongs, and who, though they knew that the whole Irish difficulty resolved itself into a question, of the difference between 15 s. and £1, allowed the Shylocks who held the land to claim their pound of flesh.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, though there might be causes of complaint in connection with Lord Kenmare's estate, and particularly with its management, yet, from his knowledge of the

  13
  circumstances, he believed—and he appealed to the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) to confirm him—that, on the whole, the rents were not only fair, but moderate; and if any persons were ejected, it was only because they were well known to be able to pay, but would not. He might add that in the autumn of 1879, when the land agitation was beginning, a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church remarked to him—"There are landlords in Kerry who are getting credit for reductions of 20, 30, and 40 per cent, and their rents are higher than Lord Kenmare's, without any reduction."
  MR. FINIGANstated that, of 88 evictions which had been carried out in a certain district in Leitrim since January last, 73 had been ordered by landlords who were justices of the peace. In the face of these facts, how, he would ask, could the people be expected to respect the law, or the Government who administered the law, and who, after admitting the necessity of putting a stop to wholesale evictions, allowed them to go on unchecked?
  MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that until hon. Members from Ireland could determine how rents could be recovered without evictions, it was unfair for them to characterize the landlords as cruel and unjust. Having regard to the number of landlords in Ireland, and the number of evictions, it would be found that a very small proportion of tenants had been proceeded against in this manner, and then only after repeated attempts had been made by the landlords to recover rents from tenants who could pay if they would. The landlords, it should be remembered, were not all of the exalted rank of Lord Kenmare. There were a great many small landlords who had nothing but their land to live on, and who had either to press for their rents or starve.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that, like the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Colthurst), he was unwilling to intervene in this discussion; but as many of the persons who had been mentioned were personal friends of his own he felt bound to say something in their behalf. In the cases of all the gentlemen who had been named, the evictions which had been referred to did not represent 5 per cent of the tenants in arrear on those various estates; and he
  14
  was sure that none of those gentlemen would have selected any tenant for eviction unless he were perfectly aware that such tenant was able to pay.
  THE O'DONOGHUE, in asking permission to withdraw the Motion, expressed his regret at finding it necessary to make a Motion of that kind. He wished to say one word to this effect. He could not corroborate the statement which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst). He was aware that the tenants on Lord Kenmare's estate did not regard their rents as moderate, and that in the last few years the rents had been raised 50 or 60 per cent.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. A. ELLIOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Bill, which the House has been informed is in preparation by the Government dealing with Police Superannuation, will be introduced during the present Session?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Government are ready to introduce a Bill upon this subject if there is an opportunity of doing so. In the actual state of the Notice Paper it will be impossible to introduce the measure at the present moment; but the Government are anxious to deal with this matter very much on the principle pointed out by the Commission on Metropolitan Police.

  ARMY—THE BARRACKS AT NEW ROSS.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for War, If the statement in the "Times" of June 2nd is correct, that
  "Instructions hare been given from the War Office to have the Military Barracks at New Ross, now occupied by a Company of 20th Hussars, fitted with portholes and looped for musketry;"
  and, if so, upon what grounds such instructions were issued?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, a small sum of money has been authorized to be spent for the security of certain buildings in Ireland, of which the barrack at New Ross is one; but we have no details of the works which have been executed.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS IN ARRANMORE.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the "Goshawk," one of Her Majesty's gunboats, has been employed in the work of assisting the serving of ejectment processes on the tenants in the island of Arranmore; whether the inhabitants of this island are described in the evidence of the Rev. Bernard Walker, P.P., of Burtonport, before the Bessborough Commission, as suffering in recent years from the combined effects of failure of the kelp trade and of the potato crop; whether the inhabitants are, as a consequence, described by Father Walker as
  "Poor in the extreme, miserably clad, and compelled, in the case of one family, to Bleep, without distinction of sex, in one bed for want of clothes;"
  and, whether he will sanction the employment of gunboats and sailors for the purpose of assisting in the eviction of subjects of Her Majesty in circumstances of such abject misery?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to the first part of the Question, the state of the case is as follows:—On the afternoon of the 31st of May, the Goshawk gunboat left Gweedore for the Island of Arranmore with a party of constabulary and a magistrate, who intended to go to the island for the purpose of enforcing process. She returned on the morning of the 1st of June. The Admiral at Queenstown telegraphed yesterday—and the information is rather more complete than I was able to state to the House yesterday—that there is no truth in the report that an affray had occurred between her and the islanders. Beyond that we do not know anything; but, undoubtedly, it is true that to the extent of carrying a party of police the Goshawk was employed, and, as far as I am able to judge, properly employed. But the rules of the Naval Service are very strict in regard to allowing the actual intervention of ships' companies in matters of these processes. That is never allowed except in cases of stringent necessity, and with careful precautions. As to the evidence taken before the Bessborough Commission, I respectfully hope the hon. Member will not insist upon making those contents the subject of Questions to me, because they are matters entirely within
  16
  his own cognizance. In the same way, I hope he will not ask me any hypothetical questions in regard to employing gunboats and sailors. That is not in question, for there has been nothing of the kind for the purpose of assisting in evictions of subjects of Her Majesty.
  MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether this gunboat Goshawk, which had been employed in carrying police for the purpose of assisting at evictions, was the same gunboat which, in the winter of 1879–80, was employed by the late Conservative Government in carrying food for the same people that the present Government was now attempting to evict?
  [No reply was given to this Question.]

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LETTERS TO POLITICAL PRISONERS (MR. HODNETT).
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Eager, Governor of Limerick Gaol, stopped on the 17th of May a letter addressed to a friend by one of the political prisoners (Mr. Hodnett, Chairman of the Ballydehob Board of Guardians) because of some statement therein that a magistrate who had expressed a hope from the bench that "the people would soon get powder and ball" was unfit for his position, if he will quote the exact words to the House and state whether he approves the suppression of the letter; whether it is true that the Governor detained several other letters addressed to Mr. Hodnett and, in at least one instance, refused to give him the sender's name, so that the latter might be communicated with by Mr. Hodnett; whether the House can be informed of the language which caused the suppression in these instances, also upon what principle of censorship the Governor acts, if his power or discretion is uncontrolled; and, whether at least the Government will give instructions that letters addressed to political prisoners when stopped shall be returned to the senders with the passages objected to plainly marked, or that the gentlemen imprisoned shall have the choice of receiving them with these passages erased; and, if he can explain how it is that inquiries respecting matters affecting Limerick take so long to answer?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, letters to and from Mr. Hodnett, at present imprisoned in Limerick Gaol, under the Act for the better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland, have been detained by the prison authorities in the exercise of their discretion, and with the sanction of the Executive in Ireland; it being considered that these letters were of such a character as to justify that course. The discretion of the Governor of the gaol in such cases is not absolute, but is subject to the review of the Government. I must decline to undertake, on the part of the Government, the responsibility suggested, that letters which are thus detained shall be returned to the sender with the objectionable passages marked, or that the letters shall be delivered with the passages erased.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take steps to enable prisoners to be informed from whom the letters came that were stopped?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): That is entirely outside my province.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would renew the Question, as it must be in somebody's province.

  STATE OF IRELAND—REPORTED OUTRAGES IN GALWAY—RULES OF DEBATE—SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a Question of which. I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether Lord Dunsandle's son, Mr. Daly, was fired at and wounded yesterday near his father's residence, at Loughrea, in Galway; whether this is not the third murder or attempt to murder within the last three weeks in the same locality attributable to the Land League—[Loud cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask, whether it is not one of the Standing Rules of this House that no Question to a Minister shall contain an expression of opinion with regard to matters in dispute. The hon. Member, in attributing—as I would put it, mendaciously attributing—to the Land League the responsibilityof—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the word
  18
  "mendacious" is a word that can be properly applied by one Member of the House to another?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member, when he made use of the word "mendacious," applied it to a Member of the House, he is clearly out of Order, and I must ask him to withdraw this word.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I rise to ask you, Sir—[Loud cries of "Order" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot allow any interposition.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will withdraw the word, Sir, and I will substitute for it "inaccurately." The hon. Member, in inaccurately attributing to the Land League the responsibility for out rages which the League has done its I best to repress—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not addressed himself to the point I have raised, that, having applied the expression "mendacious" to a statement made by a Member of the House, he is called upon to withdraw it. [Cries of "He did!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am afraid, Sir, my words did not reach your ears. I did withdraw the word "mendaciously," and substituted "inaccurately" for it. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member, in putting a Question to a Minister, is not violating a Standing Order of this House in attributing to the Land League organization responsibility for outrages which the League repudiates, and which is, at any rate, a matter for discussion; and, secondly, whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to attribute responsibility for outrage to an organization the control of which is in the hands of hon. Members belonging to this Assembly?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman had placed on the Paper, in the ordinary way, the terms of the Question he proposed to submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I should have considered it my duty to strike out such an expression of opinion.
  MR. O'KELLY: I want to know, Sir, whether there is any protection in this House for hon. Members on these Benches against any Gentleman making statements which are calumnious and lying? [Loud cries of "Order!" and "Name him!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I think, considering that I have called the attention of the

  19
  hon. Member for Galway to the language which he has used, and which he has very properly withdrawn, I am bound, after the more violent expression made use of by the hon. Member for Roscommon, to Name Mr. O'Kelly.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to move that Mr. O'Kelly be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this Sitting.
  MR. HEALY: Does that include the Evening Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That Mr. O'Kelly be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 14: Majority 174.—(Div. List, No. 227.)
  MR. SPEAKERthen directed Mr. O'KELLY to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Mr. Speaker, if I am in Order, I beg leave to put to you a Question with regard to your recent ruling. Having a desire to obtain some clear understanding on the subject, I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the fact that a Predecessor of yours in that Chair ruled that Lord Palmerston was not out of Order in using the words "calumnious and mendacious statements," if these words were applied to the statements and not to the Member using them?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked me a Question as to a point of Order which is not now before the House. The House has suspended one of its Members during this day's Sitting for the use of the expression "lying."
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: A "calumnious and lying statement."
  MR. GLADSTONE: If it is not an impertinence on my part, I may say that I think I recollect the incident to which the hon. Member refers, and the statement which he has just made is only very partially accurate. The objection was to the word "calumnious," and that word was not used by Lord Palmerston, but by another Member. The House and Lord Palmerston objected to it. The word "mendacious" did not come into the case at all.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: There were two occasions on which the words were used. On the second occasion Lord Palmerston objected to them; but he
  20
  had formerly used them himself, and reference was made to that former occasion as a precedent.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Question is altogether irrelevant. If the hon. Member desires to call attention to the matter, it is open to him to do so in the usual way.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: In deference to what fell from you, Sir, I have altered the Question slightly to bring it within your ruling. It will now read as follows:—Whether Lord Dunsandle's son, Mr. Daly, was fired at and wounded at Loughrea yesterday; whether that is not the third murder, or attempt at murder, committed within the last three weeks in that locality; whether threatening posters, headed "More to be murdered," had been put up extensively in that district yesterday and "Wednesday; and I would also ask how long the Executive Government intend to permit the body called the Land League to carry on their operations?[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, if the hon. Member is in Order in re-introducing into this question any expression of opinion which you have formally ruled to be out of Order; and whether, in so doing, the hon. Member is not disregarding the ruling of the Chair, and, therefore, subjecting himself to the penalty of being Named?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the terms of the Question put by the hon. Member were precisely those which he read before, and which were objected to, I do think it would be an irregularity on the part of the hon. Member.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: The terms are not the same, Sir. [Cries of "Name him!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the words were not the same I have nothing more to say.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, the only information which I have is probably that which is in the possession of the hon. Member. I have seen a statement in one newspaper, and in another newspaper I have seen a second statement which says that the report is not confirmed. I believe it is true that one or more personal attacks have been made in the district referred to. As to the threatening posters, I saw to-day in one of the morning papers that they had

  21
  been put up. The last part of the Question I must decline to answer.
  MR. O'SHEA: I wish to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether Lord Dunsandle has got a son?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The hon. Member can hardly expect me to answer that Question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTURBANCES AT QUINLAN'S CASTLE, NEW PALLAS, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. GORST: I wish to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the proceedings which have recently taken place at Quinlan Castle, near New Pallas, do not amount to a declaration of war against Her Majesty; and, if so, whether the persons taking part in it are not guilty of high treason?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr LAW): I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not put his Question on the Paper. It must depend upon the facts of the case whether the proceedings amounted, even technically, to treason.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the Government this Question. Is it or is it not the case that Quinlan Castle, near New Pallas, has been occupied by a body of tenantry for a period of now nearly a week; that they have broken down the bridges which lead up to the place, and that they have successfully resisted the combined forces of military and police; and, whether a military detachment did not leave Dublin yesterday for the purpose of capturing the Castle?
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask, whether the occupation of Quinlan Castle, referred to by the noble Lord, does not consist of the occupation by an old woman, who many years ago built her cabin under or within the walls of the Castle, and has continued in occupation ever since?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I regret that I cannot offer any legal opinion upon the subject. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It is a question of fact.] There is a considerable variation as to the facts of the case. On the one hand, the place has been described as being occupied by a considerable armed force; and, on the other, as being occupied by an old woman. As I have no official informa-
  22
  tion on the subject, I must decline to give an answer.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I do not understand entirely from the answer of the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government have taken any steps to ascertain what the facts are. These reports have been going in circulation for several days, and the Government must, I should think, have taken steps to satisfy themselves as to their correctness.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I have no doubt that the Government in Ireland are in possession of all the facts and circumstances, and are taking every step necessary for dealing with them. [Cries of "This House!"] For myself, I have no official information on the subject, and cannot, therefore, give any more satisfactory answer. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. RITCHIE: Has the Irish Executive asked for any information?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I beg leave to ask the Home Secretary, who, I believe, has some responsibility for Irish affairs, whether he has made any inquiry into this very serious state of things; and, if he has not done so, whether he will do so without any further loss of time?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: May I ask if hon. Members really know what this so-called castle is? [Cries of "Order!"] I will put myself in Order by asking the Government if they are aware that it consists of a couple of parts of walls which formerly were part of a castle, of which otherwise only the name remains?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I know that my Predecessor in Office did lay down the doctrine last Session that I was constitutionally responsible for the government of Ireland. In one sense that is true; in another sense it is not perfectly accurate. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Home Secretary is only the medium of communication between the Sovereign and the Lord Lieutenant, and he also knows that the details of the administration of Ireland do not pass through the Home Office. Therefore I do not think that the noble Lord can seriously suppose that I am the proper source of information with regard to the details of the administration of the Executive in Ireland. But, in answer to the appeal of the noble Lord, I certainly will make

  23
  it my business to ascertain what are the facts of the case.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: I beg to give Notice that on the 9th instant, on going into Committee of Supply, I will call attention to the -whole proceedings of the Land League in Ireland and move a Resolution.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he considers that it is for the interest of the Public Service, in a matter of such vital importance as that just mentioned, that Her Majesty's Government should be without any information as to the nature of the castle, or as to the proceedings which have taken place there, and should be unable in any way to allay the public anxiety as to the state of Ireland?
  COLONEL BARNE: I put a Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this matter a few days ago, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would reply to it more fully in his speech. He said that the matter was looked upon very seriously in that part of Ireland, and I think in his absence it is only right that some Member of the Government should be able to give the House some information.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I frankly own that I am not in a position to judge of the importance of the subject. I have no doubt that the noble Lord (Earl Percy) is aware that the practice is always for the Government to trust to the local authorities—the local representatives of the Government—to give them every information which concerns the discharge of the duties of Government; and until we receive that information it would be absurd to make any statement on the subject. If there is apparent ground for making inquiry we will do so. As we now stand, all we can do is to give the assurance which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given, that we will make immediate inquiry.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: These are plain matters of fact, upon which the Attorney General for Ireland must be able to answer. ["Oh!"] It is perfectly ludicrous. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is a fact that a military expedition left Dublin yesterday to operate for the capture of Quinlan Castle? Is that a fact or not?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I see that state-
  24
  ment in this morning's newspapers, and I assume it to be correct.

  RULES OF DEBATE—SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS.
  MR. PARNELLgave Notice that on Friday, on going into Committee of Supply, he would move that it is not in accordance with the Orders and precedents of this House that a Member of this House should be suspended from its service for describing as lying and calumnious statements reflecting on the honour of the same Member.
MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg, Sir, to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn till Thursday next.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday next."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. MONKasked what Supply would be taken on Thursday and Friday next?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Civil Service Estimates.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped that it was not too much to ask the Prime Minister to telegraph at once to Ireland, so as that at the Evening Sitting they might know whether a force was sent from Dublin last night to Quinlan's Castle.
  MR. GORSTasked the Government whether, when the House met after Whitsuntide, they would be prepared to face two important questions as to which information had been sought from them in vain, and in regard to which they had hitherto endeavoured to shelter themselves, under the plea that they were without information? The first of those questions related to the Transvaal. It appeared that the Colonial Office was absolutely ignorant as to what was going on in the Transvaal at the present moment. The Government had assured the world that they had undertaken solemn obligations for the protection of the Natives of the Transvaal; but day by day they were hearing through the ordinary channels of information that these Natives were liable to attacks on

  25
  the part of the Boers. They were attacked because they were loyal to the British Crown; and the answer of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was that the Government knew nothing whatever on the subject, that he did not intend to take any steps for the protection of the Natives, and that he intended to leave the whole matter to the Commission, which appeared to have no power whatever to interfere. The second question had just come up. It appeared from the ordinary channels of information that proceedings were going on in Ireland which amounted to high treason; but the Government did not know what those proceedings were. They did not know whether high treason had been committed. He wanted to ask whether, before the House met after the holidays, the Government would ascertain whether the Natives of the Transvaal had been outraged by the Boers or not, or whether high treason had been committed in Ireland or not; and, whether, if they ascertained that in either of these matters the facts were in accordance with the intimations in the public journals, the Government would take some steps to vindicate the Queen's authority?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he remembered a case in which the present Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) absolutely refused to agree to the Whitsuntide Adjournment, because information on the Eastern Question was not forthcoming. He proposed to follow that high example. The House had a right to know what was going on in Ireland. They saw what was stated in the newspapers. The police, in attempting to serve processes in the neighbourhood of Quinlan's Castle, were resisted. They were successfully resisted. The people took possession of the castle, and the military and the police retired from the scene. It was said that a flying column left Dublin last night in order to assist the force in that neighbourhood in reducing the peasantry; and when the Attorney General for Ireland was asked a Question on the subject, he simply replied that he knew nothing about it, except from the papers, the accounts in which he was unable to say were or were not accurate. What about other encounters? Were the Government masters of the situation, or were the Land League? Was it the rule of the Queen, or the rule of the hon. Member
  26
  for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)? Could not the Prime Minister get up and say something before the House rose for the holidays? What he had been speaking of occurred only a few hundred miles away. It was not in the far-off Transvaal that armed resistance to the Queen's troops was succeeding—it was within the United Kingdom; and when attention was called to the subject, the Attorney General for Ireland sat like a log and did not say a word. [Cries of "Order!"] That remark was strictly metaphorical, for he had a great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not think the House of Commons would consent to the adjournment for the holidays under these circumstances, and he was afraid he must put the House to the trouble of a division.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will say a few words with regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the noble Lord. The noble Lord said that my right hon. and learned Friend sat here like a log, and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham said that Her Majesty's Government sheltered themselves under the plea of ignorance. We are too much used to observations of this kind—observationswhich the commonest rudiments of courtesy and good sense would not permit to be used, I will not say between one gentleman and another, but between one man of sense and another. With respect to what is going on in Ireland, the noble Lord has drawn a sound distinction between events happening in that country and events happening in the Transvaal. But the hon. and learned Member for Chatham is totally ignorant of that distinction, for when he sees any rumour which appears in any correspondence in the newspapers describing what is supposed or reported to be taking place in any portion of the Transvaal, however far from post or telegraph, the hon. and learned Member thinks that it is posible to be made the subject of immediate inquiry as to how far the rumour is correct or not. He seems to forget that the transmission of rumour is one thing, and the transmission of authentic intelligence another. Little or no time is required for picking up and transmitting gossip; but for the purpose of bringing this gossip to the test, and ascertaining how far it is correct, a good deal of time may

  27
  be required. I have the fullest confidence in those who are acting for Her Majesty's Government in the Transvaal, especially in Sir Evelyn Wood, who is principally responsible; and I have the strongest belief that all that is material and interesting to be transmitted to this country, and authentically ascertained, will be given to us without delay; further than that, we can with great satisfaction at once promise to make inquiries with respect to Questions put such as were asked the other day by the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). But it is neither reasonable nor expedient for the public interest that in this degree of heat and excitement, and upon the foundation of intelligence in no authentic form, speeches of this kind should be made in this House, that challenges should be addressed to the Government and inferences drawn, the general effect of which is to increase the excitement in the country, which we ought rather to allay, and to weaken public authority in the enforcement of law and order. The noble Lord spoke of disturbances in three parts of Ireland. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Armed resistance.] It might have occurred to him to reflect with regard to what was done last night in Dublin in commencing proceedings for the purpose of enforcing law and order, in a given part of the country, that those proceedings would not be made the subject of official Report to the Government until they had reached a crisis or consummation. What we know is that vigorous measures were adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and by the Executive Government for Ireland last evening for the purpose of dealing with the grave case—if grave case it is—of the occupation of Quinlan Castle. We know that events in that neighbourhood are serious events, and that the Executive Government have adopted what they think the most effective measures for dealing with those events in a satisfactory manner. It is not possible for me, having this information only in a general form—in the form of a private letter from my right hon. Friend—to speak as if I were, giving an official account of these transactions. With respect to the Transvaal, I cannot say when the information asked for will arrive; but if he will be good enough to supply myself or my noble
  28
  Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies with the particular statements which he wishes to be made the subject of inquiry that shall be done. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the information has already been asked for.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I am bound to say that the statement which has just been made by the Prime Minister is by no means calculated to allay our uneasiness. I do not wish, at the present moment, to enter into the question of the Transvaal; but with regard to the question of Ireland, I think there is a good deal of ground for alarm in the statement which the Prime Minister has made. If I understand aright, not only is it thought expedient and right not to communicate to the House in full what they may be doing, and what may be the state of things in particular districts—which is a perfectly intelligible course, the responsibility of which would rest with the Government; but from what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, by the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Home Secretary; we are to infer that the Government of this country are not themselves aware of what is taking place in Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman twits us with making statements founded upon newspaper rumours, we would not make statements upon newspaper rumours if we had anything else to go upon. When we ask Questions of the Government we have a right to expect that they will have information on these subjects. Now, with regard to Quinlan's Castle and the attack upon it. It may or may not be a matter of importance; but considering that it was a matter which was made a good deal of a few days ago, and that a Question on the subject was actually addressed to the Government a few days ago, one would have thought that some information would be possessed in the Irish Office, and would be in the hands of those who have spoken for the Irish Office. The fact that necessary business should take the Chief Secretary for Ireland away from this House at the present moment is in itself a cause for some anxiety. We know that matters are going on which, under ordinary circumstances, would call for the presence of the Chief Secretary in his place in Parliament, and we know

  29
  that he is not here. That is a ground for some additional and unusual anxiety. We hear rumours of an alarming character; we hear about movements of troops, and there is nobody even from the War Office to tell us what these movements are. We do not know whether or not the Secretary of State for War has gone over to Ireland himself. Whether there is much or little in the stories that are told us—whether there is much or nothing in these disturbances—I do not now inquire; but what I consider as very serious and alarming is that there should get abroad an impression that Her Majesty's Government have not a grasp of the subject. If it can be believed that the Government are feeble, uncertain, and ill-informed in their proceedings, that is an element of danger. It may be that it can hardly be expected that they could get information as to what is going on in distant parts of the Empire. Of course, werecognize that plea much more fully than they recognized some of the difficulties that were felt by the late Government, when stories and newspaper accounts came from Bulgaria. [Cheers from the Ministerial Benches, in which Mr. Gladstone energetically joined.] I do not understand the great excitement of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, I understand that he means that the condition of Bulgaria would be much more interesting to him than that of Ireland or the Transvaal. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] When, on the strength of newspaper reports from Bulgaria, Questions were addressed to the Government of the day as to the information which they had received, they were expected to give immediate answers; but they were obliged to say that they had not received information, or had. no means of immediately answering the Questions. Fault, however, was found with the Government for taking that course. But I am quite ready to deal very different measures from that to the present Government in reference to the events which are happening in the Transvaal. With regard to the question of Ireland, the matter is really very serious, because we are led by the answers given by the Prime Minister to believe that, though serious events are going on there, they are not communicated by the Executive Government to the Home Government. My own belief is that if there is danger in Ireland it
  30
  arises chiefly from the impression of uncertainty and feebleness on the part of the Executive Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not exactly know the object of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. If they are intended to tranquillize the public mind with regard to the condition of affairs in Ireland, I do not think they were so well calculated for the purpose as they might have been. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) referred to the precedent of not allowing the adjournment of the House till information was given on a question relating to Eastern affairs, and the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the course of the late Government was very different. That is a fact. I remember the occasion when the Motion referred to was made. The Government was asked if anything of importance was going to happen in the interval. The right hon. Gentleman opposite got up and said he was not aware that any circumstance of importance was about to occur, and the next morning the newspapers announced the despatch of the Indian troops to Malta. That is a precedent the present Government do not intend to follow. When they have information they will always give it to the House. They will not pretend to have information they do not possess, nor would they conceal that which they did possess. The right hon. Gentleman imputes to the Government ignorance as to what is going on in Ireland. That proposition I entirely deny. What occurred yesterday? Alarm was caused by accounts of the killing of a policeman in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked a Question. But the Government were able to make a statement which relieved the feeling of alarm. Therefore, it is not the fact generally, or at all, with the exception of this particular question, that the Government did not know what was happening in Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland has been asked whether high treason has been committed. I see opposite the late Attorney General, and I have far too high a respect for the wisdom and prudence of that hon. and learned Gentleman to suppose that if he had been asked whether high treason had been committed he would have given an answer without deliberation. That is the sole foundation of the

  31
  charge brought against the Government. ["No!"] What other circumstance is there? It is the business of the Government—and it has been performed—to make themselves acquainted with all the circumstances occurring in Ireland; and if the hon. Gentleman had thought the case of sufficient importance to put down a Question on the Paper with reference to it, it would have been our business at once to ascertain what the facts were; but they had assumed, as they had a right to do, that nothing critical had occurred. They have confidence in the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, and they believed that if anything serious had occurred it would have been immediately communicated to them. But that does not prevent the Government, if any Member of the House desires any particular circumstances to be inquired into, from telegraphing to Ireland for the information required. There is no foundation for the superstructure of alarm which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has endeavoured to raise. He is endeavouring to create, in a state of circumstances grave enough, difficulties still greater than those which the Government have to encounter. I confess I was not surprised at the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); but I did expect that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), with his responsibilities, and knowing the difficulties which must beset a Government in the present state of Ireland, would not have endeavoured to aggravate those difficulties.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of taking part in the debate, but to state that the castle referred to was in his county (Limerick), and that many misstatements had been made in regard to what had taken place. The police and military engaged in the Quinlan's Castle affair did not retire because armed resistance was shown, but because they failed to secure the services of a bailiff to carry out the orders for the execution of which the expedition was organized. There was quite enough to put forward in regard to the county without making statements not founded on facts.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he rose with three objects. In the first place, he de-
  32
  sired to inquire as to the course of Business for the evening. In the second place, he desired to give an emphatic contradiction to the Home Secretary's statement with regard to the despatch of Indian troops to Malta. The intended despatch of those troops was, as a matter of fact, and at a time when the House was still sitting, perfectly well known to himself (Mr. Mac Iver), and to everybody having business relations with Bombay. It was not kept a secret, as alleged, until after the House adjourned. In the third place, he wished to appeal to the Government to consider during the Recess whether they could not put on one side the Land Bill—a measure with which they were wasting the time of the House and the country—and then introduce really remedial legislation for Ireland. The question of eviction should receive serious thought on the part of the Government; and confiscation, if resorted to, ought, on the same principle, as when the property of landlords was compulsorily taken for railway purposes, to be accompanied by compensation. But what, he might ask, could one expect from such a vacillating Government as the present one, whose conduct the following prophetic lines, written long ago, might aptly describe:—
  "Ne'er may any craven pilots
  At my country's helm preside
  Swayed by mob-tongued agitation,
  Taking demagogues for guide;
  Truckling to the voice of faction,
  Listening for the loudest cry;
  Gauging passions, measuring noises,
  What to grant or what deny."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what Business would be taken in the evening, as he distinctly understood that no Government Orders would be proceeded with?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that no other Business would be taken but the Motion in regard to Ireland.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have no right to say a word; but as a matter of personal explanation I maybe allowed to take notice for a moment of a reference which was made by the Home Secretary to a transaction of some years ago. I will not now interpose with the statement which I am anxious to make; but I feel that what took place at that period, and could not be fully explained at the time, ought, at some

  33
  time, to be known to the House. I shall consider it my duty to ask to be allowed to make the statement on a future day. [Cries of "Go on!"] Well, if I have the indulgence of the House, I will state the matter, which I think I can do in a few sentences. The circumstances under which we stood at that moment were these. The Russian Army was close to Constantinople, and the British Fleet was also close to that city. There was great uneasiness lest a collision should take place between them, and in the event of a collision having taken place, or in the event of hostilities, it had certainly been agreed to in principle by the Cabinet that Indian troops should be brought to Europe. But no decision had been taken as to the time and manner of their coming, nor had I any reason to believe at that time that any order for their movement had been given. In fact, I do not think that any order had then been given. A day or two before the statement I made to the House, and to which the Home Secretary has referred, a proposal had been made to the Russian and British Governments by another Power, that, in order to facilitate the negotiations that were going on, and to prevent the danger of a collision, the British Fleet and the Russian troops should simultaneously withdraw to a certain distance from Constantinople. That proposal had been made and had been accepted in principle by the British Government, and on the morning of the day on which I made my statement before the holidays we had just received a telegram to say that it had also been accepted by the Russian Government. I therefore believed that at the moment I spoke the matter was quite at an end, that the two Powers would withdraw their forces, that there was no longer a risk of a collision, and that, consequently, there would be no necessity for moving the Indian troops. It was under those circumstances that I gave the answer which I did. I afterwards explained to the House how it was that the movement of troops was decided upon by action in India; but, in reference to my own statement, I was stating that which I then fully believed to be true—namely, that not only was there no special danger at that particular moment, and nothing inconvenient in adjourning for the holidays, but that I had reason to believe exactly the contrary.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]

    COMMITTEE. [SIXTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 2nd June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.

      ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
      Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).
      MR. GIVANmoved, in page 1, line 13, after "only," insert—
      "But if the landlord shall unreasonably decline or omit to give his consent to the sale to more than one person, the Court may give such consent."
      He submitted that the tenant was entitled to a further concession than the Bill at present gave him, and that the proposal contained in the Amendment was absolutely necessary, in order to prevent the continuance of that friction on this important subject which had hitherto existed between the landlord and tenant. It was as well that the Committee should understand at the outset that he was not in favour of giving to the tenant an absolute and unrestricted right of sale; and he was not in favour of giving him any right to sub-divide his holdings, except under certain restrictions, because he was of opinion that such a right conferred upon the tenant might in future work evil to himself, and evil to the country. At the same time, he considered that the power of the landlord, under all circumstances, to prevent the sub-division of a holding, was detrimental to the interest of the occupier and a hardship to private individuals. It could not be denied that the tendency of the landlord class had been to take into their possession, on all possible occasions, land from which the tenant had been evicted, and there had also been a tendency on every occasion when there was a sale to amalgamate the farm about to be sold with the adjoining holding. To a limited extent he believed that both of these objects were perfectly legitimate; but, at the same time, he knew that they had been carried too far, and that there had been

      35
      an amount of amalgamation and an amount of depopulation throughout the country for the purpose of consolidating farms that had been exceedingly detrimental to Ireland, and especially to that portion of Ulster with which he was most intimately acquainted. He knew large tracts of land in Ulster in which he could recollect numerous homesteads containing contented, and comparatively prosperous families, on which there was not at this moment the vestige of a human habitation. The old residents had been evicted, and the population had gone away and scattered themselves over the country, the land remaining either in the hands of the owners themselves or of wealthy Scotch settlers. Looking at the statistics in regard to agricultural holdings in Ireland, he might mention that between the years 1841 and 1879, a period of just 38 years, the number of holdings had been reduced by 90,500. Incredible as it might appear, hon. Members not acquainted with the habits of the Irish people, and more intimately acquainted with the agricultural population of England—incredible as it might appear to them—he had no hesitation in saying that among the most contented and prosperous tenants in Ireland were tenants holding farms containing from 12 to 25 acres of land. He knew in his own neighbourhood that some of the best tenants, farming very good land and being industrious sober people, had money in the bank, had sent their children abroad, and even put some of their sons into the learned professions, out of farms of 15 acres for which they paid a fair rent. He had no hesitation in saying that if Ireland were populated now with an agricultural population settled in holdings from 15 and 30 to 40 and 50 acres, it would be a richer country, and a better support to England than it was now with large consolidated farms. He was quite sure that when he referred to the immense diminution which had taken place in the number of holdings, many hon. Members would say, "So much the better." Well, those who said that did not know Ireland as well as he did, because he knew that the towns and villages in the neighbourhood of those depopulated districts, where the commercial inhabitants were once in a flourishing and prosperous condition, were now on the verge of bankruptcy,
      36
      and that, even as regarded the farmers themselves, they had not available for agricultural purposes the same number of labouring men they had in olden times when the population was more dense; and, consequently, in the management of their farms they were obliged to pay a higher amount of wages than was formerly the case. Coupled with this fact, there was the further fact that since 1841 the increase of farms of above 30 acres was 112,000, made up as follows:—In Ulster, 32,000; Connaught, 19,000; Munster, 40,000; and Leinster, 21,000. There was also this extraordinary fact connected with the system of agricultural holdings in Ireland—that since 1845 the increase of farms between 50 and 500 acres had been 20,314. Now, he did not believe that from the history of any country, and especially from the history of Ireland, it could be authentically deduced that farms of 500 acres were at all practical for the purpose of maintaining a wealthy and a prosperous agricultural population. Those large farms which had sprung up since 1845 were chiefly occupied and used for sheep and cattle. Perhaps some would say a better population than the Irish race. But if he appealed to some of our departed Generals and our greatest Commanders, to speak of the men who had carried the English flag from time to time to victory and glory, he was sure they would not say that it was for the benefit of either Ireland or England that the best blood of the Irish race should be driven to other countries. It was calculated that since the year 1845 there had been 2,000 farms created, ranging from 500 to 5,000 acres in extent, and it was estimated that there was a total of 4,000,000 acres thus appropriated in these large farms which, divided into farms of 40 acres, would give 100,000 additional holdings. He contended that if this land was thrown at once into the market in Ireland it would for a long time appease any land hunger that might exist, and which was, at the present moment, doing so much mischief in that country. He would respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that there was a class of cases in which the people to which they applied had a reasonable right to sub-divide. They were formerly mountainous districts, and by the industry of the tenants they had been turned into arable land. He

      37
      knew cases where men—now old men—were years ago farming 50 or 150 or 200 acres of land, which, in numerous cases, were covered, with moss and moor and bog. Those men had large families, and they had reclaimed a very large portion of their holdings with the view of settling some of their sons upon them in their own immediate vicinity. No doubt it was originally one holding; but the amount of arable land there now, compared with the amount of arable land there at the beginning of the tenancy, was as 20 to 1. They had reclaimed acre after acre with the assistance of their sons, and he could not see how the interest of the landlord was prejudiced, but, on the contrary, he thought it would be improved, by allowing the tenants to divide a portion of their farms among their sons. The rental would be more secure, a greater stimulus to industry would be given to the entire family, and the extent of the holding would be large enough to afford a tract for more than one respectable son. The power of the landlord capriciously and without reason to refuse such sub-division was a power which in his (Mr. Givan's) opinion ought to be taken from him, provided that his refusal to permit the sub-division was purely capricious, wholly unreasonable, and not founded upon any ground consistent with his own protection or with the good of his estate. He knew there was another class of holdings which he might put still stronger. No ambition of the small Irish farmer was greater or more legitimate than the ambition of procuring farms in his own immediate vicinity for his sons. He had known farmers, particularly on good estates, where the landlord and the agent were respected, and the families lived in comfort at fair rents to save up and hoard money for the purpose of acquiring adjoining land. They were able to purchase farm No. 1; this was done with the sanction of the agent, and the first time they went to pay the rent they got two receipts. That went on for some years, and they were able to purchase another farm and then another. Having three or four farms they got three or four receipts. Then, after a while, at the instance of the agent, the whole sum was put into one receipt, and the rent of the respective holdings was marked on the back of the receipt; but
      38
      by-and-bye the agent made out a new ledger and consolidated the three holdings, putting them into one, and henceforward the three farms were united. The effect of what the agent did was not appreciated or understood by the tenant; but by-and-bye one of his sons married, and then the tenant wished to transfer one of the farms to him. He accordingly went to the agent and said—"Please to put my son's name into one of the farms." But the agent said—"No, I don't know any such farm." There might have been a new agent or a new landlord who knew nothing of the history of what had taken place, or there might have been a purchaser under the Landed Estates Court after the farms had been consolidated. The agent went on to say—"My policy is to keep up the consolidation of the farms and to keep the holdings as large as possible, and I will not, therefore, permit subdivision." In a moment the hope of a man's life was blighted. His family was unsettled, and all his arrangements were upset; and then, after consultation with his family, the sons found that they were obliged to reconcile themselves to the arbitrary refusal of the agent, and to console themselves with the knowledge that there were fertile plains and wide lands abroad. The result was that, although the tenant was entitled in all equity to restore the farm to its original state of sub-division, he was prevented by the transaction which had taken place, and his sons were lost to the country. Then, he asked, if this was to be a Land Bill dealing with the rights of the tenants, why- should there not be some provisions in it to protect cases of this kind? All he wanted was that in regard to tenants with large holdings and land enough to make a comfortable arrangement with their family, and especially where the holdings were originally separated, restricted sub-division should be permitted, and that the landlord should be deprived of the power of putting an unreasonable and capricious veto upon the sub-division. At the same time, he would not place the power of sub-dividing the farms in the hands of the tenant, because he knew that in Ireland there was a tendency towards excess of sub- division; and so great and so foolish was the love of an Irishman for the soil that he would prefer settling his sons on a few

      39
      acres of land rather than send them abroad. It was only where the landlord unreasonably refused to give his consent to a sub-division that he would bring in the intervention of the Court; and if there was a Court competent to settle questions of rent it ought to have power to dispose of this question also, limited by the proviso that such sub-division should not in any case prejudice the interest of the landlord in the holding. He did not think it would be fair for the tenant to sub-divide his holding, and in this way reduce the chance the landlord had of getting the rent or increasing the compensation for disturbance in case of eviction; but he did think, taking into consideration the size of the holding, its history, and all the surrounding circumstances, that, if the Court should be of opinion that the sub-division would not be prejudicial to the landlord's interest in the holding, it should have the power of giving consent to the sub-division on such terms and conditions as it might think proper. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, who was so vigorously defending the Bill in its entirety, would, when he came back after the Whitsuntide Recess, be prepared to make some concessions. Certainly, a concession in this respect would prevent great irritation, and would give widespread satisfaction. If reasonable concessions were made, so as to give the tenant the right of free sale and confidence in the Court before which he had to go, and also to extend the number of peasant proprietors, he thought the Bill would be one that was calculated to throw a considerable quantity of oil upon very troubled waters.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 13, after "only" to insert the words "but if the landlord shall unreasonably decline or omit to give his consent to the sale to more than one person, the Court may give such consent."—(Mr. Givan.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONE: I at once commence what I have to say by two admissions—one is that the adoption of a Motion such as this seems to be desired by a very large proportion of the Members from Ireland. I am prepared to make this admission, and the second is, that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), by the form
      40
      in which he has put his Amendment, has taken great pains to avoid anything that might be injurious to the interest of the landlord. On the contrary, he has taken great pains to show that he is anxious to maintain as well as he can the interest of the landlord. But the first objection I take to the Amendment is that it is evidently calculated to be injurious to the interest of the landlord. My hon. Friend, in the terms of his Motion, has not only, like hon. Gentlemen opposite, withheld absolute discretion from the tenant, but he also imposes upon the Court the duty of compelling the landlord to sub-divide his property if he unreasonably refuses to comply with the wish of his tenant. Although I think my hon. Friend has laboured, with earnestness and sincerity in this behalf, I do not think it is altogether in his power to secure the object he has in view. For example, I am presuming that we shall now adhere to the principle of the Act of 1870, and of the present Bill in this respect—that the compensation for disturbance shall be on a varying scale, and that the amount of compensation for large holdings shall be less than that which is to be obtained for small holdings. But if that is so, there will be very serious difficulties you will have to encounter in breaking up large holdings into small holdings. If it is also provided that the farm, when broken up, shall form the ground for a larger claim for compensation for disturbance against the landlord than would be the case if the holding remained a large one, I do not think it would be possible to make this enactment distinctly compatible with entire justice to the landlord. But, beyond this, there are many other matters involved. Beyond this I urge the argument, which was scoffed at by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the privilege which it is now proposed to give to the tenants had been, in a manner, in the contemplation of the tenants themselves. I thought that a serious and a weighty argument; but the hon. Member for Cork ridiculed it, as he was perfectly entitled to do in a Parliamentary sense, and said—"You are giving to the tenants a great many things they had not expected." What we are giving to the tenants by the present portion of the Bill is the privilege of selling their tenant right. Am I to be told by the hon. Member

      41
      for Cork that that is a new and gratuitous proposition, without foundation in the traditions of the people, in the practice of the people, and in the expectations of the people? [Mr. PARNELL: I referred to a particular class of tenants.] I altogether disclaim all participation in that particular argument of the hon. Gentleman. It is surely one thing to remove restrictions in the disposal of an interest which exists in a certain form under the Land Act of 1870, as was ably shown by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Davey), and afterwards in a more definite form, and another to import a privilege that is entirely novel in its character. Then let us see what more is to be said, for there is a great deal more to be said; and I can assure my hon. Friend that if the question did not involve considerations of the gravest character, I should feel disposed to give every weight to the representations of Members for the Irish constituencies in order to meet their views. But let us consider the scope and basis of the Bill. The Bill makes, I admit, two large and serious changes. I do not say they are of equal magnitude, because I do not think they are. The first is that it guarantees tenant right, with respect to which I may say that it is not only established already in very extensive portions of the country, concentrated in Ulster, and dispersed over the rest of Ireland, but that it is also recommended to us by a very great weight of authority from without. The other great change, and the greatest change of all—at least, in my judgment, by far the greatest change of all—is the introduction of the jurisdiction of the Court to fix judicial rents between the landlord and the tenant. In making so great a change as that, and in assigning-to a Court the determination of that which is properly and economically, in all ordinary circumstances, far better settled by private agreement, we must consider both the grounds of that recommendation and the limits within which it is made. I hold it to be a matter of the greatest importance—and I would assure the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), if he were here, that it is not for the purpose of fastening upon him a personal responsibility, but of pressing on the mind of the House the due significance of a great public fact that I have always insisted on—I
      42
      hold it to be a matter of the highest importance to bear in mind that we have had various authorities, all thoroughly competent and respectable, examining into the state of the Land Question in Ireland, and that these authorities, acting under the sanction of the Crown, notwithstanding differences on a multitude of things, have all unanimously agreed on this—that it is desirable to introduce the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of determining judicial rents. If I found myself on their authority, which I think ought to carry immense weight in the minds of reasonable men, I must consider up to what point that weight of authority is to be carried, and I am not entitled to plead that general authority for the purpose of bringing within the jurisdiction of the Court matters which have never been examined or recommended, and matters which I have no right to say are recommendations which have ever been in the slightest degree within the scope of the inquiries of any of the Commissions. Now, my hon. Friend has founded his Amendment upon the mischief which, as he thinks, has resulted from the undue tendency to the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Ireland. I do not pretend to that acquaintance with the agricultural condition of Ireland which would enable me to support the statement of my hon. Friend; but I can well believe it, and I most certainly have the strongest conviction that the landlords of England have committed a great and serious error in this respect within the last 30 or 40 years, and have proceeded on a total misapprehension in assuming that the way to make agriculture cheap and profitable is to make the holdings large. They are now paying the penalty of their mistake, and I have not seen a landlord of whom I have inquired what has been the difference to him in the present distressed state of agriculture between a large holding and a small holding, who has not told me that his losses on a large holding has been far greater than upon a small one. Then, by any fair and legitimate means we can use, we should be glad to promote, if we can, any rational movement in another direction; but that is a question of public policy. It is a question, undoubtedly, of public policy; but it is one we cannot see our way to taking out of the hands of those entitled by law to adopt the

      43
      measures they think requisite for the management of their own property. We do not think that in making any recommendation at this moment we should have anything to rest upon except an argument, of some weight certainly, but, at the same time, one which has not been sifted in the latest public examination of the facts of the case, which rests on grounds entirely exceptional, and which, when we are attempting to carry a measure which is exceptional in its character, would be greatly enlarging the bounds of the Bill, without having the slightest support from authority. We have made a proposition as to the jurisdiction of the Court. We are now asked to extend the jurisdiction of the Court to the division of holdings through the medium of the regulations for the sale of the tenant's interest. That is, undoubtedly, beyond all question, taking out of the hands of the landlord one of the most distinctive features of the management of his estate. In the distinctions between the position of the tenant and of the landlord, there is none so fundamental as this—that the business of the tenant is with the holding, and the holding alone, while the business of the landlord is with the entire property. If we were to say to the tenant—"You shall, by an indirect process in the management of the estate, have the power of breaking up the holding for other people, and settling for the landlord through the Court what number of tenants he shall have," you would be plainly placing in the hands of the tenant and of the Court together one of the most essential responsibilities which belong to the management of landed property. And why should you stop there? Why not give the Court jurisdiction when similar questions arise in regard to sub-letting? It may be shown that, in some cases, sub-letting would be reasonable and natural. Why is not the judgment of the Court then to come in on the appeal of the tenant to determine whether the land may not be sub-let under given circumstances, and under securities like those which my hon. Friend proposes? But it does not even stop there, for, as far as I can see, I am not aware of any of those incidents which make up the character of proprietorship which we desire to maintain in its efficiency, which might not afford grounds quite as fair
      44
      and quite as applicable to be brought within, the jurisdiction of the Court. I am responsible for the proposals contained in the Bill. I believe in its utility, but I believe in its utility as a means of escape from greater evils, and I am not willing to be a party to its gratuitous extension where there is neither necessity nor conclusive authority to justify such extension. There is one other form of the argument which I desire to put to the Committee. I do not think, Sir, that we can safely overcharge this Bill. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen will be wise if they determine to take advantage of this Bill for the purpose of endeavouring, perhaps at a considerable expenditure of time, to introduce into it everything that they may individually, or that even an important body of them may believe to be the material constituent of a perfect Land Law for Ireland. I hope, Sir, that the Bill is a good ship, and that she carries sufficient cargo. But if she takes much more, and especially in deck loading, I am afraid lest she should founder or capsize. In other words, and in strictly Parliamentary language, let me observe upon what is the true character of our duty when we are dealing with a measure of this kind—the duty, above all, of the Government, but the duty also, undoubtedly, of Parliament. We must not be led by our own ideas of abstract perfection in a measure. If we can frame a measure which is sufficient in our conscientious judgment for the attainment of certain great public objects, the next thing which we have to consider is the balances of forces which it will have to encounter—the propelling forces which we can reckon in its favour, and the opposing forces which it will excite to resist its passing, and thereby defeat our efforts. Now, that has been the most anxious part of the task of the Government in the preparation of this measure. We have, we hope, framed a measure which it is well worth the while of the people of Ireland to accept; a measure which we hope will, without violence, but by a steady process, tend to allay and reduce to comparative insignificance the difficulties that now mar the relations of landlord and tenant. But having done that, and fully believing with my hon. Friends on this side that to have presented a weak measure on a subject of this kind would have

      45
      been idle fatuity, we are bound then to consider how we can frame such a measure best, and insure, humanly speaking, the assent of the Legislature to it. I cannot conceive a greater public evil than the failure of the measure. But if I have that impression about the failure of this measure, if my Colleagues and myself are anxious to use every effort they can to secure its passing, the first effort is to exclude from the measure all that they do not deem essential to their purpose, for fear that they should needlessly multiply and aggravate the obstacles they have to overcome. That is the first duty incumbent upon us; and it is on that ground, more than on the ground of any special narrow argument, that we are most desirous to exclude from the Bill, and to persuade the Committee and my hon. Friend if we can to exclude from the Bill, propositions which, although they might be useful in themselves, they must admit to be novel, for which they cannot claim any authority extraneous to this House, and which they cannot prove might not, by parity of reasoning, lead to many proposals which would tend to weaken the propelling force of reason and authority which we hope to enlist, and have, perhaps, enlisted in favour of this Bill, and to increase, on the other hand, the resisting forces against which we must be on our guard, and to which, above all, we must take care not to impart, by any act of ours, the appearance of reason. It is on that argument of political prudence that I would almost hope that Gentlemen, who may even attach great value to this proposition, may, nevertheless, be inclined to desist from prosecuting it. At any rate, they will see that it is not from pedantry, nor from indifference to the importance of their objects, but on a deliberate and careful examination of the interests involved in the question, and with the earnest desire to prosecute in the most effective manner the common end that we have in view, that we feel bound to say that we are not able to accede even to so carefully framed a proposition as that of my hon. Friend.
      COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he believed he expressed the sentiments of most Members from Ireland sitting on those Benches in saying that they were not insensible to the arguments so ably put before the Committee by the Prime
      46
      Minister. He felt sure his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) would give those arguments every consideration before deciding on the course to be pursued with regard to his Amendment. Still, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat exaggerated the possible effects which would follow from the adoption of his hon. Friend's Amendment. He could not admit the parity of the cases of sub-dividing and sub-letting. Subletting had been in the past, as was well known, and would be in the future, a most terrible evil; and he felt sure there was not a single Member from Ireland who would ask for one moment that subletting should be tolerated. As his hon. Friend had clearly and practically put it before the Committee, sub-division in itself was, no doubt, an evil; but he had not asked the Committee to pronounce in favour of it. As he had understood his hon. Friend, he asked the Committee and Her Majesty's Government not to pronounce in this Bill in favour of consolidation—not to pronounce, as it were, indirectly in favour of the system under which grazing farms were established. He appealed to the principle of free trade in land, and to the principle of contract, of which so much had been heard of late, in favour of this Amendment, which would set more land free, and thereby lessen the present land hunger by enabling those in want of farms to get them. But the effect of the Amendment would, after all, be but slight. It would not affect those large grazing farms which his hon. Friend had so well described, except very indirectly. The Amendment would, therefore, have but a limited effect; and he thought that very limitation might induce the right hon. Gentleman, even after all the arguments which he had laid before the Committee, to re-consider the question, and to say that the Government would leave it open during the progress of the Bill, in order to see if, on Report, something could be done in the direction of the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
      MR. LEAMYthought, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that it was his intention to exclude all Amendments extending the operation of the Bill, that it would save a good deal of the time in Committee if some Officer of the Crown would go through the Amend-

      47
      ments standing on the Paper, and then state those which the Government would accept; because, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, there was every reason to fear that no Amendments of any kind would be accepted. It was very desirable that the Committee should know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accept any substantial Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the consolidation of farms in England had worked badly for the landlords; and it was, therefore, only reasonable to conclude that consolidation would work badly in Ireland. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister said it was altogether too much to give the tenant the power of sub-dividing his holding with the sanction of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the great majority of Irish Members were in favour of the Amendment; and as he had declined to accede to it, he thought it would be well if Her Majesty's Government would give an intimation as to whether or not they intended to meet all the Amendments put forward by Irish Members in the same way.
      MAJOR O'BEIRNEpointed out that the County Court Judges were admitted to be unfit to deal with matters of this kind. For his own part, although he approved of small farms as much as other hon. Members, he could not agree to the Amendment in its present form, inasmuch as it left the question of subdivision "to be settled by the Court. He thought that some directions ought, at any rate, to be given that the landlord should receive compensation in cases of this kind.
      MR. GILLthought the Amendment, if it were adopted by the Government, would be found to be most useful. The only argument of any strength contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was that, by turning a large farm into a number of small ones, the claims for compensation for disturbance would be increased, and that this would work against the interest of the landlords. But he thought that difficulty could very easily be remedied by adding a proviso to the clause that the rate of compensation should remain the same for a portion as for the entire farm. By that plan the landlord's interest would be fully protected, and it would give an opportunity in urgent'
      48
      cases, where the Court thought it was for the good of the locality, to extend to the tenant the permission to subdivide his farm. He trusted the Amendment might still be agreed to by the Prime Minister.
      MR. FINDLATER, said, he regarded the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Givan) as a step in the right direction, and, therefore, trusted the Prime Minister would reconsider the determination he had expressed not to accede to it. With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, founded upon the injustice which might be caused by reason of increased compensation in cases when large holdings were divided, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Gill) would very easily remove the injustice which the right hon. Gentleman feared might ensue. No doubt it would be more troublesome to a landlord to have to collect his rent from several persons than from one; but in the peculiar circumstances of the case he thought the landlord might be fairly asked to make some concession, and to forego the process of consolidation which, at the present moment, was acting so injuriously to the best interests of the country. It was not to be supposed for a moment that the Court would act in any way harshly or unfairly towards the landlord or his interest. The Court would have the power of examining into all the circumstances of each case; and he was quite sure that the Court, which would be appointed by the Government, would be such as to give satisfaction to everyone. If it did not do so the Act would be altogether a failure. Of course, if the Amendment were accepted, some provision must be made for the apportionment of the rent in case the division was allowed by the Court. On the whole, he was quite sure the proposal of his hon. Friend would give great satisfaction to the tenant farmers in Ireland, and would satisfy the people that a genuine effort was being made to promote that general distribution of land which was so much wanted in Ireland.
      MR. BOURKEsaid, he hoped the Prime Minister would not follow the recommendation of the hon. Member who had just sat down, to disturb the determination already arrived at. For his own part, he was inclined to look at

      49
      this matter rather from a public point of view than from that of the landlord or tenant. He did so, notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the landlord must, if this Amendment were carried, suffer great injuries. No one could doubt that the effect of the Act of 1870 had been to increase very much the consolidation of holdings. The effect of this Amendment would be to increase the amount of claims for compensation for disturbance. Again, the tenant might sell only that portion of the tenancy which related to the valuable portion of the land, and then the landlord would retain only the less valuable portion of it. That was another case in which injury would arise to the landlord. He looked upon this point also from a public point of view, and was quite sure that the action of the Land League in such cases as that would be very potent and very quick. There was no doubt that the Land League would call upon all persons who had farms, say, of 100 acres, to apply to the Court for leave to sub-divide their holdings; and, of course, every pressure of the kind that had been but too frequent of late would be brought to bear on holders of larger properties to go to the Court in the same way. The Committee were aware that land hunger expressed itself in various ways; and he could not but think that this Amendment, if adopted, would give it the power of expressing itself very powerfully. The sub-division of land was already a fertile source of family disputes in Ireland. One of the witnesses, among several who gave evidence on this point before the Bessborough Commission, stated that nothing was so fatal to the peace of families and the neighbourhood as that anything like divided ownership should exist—that was to say, divided ownership of the tenancy, which the individual members of the tenant's family could bring pressure to bear upon the father to divide as they wished.
      MR. LITTONsaid, it would be to inflict a great injustice, quite outside the object of the Bill, to place landlords in a position in which they would be exposed to injury. It was manifest that the object of the measure was that the tenant should have security for the improvement of his holding, that he should pay a fair and reasonable rent, and that he should also have the power of
      50
      selling his interest in his tenancy. That was the object of the tenant right movement—which had never claimed the right of' sub-division. Now, he thought that in asking the landlords to concede those points they were asked to concede a great deal, and he did not believe the area of the Bill would be wisely extended by asking for a further concession in the direction of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). If the Amendment were agreed to, a landlord who had, say, 20 tenants, and whose rents were punctually paid, might have the number of his tenants increased to 100, because there was no limitation in the proposal of the hon. Member as to the amount of subdivision which might take place, and in that respect the Amendment before the Committee went far beyond the intention of the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan), who proposed that the principle of sub-division should be confined to farms of £100 annual value, and to portions of them of not less than £30 annual value. The Amendment before the Committee, therefore, appeared to him more unreasonable than that of the hon. Member for Limerick County; and in the interest of the Bill itself he took the opportunity of stating that his opinion did not coincide with that of hon. Members who supported it.
      MR. SHAWentreated the Prime Minister to look again into the question and reconsider it before the Report. For his own part, he was in favour of completely protecting the interest of the landlord; there was no reason why the landlord's property should be cut up, or why he should have 10 tenants on his estates instead of one. He thought the case would be met by adding to the subsection the words—"Except such cases as may be brought before the Court upon reasonable and just grounds."
      MR. MARUMreminded the Committee that the late Mr. Butt was in favour of sub-dividing farms exceeding 60 acres in extent into parts of not less than 30 acres and £30 rental. No doubt the question was beset with difficulties; but, at the same time, public feeling in Ireland was very much in favour of the sub-division of large holdings, and he trusted the Government would re-consider the Amendment. He wished to know what would be done in the case of co-partners or tenants in

      51
      common? There was no plurality clause in the Bill to meet cases of the kind, and he understood that if there were two partners a sale could not be effected.
      MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the Amendment before the Committee was felt by the great majority of Irish Members to be vitally important to the interests of Ireland. In his opinion, without some provision of the bind proposed by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), the Bill would be practically useless in many parts of the country. Unless the power of sub-division were conferred upon the tenants, many districts of Ireland would, he believed, remain depopulated. It was a mistake to suppose that he and his Friends wanted to see farms established of 5 or 10 acres. They wanted to see farms of about 30 acres, on which a man and his family could live comfortably; and it was a well-known fact that there were farms of even 20 acres in Ireland on which the occupiers were more independent than on large farms of 200 and 300 acres. The Prime Minister had certainly advanced no argument of sufficient strength to sustain his objection to this Amendment. After saying there was no necessity for the change proposed, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Bill would be overcharged by bringing forward the Amendment; but he appealed to him to say whether this was not the first Amendment that had been brought forward by an Irish Member, with the exception only of that which he (Mr. O'Sullivan) had moved on the previous evening, and which dealt with the same subject. He and his hon. Friends had not the slightest wish to impede the progress of the measure; but unless some proposal was made by the Government they would feel it their duty to press this question to a division.
      MR. CALLANbelieved that sub-division and sub-letting had been for many years the curse of Ireland; and, feeling very strongly in favour of the Bill, he should certainly vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan if it went to a division. He suggested, however, that the Government should add to the sub-section the words "unless to occupiers on the same estate." It could not be said that this would increase the number of the landlord's tenants. On the contrary, the number would be diminished by the circum-
      52
      stance that the tenancy would be purchased by tenants already on his estates. It would tend to consolidate the farms, and he was in favour of that. Therefore, he hoped the Government would take into consideration the making of a special exception in favour of tenants on the same estate.
      DR. LYONSthought there was a considerable amount of misapprehension existing as to the extent to which very large tracts of land in Ireland were held as single holdings. Anyone who consulted Thom's Directory, which was an excellent authority on agricultural statistics, would find that the number of holders of farms from 50 to 100 acres was 56,513, and of farms from 100 to 200 acres 22,223. The next in order, 8,296, was the number of the holders of farms from 200 to 500 acres; and there were only 1,546 holders of farms in Ireland which exceeded the latter number of acres. Considerably more than half, very nearly three-fourths—namely, 414,261 of the farms were of and under 30 acres. The Prime Minister having pointed out that an Amendment of this kind would have the effect of overweighting the Bill, and, to some extent, risking its prospects, he trusted the hon. Member would not press the matter to a division.
      MR. PARNELLhoped his hon. Friend would not withdraw his Amendment. The test which the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had applied to this subject was not a correct one. He thought it would be well that, at least, a very large proportion of the land of Ireland, which was in the occupation of the 1,000 tenants whom he described as holding over 500 acres each, should be made available. Many of those men held over 5,000 acres; and he considered it of the utmost importance that power should be given to the Commission, or the County Court Judges, to arrange for the sub-division of those large estates for the purpose of getting the industrial population of Ireland on the land. This was at the root of the question. Ireland would always be poor until they enabled the bone and sinew of the country to work on the land; and if they started by removing a large proportion of the land from the possibility of the people getting on it, they would establish a system of entail which would bring about the most dis-

      53
      astrous results. The Prime Minister had warned the Irish Members that they were undertaking considerable responsibility in pressing Amendments on the attention of the Government which were likely to overweight the Bill. It was, he thought, necessary to come to some understanding on this subject, because he was sure that no Irish Members desired to press any Amendments on the Government which had no chance of being accepted. Many people in Ireland had been under the impression that there was a good chance of having the Bill materially amended in the direction indicated by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland in their recent pastoral. He himself had never had very much faith in that; but surely they were only occupying the time of the House uselessly by continuing to move Amendments which the Prime Minister could not entertain favourably, and which he looked upon in advance as being within the class which were likely to overweight the Bill. It would be better, therefore, to ascertain what were the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman considered could be entertained without running the risk of defeating the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had put his position very plainly before the Committee. He admitted that Irish public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan; but he pleaded weakness, that he had not force sufficient to carry this Bill through Parliament in a stronger form than it was at present, and that he should, by accepting the Amendment, run the risk of defeat from his own supporters in "another place." This might be an excuse for the right hon. Gentleman passing the Bill in its entirety; but it was no excuse for Irish Members to accept it. It would therefore clear the way, and save an infinite amount of time, if they could have some knowledge or intimation as to which of the multitudinous Amendments on the Paper the Prime Minister was able to accept. The Irish people would then know whether they ought to prepare their minds to accept the Bill in its present imperfect condition. For his own part, he should consider himself bound, after having placed his views before them, to take the course which he considered to be right, whether they accepted the Bill or not. But here was
      54
      an Amendment supported by the almost unanimous opinion of Irish Members, and the Prime Minister was obliged to admit that English public opinion was so weak behind him in support of the Bill that he dared not accept it. There was no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would plead the same excuse for rejecting other Amendments; and, therefore, he hoped Irish Members would not, for want of intimation on the part of the Prime Minister, be put to the necessity of wasting the time of the Committee by moving Amendments which he could not accept. Although the Prime Minister had exercised his remarkable skill in trying to show that the Amendment was not a good one, he had never seen him less successful in making out his case. He must have thought that some additional right was being asked for the Irish tenants. But Irish Members were only seeking to elevate the tenant's right which the Government had introduced into the Bill. While the landlord was allowed to consolidate his estate the tenant was deprived of the power of selling his tenant right to more than one person. He could not conceive the slightest reason for such a limitation. Those in favour of the Amendment had upon their side the authority of the late Mr. Butt and Professor Baldwin, who recommended that something should be done in this matter. The latter declared that it was absolutely necessary that some steps should be taken for the purpose of bringing back the population of Ireland to the land.
      MR. BIGGARremarked, that the Prime Minister had stated that one of the clauses of the Bill appointed a very powerful and important tribunal, which was to fix the rent of holdings in Ireland. But when this Amendment came forward the right hon. Gentleman also said it was not desirable to give similar powers with regard to the question of sub-division of particular holdings. Now, it seemed to him that if the Prime Minister thought it legitimate to give such an amount of power to this tribunal for the purpose of fixing rents, it would not be giving an unreasonable amount of power to allow the Court to decide the cases in which sub-division should take place. Because the number of sales which would take place in Ireland during the present generation could not be very great, and of those a

      55
      very large proportion of the tenants would not wish to sub-divide their holdings. Therefore the number of instances in which this question would arise would be anything but large. On the point he had referred to, then, he did not think the Prime Minister had made out any case. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had said that this Amendment would overcharge the Bill. But it was not the Amendment that would overweight the Bill—it was the Prime Minister, who first gave authority to the tenant to sell his interest, and placed upon the tenant's right of sale a number of restrictions which would render it almost useless. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced into the Bill two subjects of great importance—emigration and the reclamation of waste land—which were really unnecessary for reforming the relations between landlord and tenant. He could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman threw overboard those parts of his scheme, he would very much lighten the ship and give an opportunity for the discussion of substantial Amendments to other parts of the Bill. The result of refusing this Amendment would be that ultimately there would be none but large occupiers in Ireland, and that, in consequence, the population would be driven off the land. That, as was perfectly well known, was directly contrary to what competent authorities believed to be for the interest of the people of Ireland. The Bill as it stood was, therefore, calculated to intensify the evil which now existed. He contended that the people should be allowed to sub-divide their farms down to a certain point, because it was clear they would not do so unless it was proved by their experience that they could get more money for their holdings in several portions than by selling their interest entire. He thought the Government should weigh this question thoroughly, and agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan.
      MR. BYRNEsaid, that, up to the present time, he had not spoken either for or against the Bill. Nor had he addressed the Committee upon any of the proposals which had been the subjects of discussion. That, however, was no reason why he should not, to the best of his ability, support any Amendment which he conceived to be good, or, on the other hand, oppose such as he con-
      56
      sidered to be bad. He thought the Amendment before the Committee should have received the support of the Government, and he was astonished when he found that the Prime Minister not only did not support it, but actually went the length of opposing it. It appeared to him that the Government were jealous of giving to the future tenant what he held to be nothing at all. They already, in Clause 20, gave power to the Court to purchase estates and sell them in parcels to the tenants, and yet they refused to the tenant the power of applying to the Court to sell his interest to more than one person. He thought the Government were drawing the line at almost nothing, and that the limitation imposed upon tenants not to sell their tenancies to more than one person would have a very injurious effect. Within his own knowledge there was a gentleman in Ireland who farmed so many acres of land that he was obliged to keep a horse for the purpose of carrying him over his farm. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take time for further consideration, and that he would not refuse to accept the Amendment before the Committee, otherwise it would be the duty of Irish Members to resist the passing of the clause.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 206: Majority 168.—(Div. List, No. 228.)
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he proposed to add at the end of line 13 the following words:—
      "Unless when the yearly value of the holding exceeds £30, and so that neither the part sold nor the part remaining shall he of less value than £15 per annum."
      He had no doubt that the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan) would have worked well in the county represented by the hon. Member, where, he supposed, there were many large farms; but the proposal would be of no use in Cavan and other counties with which he (Mr. Biggar) was acquainted. He was not disposed to give his adhesion to the proposal to leave this question of sub-division to the decision of the tribunal appointed by the Bill, because he thought that every farmer should have authority to dispose of his interest in whatever way he might

      57
      think best. By the Act of 1870 it was declared that a certain interest in his holding belonged to the occupier; and, therefore, seeing that the occupier had that right, he failed to see on what grounds he was now refused the liberty of selling it to more than one person. If it could be shown that this power of selling to more than one person was calculated to injure the interest of the landlord, that contention would, of course, be entitled to its full weight, and he should not consider himself in a position to defend the Amendment he was about to propose; but he held that it would in no degree lessen the security of the landlord, because it was well known that small holdings would sell at a higher rate of purchase and rent than larger holdings. Although his Amendment proposed a minimum of £15, the actual limit would probably be from £20 to £30, because holdings exceeding £30 in value could hardly be divided with perfect equality. No doubt there would be difficulties in the way of an exact sub-division of farms.
      And it being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 13th June.
      The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
      The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

QUESTION.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTURBANCES AT QUINLAN'S CASTLE, NEW PALLAS, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. WARTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, the only Member of the Government he saw present, Whether any recent news had been received as to what was taking place at Quinlan's Castle?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was not at present in charge of the Irish Office or of the Irish Business in that House. He had not had an opportunity of seeing his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland since the Sitting was suspended; but he was sure that when he arrived he would satisfy the inquiry of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  IRISH EXECUTIVE.

    MOTION OF CENSURE.
    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [THIRD NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd May], "That the Debate on Question,
    'That, in the opinion of this House, the action of the Irish Executive in arbitrarily arresting a Member of the House without reasonable ground; in proclaiming a state of siege in Dublin; in imprisoning the Rev. Mr. Sheehy and many other men of high character and good conduct; and in affording the use of the armed forces of the Crown for the wholesale execution of wanton and cruel evictions is an abuse of the exceptional powers conferred by Parliament; and is calculated to promote disaffection in Ireland.'—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy,)
    be now adjourned."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that in the rapid pace at which events were marching in Ireland the situation was in some degree modified from what it was when the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for the County Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was moved. The facts upon which he meant to rely were admitted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and were thus left to public judgment. One of the most prominent statements on the other side was that Dublin had been proclaimed to be in what they called a state of siege for the purpose of arresting Mr. Dillon. The Executive were thus ready to sacrifice the Constitutional rights of 300,000 citizens in order to reach the individual speaker of a single speech. It was true that the Chief Secretary for Ireland found some fault with the use of the phrase "a state of siege," and drew comparisons between what that phrase meant on the Continent and in Ireland. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would maintain that practically it meant the same thing; but he claimed that the standard of comparison which they had a right to set up in the matter of Constitutional liberty in Ireland was not the standard of Continental despotism, but of the rights of British law among British citizens; and he maintained, judging by that standard, that the deprivation of 300,000 citizens of their Constitutional rights for the purpose of reaching one man was a gross violation of Constitu-

    59
    tional rights. With regard to the Police Circular, they had the admission of the Chief Secretary of its authenticity and purpose. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would sum up the issue of that point. In the first place, the Irish Party did not challenge the statement that outrages, even gross outrages, existed, and did not charge the Circular, as the Chief Secretary suggested, with manufacturing outrage. Their charge was that it manufactured and suggested, not the manufacture of outrages, but the manufacture of suspicion. Next, the right hon. Gentleman contended that the phrase "leaders and instigators of popular movements" was intelligible. The right hon. Gentleman explained that a popular movement, as understood by this Circular, was not a popular movement in the ordinary acceptation of the word—a movement merely for the securing of public rights—but a movement for the securing of unjust ends by illegal means. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished to point out that it was not to his mind, nor to the minds of active politicians, whether of popular or unpopular opinions, that this Circular was addressed. It was addressed to policemen putting a Coercion Act into force; and, practically, there was no distinction in the mind of policemen in such a condition between a movement which was popular and Constitutional and a movement which was popular and illegal. The effect of the Circular was not to establish, but to confuse, the distinction between popular and unconstitutional movement, and to induce the policemen to regard, or to reasonably suspect, every popular agitator as being an abettor and inciter of agrarian outrage. And, finally, the charge still remained unanswered that, in a document approved by a British Minister, deliberate mendacity was recommended. The Circular was an eloquent testimony to the steady demoralization which a false position exercised upon oven a truthful nature. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) ventured to say that 12 months ago no man in that House would have shrunk back more indignantly from the contemplation of any participation in such a Circular than the man who now admitted his responsibility for it. They were told by the Prime Minister on the first stage of the Coercion Bill that the right of association even for the purpose of in-
    60
    ducing people to break contracts would not be touched by the Coercion Bill. They knew very well what he was hinting at—that the Land League organization, even when it proceeded to that extent, would not be interfered with by coercive legislation. The Common Law remedies would remain the same. But had the Common Law been left to deal with such cases? Several of the warrants—he believed that against Mr. Kettle, for instance—described the offence as endeavouring to induce people not to pay their rents—in other words, to commit the Common Law offence of breach of contract. The practical operation of coercive legislation was in distinct and violent contrast with the declarations of the Prime Minister. The Solicitor General for Ireland, in the gush of his innocence, ventured to predict what would be the operation of the Coercive Acts when passed. What did he say? In his Arcadian dream of the future he anticipated that the number of persons imprisoned would be "one;" but they now amounted to something like 120. With these facts before them, he asked had coercive legislation been obtained under false pretences or not? As to the kind of persons who would be arrested, the Chief Secretary described them as "dissolute ruffians," "village tyrants," "mauvais sujets," and "midnight marauders." "Dissolute ruffians!" A Catholic clergyman, of unimpeachable character, was he a specimen? "Village tyrants!" His hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary was among their "suspects," towards whom the feeling of the people of Ireland was not that he was the "tyrant of a village," but one of the saviours of a nation. "Midnight marauders!" No; but public speakers on public platforms in the light of day attended by Government reporters. The letter which had been written by Mr. Dillon to the Speaker declared distinctly that he was coming to that House to state the case of his constituents and a large section of the Irish people when he was arrested. The Chief Secretary for Ireland almost said, or suggested, that if he had known Mr. Dillon was coming over for that purpose, he would not have arrested him. Now, that was proved on the best evidence, the evidence of Mr. Dillon himself; and the Chief Secretary, as a man of honour, was bound to order his release, in order

    61
    to enable Mr. Dillon to discharge his duty to his constituents and that Assembly. There could be no doubt that some portions of Ireland were in a state of considerable disturbance; that outrages were frequent and sometimes revolting; but what he asked the House to understand, as a necessary distinction towards a true comprehension of the situation in Ireland, was that there was a vast difference between what he might roughly call disturbance and what he would call outrage. He would class as outrages a murder such as the brutal murder in the County Galway, or a midnight visit, or the houghing of cattle. Such things as these were pure terrorism and inexcusable crime. But what he would call disturbance was the tumult or the riot that took place when an eviction was being attempted. It would be altogether erroneous and unjust to put such disturbance in the category of outrage. The provocation came from the evicting landlord; the disturbers, acting in the light of day, and not in the secret-ness of darkness, accepted the risks of their action; and the disturbers were men fighting for their cabins, their fields, and their children. If any loss of life occurred as the consequence of eviction attempted and eviction resisted, before we could lay any responsibility on those who resisted, we must be satisfied of the justice of the attack. Let the House dismiss from its judgment the utterly erroneous impression that the disturbance, which was the result of attempted eviction, was mainly the work of the Land League organization. The movement had gone on of itself, because its causes lay deep in the social conditions of the Irish people. Men and women did not face the risks of collision with armed soldiers and police in obedience to any eloquence, however persuasive. Were the evictions just or unjust? That was the question to ask; and if the evictions were unjust, the evictors were the originators of disturbance and the persons criminally responsible. At the Morning Sitting the Prime Minister gave an example of what appeared to him a case of the refusal of a fair rent by solvent tenants on the estate of Lord Kenmare; but Lord Kenmare was only one of the many evicting landlords whose names were mentioned. What of the Earl of Arran, another of the evicting landlords in the list quoted? Bead the evidence
    62
    on the management of this estate given before the Royal Commissioners by Professor Baldwin, a Government official. There was a case on that estate of a farm on which there were three changes of tenancy in two years, with an increment of 25 per cent on each change, which, as Professor Baldwin showed, amounted to an increase of 95 per cent on this one farm in the course of two years. In another case, the rent being £6 10s. 6d. in 1860, was raised, by successive increases, until in 1869 it had reached the sum of £12 13 s. 2d.—that is to say, in which the rent was doubled in the course of nine years. Take the other case which he mentioned at Question time—the case of the Arranmore Island, in which the Goshawk was employed in carrying the police to serve ejectment notices. According to Father Walker, the people were, through the combined influences of the failure of the kelp trade, of the potato crop, and he believed also of the labour market in England, in a condition of deplorable want. Rents had been raised in one case from £81 to £182 0s. 4d., the Government valuation being £72 5s.; in another from £36 18 s. to £71 18 s., the Government valuation being £37 3s.; and the abject misery of some of the inhabitants was such that a case was given by this clergyman of a whole family sleeping in one bed, without distinction of sex, for want of clothing. The statement, in answer to Father Walker, by Sir William Charley was on these points, he found, not contradictory, but confirmatory. What added a sardonic element to this tragic spectacle was the fact that the Goshawk was employed last year in the distribution of food to the semi-starved population of these same isles. The distress on these isles had been described by everybody who had visited them as extreme. The question remained whether this distress was general. He would not then argue the question whether or not a tenant who was able to pay an unjust rent was or was not justified in refusing to pay that rent because of his desire to help his poorer brethren, and to fulfil what he considered the highest class of social comradeship and common citizenship. He would not argue that question, because he did not wish to overload his case, and because he submitted that the Government, in justification of their proceedings, were bound to show not merely that some

    63
    such cases existed, but that they formed a large proportion of the persons against whom eviction processes were being carried out. Therefore, the real point upon which he had to decide was, not whether there were some tenants who could pay rent and would not, but whether the distress and inability to pay rent was general. Let them see what were admitted facts on that point. It was admitted that there were three bad harvests, and it was not contended by any person acquainted with Ireland that one good harvest, admitting that of last year to have been good, was sufficient to restore the fortunes of the tenants whom three bad harvests had prostrated. He came next to a second point, which would be admitted by hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, that the depression in agriculture had been largely aggravated by what one of themselves, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), called "relentless foreign competition;" and, thirdly, Members on Liberal Benches would allow that it was an injustice to drive out these tenants, without any compensation, because of an inability to pay an unjust rent; but assuredly he was wasting his time in entering into a prolonged argument to prove to the present Ministry that inability to pay rent was general. Were not the Ministers the authors of the Disturbance Bill of last year? And were they not as such in this perplexing dilemma—either the inability to pay rent was general, or the Disturbance Bill of last year was supported and carried on false pretences? Deny the universality or, at least, the prevalence of distress, and, therefore, inability to pay rent; and what unmeaning, and even mendacious, words were those as to sentences of evictions being almost equivalent to a sentence of starvation, and all the other eloquent, but to our minds unexaggerated, pictures of Irish rural life which they heard from the Treasury Bench last Session. Her Majesty's Ministers could not escape from, those statements and acts of then own; and those statements and acts irresistibly prove that the large majority of tenants against whom eviction was decreed were not unwilling, but unable, to pay rent. The recent Return on evictions proved that the numbers of threatened evictions reached what, without exaggeration, he might call an appalling total. At the last Easter Sessions
    64
    alone the number of decrees obtained was, according to the Return, 3,003. There were, besides, 91 decrees of ejectment from the Superior Courts. That made a total of about 12,000 people threatened with eviction; but mark this. As he understood the Return, it took no account of the actions against tenants brought for the recovery of debt—that was to say, the actions which enabled the landlord to sell out the interest of the tenant, and to deprive him of all benefit from the Act of 1870, or the Land Bill that was now before the House. Let him point to the fact that these actions, as the collisions between the Emergency men and the Land Leaguers showed, had become one of the most common form of proceeding against the tenant, and accordingly they must set down a large number of tenants as threatened with eviction in this shape. Putting all these things together, ejectment decrees from the Quarter Sessions, ejectment decrees from the Superior Courts, and actions for the recovery of debt, he thought he was within the limit in saying that between 15,000 and 20,000 people in Ireland were now threatened with becoming what the Prime Minister described as houseless and homeless, without hope and without remedy. What, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asked, in the name of the Irish people, was to become of those hapless creatures? The Government asked the Irish Members to "Bid them obey the law." What did that prayer mean but a request that they should ask them to allow themselves to be driven, without hope and without remedy, from their homes, because they were deserted by a Government supposed to be anxious for the "protection of life and property;" were they to abandon the means of protection which their own efforts supplied to them? What were the Government going to do, he asked, and all Ireland asked, for these people? The prayer came to the Government not merely from desolate hearths and threatened homes, but from desperate men and women, driven to the poor means of self-preservation at their disposal. The demand came from the representatives of all sections of popular opinion in Ireland—from moderate as well as from extreme men—from a Prelate like Archbishop Croke, from an organ so moderate as The Freeman's Journal. The Government told them that this Bill would

    65
    better their position as tenants. They would have ceased to be tenants by the time the Bill had become law. Could anything be a more cruel mockery than to bid these people hope with the bailiff at the door and the crowbar already on the roof-tree, while the Government measure crept along at a pace more slow than that of the Alexandrine. The Conservative and Whig Obstructionists of this measure might propose frivolous and dilatory Amendments, might waste time in the repetition of imbecile fallacies, but meantime their fate advanced towards them with the speed of lightning on the swift wing of landlord hate, and the Ministerial position was that of aiding in this work of destruction by soldiers, sailors, and police, charges of cavalry, threatened bombardment, and by gunboats; and by way of making the course of the tenant still more helpless, they imprisoned everyone who dared to raise his voice on behalf of the oppressed. The future was dark and dangerous; but it was made so by the relentless avarice of many landlords and the criminal neglect of the Government. The landlords were the perpetrators and the Government were the aiders of outrage and the abettors of disturbance.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that when the Sitting was suspended last Tuesday the House was discussing the Motion for the adjournment of the present debate. He would suggest that that Motion be withdrawn, in order that the debate might be carried on upon the Main Question.
    MR. PARNELLasked, on behalf of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), who was not present, to be allowed to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had put himself forward as a champion of a Constitutional agitation which had conferred immeasurable benefits on the tenantry of Ireland, and he understood that the complaint of the hon. Member was that the Act for Protection of Life and Property had been put in force to repress that Constitutional agitation, and that leaders of Constitutional agitation who
    66
    had committed no crime had been arrested and were now incarcerated. Now, he held in his hand a Return which every Member had in his possession. Some of the apostles of this "holy and sacred cause" of defending their holdings, as the hon. Member had called it, were there recorded, and he found, commencing among the last on the list was one Patrick Ryan, and the advantage that he had conferred upon his country—at the instigation of agitators, as he apprehended—was recorded thus:—"Murder, committed in a prescribed district, and for an act of violent conduct tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order"—
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, his statement was, that among the persons arrested under the Act were those whose only crime was that of having taken part in a Constitutional agitation. He did not say that all the persons arrested were of that character; but he repudiated the statement that the organization of which he was a member had anything to do with murder.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was glad to hear that the hon. Member only countenanced some of the persons who had been arrested; and he was sure that there were some whom the hon. Member would not seek to protect. Taking the next case promiscuously from the list, he found the man was arrested because he was suspected of having committed murder in a prescribed district. As far as he had an opportunity of examining the Return while the hon. Member was speaking, he found that of the whole number of 54, eight were charged with murder, or incitement to murder, as categorical offences; two with treasonable practices, and nine with having broken into dwellings and beaten the persons found inside, stolen their arms, or fired at them. The hon. Member would hardly attempt to vindicate persons of that kind as having been engaged in a Constitutional agitation. It was not necessary to go in detail through the Return; but, he would ask, could anyone who read the public newspapers of the day suppose that this agitation, this "holy and sacred resistance" as the hon. Member called it, was limited to those who were unable to pay their rents? How often did hon. Members read in the newspapers of

    67
    sheriffs' sales in which military and police were engaged in protecting persons from injury; and how, after the cattle, or other goods, which the sheriff had seized were put up for sale, the principle was said to he vindicated, and the tenant paid the rent straight off? Surely such cases, and they were of nearly daily occurrence, were not cases of inability to pay rent. No matter how deplorable the condition of persons, nothing could justify outrage. He would give the outline of a case which happened on the 26th of April, two days after the speeeh of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), the necessity for whose incarceration no one regretted more than he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did. The wife of a man who was murdered gave this narrative upon her oath—
    "I and my husband were in bed. I heard a noise. A party of men broke in the door. They went into the bedroom, which was dark. When they came in they went over to the bed in which I and three of my children were lying. I called out. They went over to the bed in which my husband and son Martin were lying. They told my husband to rise and come out. He said he was sick. They said he must. They caught and pulled him out of bed. They took him out of bed, and laid him on the stones outside. They came back into the room, and took my son Martin and laid him on the stones. When they had taken the two out of the house they began shooting. I was standing at the bedroom window. After the men went away, I went out, and saw my husband and my son Martin lying dead on the flags."
    If that was the way in which those who had influence among the people exerted that influence—not in redressing wrong, not in alleviating suffering, not in distributing charity, but in instigating crime and outrage, he thought conduct of that kind could not be too severely condemned. He would not weary, or he might say outrage, the feelings of the House with the narratives before him of other crimes. Nothing could be more cruel, nothing more heartless, than that to which he had referred, and he hoped there was no Member of that House who would seek to justify a proceeding of that kind. He put it to the common sense of any person who read journals of the day whether the present state of Ireland was not attributable to the action of the Land League? He did not mean to say that that was their object. He said it was the result of their action. Was there not a frightful load of responsibility lying at the doors of
    68
    those who were answerable for what was recorded in the daily papers? Was there any hon. Member in the House who would say that, so far, the Irish Executive had been too anxious or too vigorous in trying to repress these mischiefs? Those with whom this agitation originated, and by whom it was maintained, were unable in the present state of the agitation in Ireland to cope with the mischief that had arisen. It was like the story in the Arabian Nights; it was easy enough to uncork the bottle and let out the genie, but perfectly impossible to shut him up again. It was easy enough by violent speeches, by irritating topics, to lash a suffering people—and many of them had suffered, and were still suffering—into frenzy. What we had to deal with was a state of things like that mentioned in the House to-day, in which shots were deliberately interchanged between the peasantry of Clare and Her Majesty's Forces and the Constabulary. In that state of things, was it not necessary that the Executive charged with the preservation of peace and good order, should exercise to the utmost all the powers with which they were invested by the law? If the whole Army were employed in preventing these outrages, he could not think their services would be misapplied. He was a very subordinate Member of the Government; but he thought that if a Government, who saw such a state of things going on, did not exercise to the utmost the powers with which they were invested in trying to prevent bloodshed, or crime, or outrage among the peasantry of Ireland, it would incur a grave responsibility, and would not deserve to retain the power or be charged with the duty of keeping peace and good order in the country.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he fully recognized the very great difficulty of the situation in which the Government were placed. On the one hand, landlords were pressing, possibly in some cases with undue harshness, for their rents for the very means of existence, and, on the other hand, a large portion of the tenantry was excited and unsettled, and the more unsettled by the very fact that the Land Bill was undergoing discussion by the House. It was a thankless position to have to stand between those two bodies. He was always sorry when he saw the Chief Secretary for Ireland abused and upbraided in the House.

    69
    He thought that any man who looked back upon the right hon. Gentleman's career and remembered that his first essay in public life was the contribution of relief to poor perishing peasants in the West of Ireland, must know that the right hon. Gentleman could feel no pleasure in sanctioning the use of the military force of the Crown against these Irish tenants at the present moment. With regard to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), he would be very glad if some arrangement could be come to whereby that Gentleman, who was an honourable, courageous, and straightforward man, could be restored to the discharge of his duties in the House. Such a thing had been, heard of as the release on parole of Smith O'Brien. He could assure the House that the Irish people looked upon John Dillon as a second Smith O'Brien. With regard to the arrest of Father Sheehy, he would remind the House of the seriousness of arresting a Roman Catholic priest in Ireland. If the Roman Catholic clergy had not taken part in this agitation, they would have had loss of life to an enormous extent. The ground would be red at this moment with the blood of British soldiers and civilians. He could not at all justify the actions or language of these gentlemen. He hoped that some arrangement could be arrived at, honourable to the Government and to themselves, whereby Mr. Dillon and Father Sheehy could be liberated from prison. If that course were adopted, he thought it would to a great extent allay the bitter feeling which unfortunately prevailed in Ireland. Seeing, however, what the Government were doing in that House, he could not bring himself to be a party to a Vote of Censure upon them, and therefore he should divide against the Motion.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, that whenever the state of the administration of Ireland came up for consideration in the House it was customary, as had been done by his hon. Friend near him, to remind them that the responsibility of Ministers was heavy, the duties distracting, and appeals were made to the friendly forbearance of their critics. He admitted the disturbed state of the country—that was all too palpable to everyone. He admitted, too, that this disturbance had taxed the temper, the capacity, and the resources of the Executive. But the
    70
    force of the ad misrecordum plea put in from Ministers was mitigated by the fact that they were in a large measure the authors of their own difficulties. They had been warned long and often that the rusty instruments of repression that they were so laboriously refurbishing would break in their hands and wound them. But they had heeded not the warning. And as for the thickening troubles, why, no body of men ever made such frantic efforts to enter Office as the present occupants. The legitimate weapons of Party warfare were sometimes, to secure that end, illegitimately wielded. He had no doubt that Ministers had found that the pleasures of possession were not equal to the pleasures of anticipation. It was not very Christlike, but he feared it was very human, for their opponents to mete out to them the same measures that they had meted out to their opponents under other circumstances. What were the reasons assigned by the Government for demanding coercive powers? He did not wish to put extracts from the speeches of Ministers in juxtaposition with their works. That had been done with damaging; effect by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would take the general spirit and substance of their statements, and test them with their performances. The contention of the Cabinet was that there had been established in Ireland a "social terror" and agrarian tyranny—that the law of the land had been superseded by the law of the Land League; that the new law was enforced by gangs of desperadoes and miscreants; that the despotism that these men had set up, partly from love of gain and partly from love of mischief, was hateful to the people generally, but they were unable to free themselves from it. It hung like a horrid nightmare over the land, and they could not shake themselves clear of it. The Irish Secretary said he knew these marauders, or at least his police knew them. Although noisy, they were not numerous; and if Parliament would only give him the power to lay hands on them at once, and, without the inconvenience of a jury, put them in a place where they would cease from troubling, he would promise a complete and speedy re-establishment of law and order. To induce the House more readily to comply with their demands, the Government undertook not to interfere with the legiti-

    71
    mate privileges of popular agitation. The Press was to be untrammelled, public meetings were to be held as heretofore, and comment and criticism on the action of the Executive was to be as unchecked in the future as it had been in the past. All that the Irish Secretary wanted was power to impound the miscreants until the social virus with which they had innoculated the population had been exorcised. Parliament only too readily granted these powers. They superseded the Constitution, and established as arbitrary a mode of rule in Ireland as that which existed in Russia. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] He said "Yes, yes!" The law might be more leniently enforced in Ireland than in Russia; but the law as it stood was as far-reaching and uncontrolled in one country as in the other. It could not be too often proclaimed, it could not be too indelibly stamped upon the public mind of this country, that a Liberal Parliament had handed over the liberties of the Irish people to the mercy of an arbitrary magistracy, a vindictive police, and to that vilest and meanest of all created things, a political spy. How had the Executive used their powers? The Irish Executive themselves being the witness, Ireland was more disturbed to-day than it was at the commencement of the Session—more disturbed, indeed, in the estimation of some than it had been for the last half-century. Coercion had failed—failed egregiously, failed disastrously, and, speaking as an English democrat, he would say failed deservedly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland—a mild mannered man, and one who was not given to say sharp things, much less unjust ones, of any person, and who was probably well acquainted with the thoughts and wishes of what might be termed the governing classes of Ireland—declared in that House a few days ago that the Irish Executive had lost the confidence of every class in that country. The tenant farmers and the tradesmen, who were largely represented by the hon. Members opposite, were sour, sullen, if not seditious. The less aggressive and more moderate section, who found their spokesmen on that side of the House, although silent, were not satisfied. Even the production of the long-promised Land Bill had ceased to allay the social unrest. Distrust, discontent, disaffection, now,
    72
    as many times before in the dark ensanguined annals of Ireland, expressed the prevalent sentiments of the people. They had nearly 13,000 gendarmes, an unnumbered list of local police, and one-third of the British Home Army in the country; yet they could not maintain order. The simple recital of these facts was a more eloquent and trenchant condemnation of the present mode of rule than any words could express. The Government had coercive powers. It was possible for them to possess themselves of the persons of disaffected Irishmen. But they could not by such acts win their hearts. They could not gain their affections. They had yet to learn the force of the simplest and oldest of Radical maxims, that liberty alone could banish crime, and that contentment was the best constabulary. The Government had arrested some 130 or 150 persons; but the House only knew the grounds for the arrest of 54 of these. And what did that Return tell them? During the discussions on the Coercion Bill they were assured, with wearying iteration, that it was a common if not a universal practice for the Irish peasants to maim the cattle belonging to offending landlords. The House was led to believe that the peasantry were so barbarous and brutal that they reeked their dislike of individuals on harmless dumb animals. Pictures of this debased and barbarous practice were drawn, and the English people were invited to express their horror and detestation of such savagery. Now, what was the fact? The Irish Government had the power to arrest anyone that they faintly suspected of being guilty of such cruelty. The authorities of Dublin had certainly the will to do that, and what had they done? There had only one person been arrested for a crime of this character, and that person had been released some weeks ago—the case against him being so flimsy and unsubstantial. He referred to that case, as it threw a lurid light on the social condition of Ireland. The man suspected of maiming cattle could not speak a word of English; he did not know who was Prime Minister; had never heard of the names of the Viceroy or of the Irish Secretary, and was even imperfectly acquainted with the existence of the Land League. When taken into custody he had no shirt, no stockings, no shoes, no hat.

    73
    The hut he lived in was unfit for human habitation, and there was not a Gentleman in that House who would keep a pig in it. Alone and unfriended, the existence of families in such a condition as this was a reproach to our mode of rule, and a scandal to our system of civilization. Yet all the might and majesty of the British Empire were invoked to drag this unfortunate person from the West Coast of Ireland to Kilmainham, for the suspected offence of cutting off a cow's tail. And their charge, made during the coercion discussions, was that it was a common practice for the Irish peasantry to burn offending neighbours' homesteads over their heads. The Government led the House to believe that arson was as common a crime in Ireland as pocket-picking on an English race-course. Yet in the list of prisoners there were only three who were suspected of this practice. Three too many, he was willing to allow, but three offences—or rather suspected offences—for the whole population of Ireland did not justify the wholesale accusations that were made against the people from the Treasury Bench. Some of the gentlemen that had been arrested—Mr. Boyton, Mr. Harris, Mr. Nally, Mr. Sheridan, and others—were active promoters of the Land League. They had gone from county to county, from town to town, making speeches and establishing branches of that organization. He had no knowledge of the fact, but it was probable that in the course of their proceedings they might have said some hard things of the English Government, and harder things of some Irish landlords. The barrier between law and lawlessness was not a broad one, and they might have broken through it. But it should be remembered that the agitation in which they were engaged was admitted by the Government, and decided by the Law Courts to be legal. The League was striving to amend the law respecting the tenure and occupation of land. The Government allowed that that law required amendment. The Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last Session and the Bill now before the House were proof of this. The Land League had succeeded in creating a state of public opinion which had rendered legislation practicable. If there had been no Land League, as he had said before in that
    74
    House, there would have been no Land Bill—certainly no Land Bill this year. Remembering, therefore, the success of the League in promoting Government measures, and its legality, some allowance should be made for the persons engaged in it. There never had been an agitation without exaggeration and extravagance, and there probably never would be one. When men got heated in such work, they insensibly drifted into excesses. All who had had experience in the matter knew this. The Government acted often enough on reasonable suspicion—they might sometimes act with reasonable consideration towards men who had only followed the example and the instructions of many Gentlemen who sat on that side of the House, and some Ministers who, in years past, had been adepts at the work of agitation. They had arrested two newspaper editors. He had taken the trouble to compare the papers of the incriminated journalists, and he would undertake to say that for one sentence of a seditious character, for one paragraph that by any system of legal torturing could be twisted into an incentive to illegal courses that could be found in these Roscommon and Mayo papers, he would find a score of sentences and a dozen paragraphs in newspapers that were published within a stone's throw of Dublin Castle. The coercion net was close enough to catch offending provincials, and it was wide enough to allow their bigger brethren in the capital to escape. The reason was well known. There was no stronger menace to the doings of an arbitrary jack-in-office, like Mr. Clifford Lloyd, for example, than the existence of an independent paper. It was a standing restraint on exacting magisterial magnates. Without that restraint they would be tempted too often to strain their authority in punishing troublesome neighbours. The imprisoned editors had offended in this sense, and hence their imprisonment. The Irish Secretary shook his head solemnly and mysteriously when such statements and accusations were made, and refused to explain. But he (Mr. J. Cowen) had long since ceased to be impressed by Ministerial solemnity. He did not mean the solemnity of the' present Ministers, but of any Ministers. At least they were but men, and liable to the common infirmities of mankind; and as to the mystery in which the Irish

    75
    policy was now shrouded, he had found that the other side of a mystery, either in politics or in daily life, was usually a trick. Not in the list that was before them, but since it had been published, three young men had been arrested. The-youngest of them, he believed, was only some 16 years, and the oldest about 20. They were mere striplings. They had been sent to Limerick Gaol, a prison where the Governor was most exacting and overbearing. He believed these youngsters had been guilty of some boisterous or roystering conduct, such as the sons of Ministers, or Ministers themselves in their youthful days, had been guilty of many times at College and school, and at celebrations like Guy Fawkes, and the like. By their proceedings these young men had occasioned some annoyance to a local authority, and they had been sent to prison to annoy their parents, punish the lads, and degrade their families. It was a reflection upon any Government to suppose that its authority would be imperilled or its influence weakened by the hilarious doings of such juveniles. But the majority of the men who had been arrested under the powers of these Acts were respectable and respected tradesmen and farmers. They were leaders of public opinion in their different districts. Many of them were Poor Law Guardians, Town Councillors, and Town Commissioners. They corresponded in social position to the chiefs of their Liberal and Conservative Associations in this country. In this respect the Government had closely copied the procedure of Louis Bonaparte when he succeeded in overturning the Second Republic. He had had not much difficulty in securing his authority in Paris; but he had doubts about the provinces, and Circulars were sent to the provincial prefets of the same character as those that had been recently issued to the Irish police. The prefets were told that they should arrest the sober, steady, sensible leaders of the Republican party in all their districts. They were to allow the fussy, foaming agitators to go untouched. Their weight with the community was small, and Republicans of the kind he had described were dangerous to Imperial ambitions, and they had to be thrown into prison—the idea being that if men of such character and position were arrested it would strike terror into the population of the locality, and
    76
    assure the authority of the new régime. This was exactly what the Irish Government had done. The "miscreants" and "scoundrels" that they had talked about had been unheeded. They were at large now, as they were six months ago; but the influential chiefs of political and local life had been incarcerated, the object, nodoubt, being to impress the people with the vigour of the Executive and act as a deterrent to others. The result had not realized their anticipations, as the arrests instead of pacifying the people had exasperated them; and as they all knew—no one better than the Government—Coercion had promoted disorder rather than prevented it. He had no wish to speak specially of the arrest of Father Sheehy, which had been referred to repeatedly in these discussions. All he desired to say was that the Government in taking that course had taken upon themselves a large responsibility. The Irish Catholic priests occupied a peculiar position. They wore not mere controversialists who spent their time mumbling the dry-bones of an ancient theology. They were active sympathizers with their countrymen. They were the sons of peasants and racy of the soil. They knew the wants of their people, aided them in their difficulties, consoled them in their sorrows, and lent heart and hope to as hard a lot as ever fell to the children of men. He did not complain of the arrest of Father Sheehy, because he was a priest; but he trusted that, if priests were to be imprisoned, there would be no partiality shown, and if men like Father Sheehy had to suffer, higher dignitaries of the Church, if they acted like Father Sheehy, should be treated in the same way. The case of Mr. Dillon was one without precedent. It was an old Privilege of Parliament that Members could not be arrested or imprisoned for a civil offence. This Privilege dated from an older date than the existence of the present form of Parliament. It came down to them from their Saxon forefathers, and was a Privilege of members of the Witangemote. Of course, the Government would say Mr. Dillon's offence was not civil but criminal; but that was their distinction. They had arbitrary powers, and if they chose they could make an offence either criminal or civil. But that was not the point he wished to urge. Members of Parliament had been repeatedly arrested

    77
    on a charge of high treason and tried for it; but Mr. Dillon had been accused of no offence. He had not been tried, and there was no intention to try him. He had simply been arrested on suspicion. Another Member of that House, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), chose to say that in his judgment there was reasonable suspicion that a speech Mr. Dillon had made might excite some of the Irish people to commit an illegal act, and in consequence of that suspicion he had been thrown into gaol. He (Mr. J. Cowen) affirmed that there was no case since the time of the Revolution, since the evil days of the Stuarts, when such an arbitrary and high-handed proceeding had been taken by any Government. Indeed, he did not know that even in those troubled times they could find an exact parallel to Mr. Dillon's case. If they believed that Mr. Dillon was guilty, let them put him on his trial, and if convicted let them punish him. No one wished to exculpate him if he had committed an offence. The charge he made was that the Government had arrested a duly qualified Member of the Legislature for no offence, but merely upon suspicion. He did not complain because of Mr. Dillon's superior social position. The bigger the man the bigger the offender—if he was an offender. But upon that "if" the whole question hinged. His accusation was that the Government had got the Coercion Bills for the purpose of doing one thing, and they had used them, for another. They were to imprison miscreants and ruffians, desperadoes and marauders. Would they have the hardihood to apply such a description to Mr. Dillon, to Father Sheehy, to Mr. Walsh, and others of their fellow-prisoners? He knew they would not so describe them. He felt strongly on this question, and he spoke strongly. It was his conviction that the policy the Ministers were pursuing was dangerous. It had already produced disorder. That disorder would broaden into disturbance, and the disturbance into insurrection and bloodshed. Such being his belief, he was bound to utter it with all the emphasis, energy, and earnestness that he could command. ["No!" and "Hear, hear!"] He knew he was speaking to a hostile and unwilling audience; but the fact that so few sympathized with the views he was enunciating—and the
    78
    deep conviction that the policy the Legislature was pursuing was a fatal one—only rendered it more necessary to be outspoken and resolute. He could never reflect on the position that England held towards Ireland without an overpowering sense of humiliation. After all the centuries of contact between the two countries, we were compelled to resort to the cruel, crude, barbarous, and demoralizing devices of despotism to uphold our authority. The capital of the, country, the second city of the Empire, was placed in a state of siege; scores of honest and honourable men were imprisoned without trial and on mere suspicion; the Constitution was suspended, and the country placed at the mercy of a single man and his few advisers. We might depend upon it that the fault did not "lay in our stars," or with the Irish, but with ourselves. At the same time that we were binding these dishonouring bonds in Ireland we were bending all our efforts to break them in other lands. The inconsistency was palpable to everyone but Englishmen. The Government, as well as their supporters in the House, and their defenders out of it, were constantly telling us that the disturbed state of Ireland was created by a handful of men whom they described as the Land League. We were assured that the Gentlemen on the other side were the originators of all this discord. ["Yes, yes!" and Cheers.] Hon. Members said "Yes, yes!" Why, it was exactly the opposite. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side were not the cause of the commotion, but the result of it. They were the outcome and consequence of the condition of things in Ireland. There was social and political discontent, and out of social and political discontent the Land League was evolved. Out of the Land League came the representatives who gave them so much trouble. Every tyro in history knew that, in Ireland, there had been an agitation or an insurrection nearly every decade for the last century. It was at one time Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen. Then it was Mr. O'Connell and the Catholic and Repeal Associations. Then it was the Confederacy and the Young Irelanders. They were followed by Mr. Stephens and the Fenians. Then came Mr. Butt and his scheme of Home Rule; and now they had his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City and the Land

    79
    League. They had different names, different forms of organization, different modes of procedure; but the thought, the idea, the aspiration of all these movements was the same. They all gave expression in one form or other to social misery and political discontent. And until that misery was relieved, until that discontent was appeased, agitation and incipient insurrection would continue. The Land League might perish; but it would be followed by some other body, and probably that body would be more aggressive than the one they were now troubled with. The Government believed they could beat out ideas by bludgeons. They seemed to harbour the impression that they could kill thought by bayonets. Bigger men than they were had tried that before, and had been beaten. And they would be beaten also. They could not kill thought. They could not thus exterminate the national aspirations of an entire people. There was one way, and one way only, of restoring order and preventing these eruptions, and that was by doing justice to the people and redressing their admitted grievances. Let the Government adopt a bold and generous policy. Let them cancel their Coercion Acts, cashier their spies, withdraw their military, release the "suspects," administer the Common Law firmly, resolutely, and wisely, and trust the people. If they did this their confidence would be reciprocated. This would do more to restore law than all their regiments of bailiffs and process-servers. It would do more to preserve order than the whole British Army. Englishmen did not seem to realize what would be the effect of the steady hatred of even so small a section of the population as the Irish people. He was astounded at the indifference with which English Liberals treated this subject. The question struck at the very root of the principles which they professed, and he did not doubt honestly professed, to entertain. It passed his comprehension to see Radical Members of Parliament taking the course they had taken during these discussions. He knew that many of them acquiesced in, though they did not approve of, what had been done. He respected their motives, and he could understand them, although he certainly denied their wisdom. They reasoned thus. They had got a Government in Office which they implicitly
    80
    trusted. Behind that Government there was a large majority, and behind that majority there was a strong popular sentiment. At the head of that Ministry there was a Statesman of great experience, of great ability, and one who wielded an influence in the country second to none. Their anxiety was to preserve the Government in power, and their desire was not to embarrass it. On this ground they consented to a line of action that their judgment and their convictions disapproved. He did not think he was incorrectly describing the attitude that some of the Gentlemen behind him had taken up. He believed it was an unwise one. If a man saw a friend rushing to his destruction, it was no part of friendship to allow him to do so unchecked. If he saw a neighbour careering over a precipice, he did not perform a friendly act if he failed to warn him of his danger. What was the result of their last five months' work? The House had been sitting that time, and what had they done? They had passed two Coercion Bills and had initiated a Land Bill. But the Coercion Bills had eaten the very soul out of the Party. All the verve and vigour that distinguished it last year was gone, and gone because, in a fatal hour, the Liberal Leaders had been induced, for a temporary advantage, to abandon the settled principles of their Party and their lives. It would take a greater effort than they dreamt of to restore the enthusiasm that gathered round the Party 12 months ago. Let them run in a rapid panorama what they had accomplished since January. They had passed a Coercion Bill that was the most drastic and far-reaching that had ever been inscribed on the English Statute Book. Competent jurists had declared that it was the most unqualified law that was in force in any Constitutional country in Europe. They had passed that by overwhelming majorities. One of its early stages was secured by an act of illegality—it could be described in no other words—by the Chief Officer of that House. And. yet that illegal action had never been commented on nor condemned, and not even discussed. It would pass into the Journals of the House as a precedent, and Liberal Members might regard it as certain that, at no distant day, it would come up in judgment against them. In a period of great exasperation they sus-

    81
    pended 30 Irish Members, and, during their absence from the Chamber, they hurriedly altered the Regulations of Parliament so as to enable them the more readily to pass their Coercion Bill. It was a piece of sharp practice unworthy of the British Legislature. When they had got their Acts, they had issued Circulars to the police which, if issued under the Third Empire, would have been received with howls of condemnation. Let them conceive such Circulars issued by the last Government instead of the present. All the greasy apparatus of our caucuses would have been put in play at once, and no Tory Government could have remained in Office a fortnight after the Circulars had been brought to light. Yet they passed unheeded and uncondemned. To such a position of political degeneracy had we been brought by weak subserviancy to Party interests, and, he doubted he must add, an unmanly anti-Irish prejudice. He feared the couplet that was true of other times was true of this—
    "As bees on flowers alighting cease to hum,
    So, settling into places, Whigs grow dumb."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that while listening to the rhetorical language of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, he thought it rather strange that the hon. Member should still find language of abuse for those among whom he still continued to sit. No shortcoming!of his own side, no generous expression from any of his own Leaders, received the least consideration from him. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that those who, under a free Constitution, took means to make the law respected and to put an end to outrage, were guilty of acts which would disgrace an autocratic Government; and that the powers they possessed exceeded anything that was ever entrusted to a Melikoff. Did the hon. Gentleman expect to win the ear of the House of Commons by such assertions, or by the declaration that the eminent Statesman at the head of the present Government was so dead to the claims of liberty that he and his Colleagues meant to trample upon the liberties of Ireland? For his part, he had as much interest in the subject chiefly under discussion during the present Session as hon. Gentlemen opposite had; and he said fearlessly that if a body of gentlemen in this country
    82
    by intemperate agitation roused a section of the people to commit acts of disorder and outrage, Radical as he was, he would, if necessary, vote to put into the hands of the Minister in whom he had confidence the powers necessary to put down such acts. Not one word had he heard the hon. Gentleman utter against the organization known as the Land League. Only the so-called wickedness of the Government would he remember, and why? Not because he loved Ireland more, but because he loved the Ministry less. If the hon. Gentleman went on in that course, it would naturally raise in their breasts a suspicion that he acted rather from spite than from a sense of public duty. With respect to the arrest of the hon. Member for Tipperary, where was the jurist who said that a man who had broken the law was above the law, and was not amenable to the law because he was a Member of the House of Commons? The Roman Catholic priest who had been arrested was, no doubt, a man deservedly respected in private life; but, as much as any other man in the community, if he broke the law, he was liable to be dealt with according to the law, and yet his arrest was made a part of the hon. Gentleman's indictment against the Ministry. The reminder that some who had been agitators were now sitting on the Treasury Bench was uttered apparently in the most disinterested manner, because the hon. Member was sitting below the Gangway; but, if they had been agitators, it had been for worthy objects, and the hon. Member had stood side by side with them in agitations which had contributed to the happiness, liberty, and prosperity of the country.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it reminded them of old times to hear again the voice of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), who had once supported the Irish Members in miscalled obstruction, but who had been silent so long that they were wondering what had become of him. He formerly spoke manfully for the principles of public liberty and popular right; but he seemed to forget them when the Liberals were in power. Here were two Republican Democrats, the one not sacrificing his principles to Party, but the other giving up to Party what he had often assured them was

    83
    meant for mankind. The hon. and learned Member had not attempted to grapple with the Motion, and the facts on which it was based. The question was whether the hon. and learned Member defended the nature of the rule to which Ireland was now subjected. For himself, he could not look upon the existing state of things without feelings of alarm. He should not be able to speak on the subject again for a week, a period all too long for what might happen in the interval. He saw Ireland being rushed into civil war by the negligence of the Government and the imbecility of the Dublin Executive. It was to him unendurable to hear an English Democrat who would denounce such things on the part of Russia or any Continental Power approving by implication such Circulars as the Irish Executive had issued to the police. Under the benevolent and amiable Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) Ireland was being subjected to a despotism more mean and despicable than any the country had experienced since the days of Castlereagh. The secret confidential Circular was to be kept under lock and key, and to be communicated to subordinates only by word of mouth. With such instructions, in what shape would it be likely to reach the village policeman? By the time that Circular reached the village policeman, it would have assumed this form—"We have orders from Mr. Forster in the Castle to suspect more criminals, and we must send up more prisoners to Dublin." The fruits of the Coercion Bills had fallen below the expectations of the Treasury Bench, and the Circular had been sent out lest the English people should discover that the Coercion Bills had been obtained on false pretences. As the Duke of Wellington said, "The English people liked good butchers' bills, so they liked full gaols." The present Government was formed of known public men in England, who, one would say beforehand, would most probably be just and friendly to Ireland. Taking the Treasury Bench from end to end, he was not afraid to say no better men could be found, and the interests of the Irish people would be safe in their hands. But after one year's experience of all their talents and all their virtues, he was compelled to say that no Ministry with all their vices could approach the
    84
    mischief of their conduct. What with their weakness, what with their fatuity, what with their dread of their opponents and their carrying out the Tory policy, they had reduced Ireland to the position of being a scandal to the Empire and the civilized world. When the Coercion Bill was brought in they were told its object was to arrest "village ruffians" who were known to the police—on whom they could lay their hands at any moment. He now defied the Government to point out one village ruffian among all the prisoners who had been arrested. He remembered one of the Ministers of the Crown saying one day that those men were already taking flight, and it was their belief that before a fortnight they would hardly need the Act at all. All the London Press took their text from Downing Street, and said that the men were running away. Now, had the Coercion Act made things better or worse? Hon. Members heard him say on a former occasion that there was this unfortunate circumstance about the Coercion Bill, that if it failed the Government would say—"How much worse we should be if the Act had not passed;" whereas, if it proved effective, they would say—"See how the Act has pacified Ireland!" But who were the men arrested under the Act? There were many among them whom he was proud to claim as friends. If hon. Members were to go over the list and test the matter by social respectability and personal character, they would find that it was not "village ruffians," but men do-serving and possessing the confidence of their fellow-countrymen who were now filling the cells of Kilmainham Prison. There was, for instance, young Mr. Higgings, there was in his own county young Mr. Flood, who had been taken to prison as persons "reasonably suspected." Now, the Irish Members "reasonably suspected" the Chief Secretary for being the dupe of the police and for being a lamentable failure in the Irish Office. The last arrest was that of Mr. M'Sweeny, in Donegal. In the barony from which that gentleman had been taken there was no man of better position or greater social influence among his co-religionists. He was a man worthy of public respect, and he enjoyed it; and yet he had been torn from his home, not because he was a village ruffian, but because he

    85
    was president of the local branch of the Land League. As to Father Sheehy, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) asked was a man to be allowed to go scot-free because he was a clergyman of some denomination? Now, it was his intention to circulate a handbill in Ireland to show what a Protestant clergyman was allowed to say, and what a Catholic priest was imprisoned for saying. Father Sheehy, being asked his advice as to the course to be pursued by a man named Connor, told him to fight the battle to the bitter end, and asked the neighbours to support Connor by their presence, and to save him from the effects of his stand against eviction. Let them contrast that with the language of Parson Kane, who suggested to his hearers to form clubs and purchase arms, in order that they might shoot a Catholic priest in every parish where a Protestant had been murdered—indeed, Mr. Kane said that six Catholic priests ought to be shot for each. His Bishop called his attention to the matter. In reply, the rev. gentleman did not retract his words, but said, on the contrary, that they were deliberately uttered and intended. Yet, while the Protestant clergyman walked free, the Catholic priest was thrown into prison. The landlords believed the Land Bill would pass, but not this year, and they were determined to swoop down upon their tenants and evict them, so as to have the cleared farms as future tenancy farms next year. For the last three days the battle in Committee had been waged over future tenancies, and behind that battle lurked the fell design of the landlords to evict the tenants in large numbers. In the Easter term alone the number of eviction proceedings reached the enormous total of 3,000. The peasantry thoroughly understood the landlords' game, and were determined to protect themselves, even to the shedding of their blood. They believed that there was a gigantic scheme afoot, the object of which was to sweep them from the land before the passing of the Land Bill; and, unless the notion should be proved unfounded, the people would shed their blood in defence of their homesteads between this and August. If he could do so honourably, he would gladly retire from public life during the next few months, for he was in the diffi-
    86
    cult position of being unable to approve bloodshed and crime on the part of his countrymen, or of supporting the miserable Executive that was ruining the country. At the request of many ecclesiastic dignitaries in Ireland, he had to complain of the language used in the House of Commons by the Chief Secretary, in which that right hon. Gentleman imputed that the Catholic priesthood were, with unworthy motives, inciting the people to unworthy deeds. The Catholic clergy of Ireland sprang from the people, and were bound to them in consequence by the closest ties; but ever since the passing of the Penal Laws, theirs had been the hands which had restrained the people in the interest of civil order. Were it not for the restraining influence of the priesthood, before the lapse of 24 hours the country would be plunged into civil war. He could not therefore but regret greatly that the Chief Secretary should have filled up the measure of his lamentable incompetency by insulting the sacred body of men who had been throughout the whole of Ireland the best and surest guardians of peace, liberty, and order. The Government, he feared, would persevere in the course which they had begun. He supposed they were afraid of being humiliated. Already, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had taunted them with not being bloodthirsty enough. He asked whether coercive legislation had been successful in Ireland? All he could say was that he did not envy the feelings of those who could take up their newspaper in the morning and read its contents without a feeling of sorrow.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he had listened with great pain on this as on previous occasions to the representations made by Irish Members that in the course they had taken with reference to Ireland Her Majesty's Government were actuated only by feelings of hatred, hostility, and dislike. ["Hear!" and "No!"] He quite admitted that that language was not universally used by hon. Members opposite; but it had certainly been employed by some of them. That was a charge which gave great pain to every one of the Members of Her Majesty's Government. For his own part, he could appeal to every act

    87
    he had ever done and to every sentiment he had ever uttered with regard to Ireland to show that he cared as much for Ireland as he did for any other part of the United Kingdom. However much they might differ as to what they might think was necessary to be done, surely they might at least give each other credit for honestly desiring to secure the well-being of their countrymen, which was only, after all, giving credit for the common sentiments of humanity. Evil to Ireland unquestionably meant evil to England; prosperity to Ireland meant the prosperity of the Sister Country, and vice versà. There was a general agreement that the condition of Ireland was very grave—in fact, the gravity could hardly be exaggerated—and they were agreed as to the respects in which that condition was grave. Outrages had been committed upon farmers, and upon herds and humble individuals, merely because they had done what was considered to be contrary to the interests of their neighbours; and surely any Government that were worthy of the name were bound to do their best to see that life and property and liberty were protected and that the law was obeyed. Then, with regard to the disturbances. The disturbances arose from a determined resistance being offered to the enforcement of the law. But how came it that the law was resisted in Ireland and had to be enforced? Hon. Members opposite attributed the disturbances to the evictions. But did they mean that the Government should refuse to enforce the law in certain circumstances? [Cries of "Yes!"] All that he could say was that that was one of the most frightful suggestions in favour of tyranny he had ever heard made to a Government. No tyranny could be more frightful than that a Government should pick and choose in what cases the law should be enforced. For his own part, he would entrust no Government with such a power. According to the doctrine which had been laid down by the hon. Member for Cork City, men were justified in resisting the law because they were of opinion that their rent was unfair in amount. He could not think that the hon. Member realized the morality of such a doctrine. A man had agreed to pay a certain rent, and had made his bargain. He had enjoyed the land; and when a claim was made for the rent, it was
    88
    inconsistent with any principle of morality that he should say—"I won't pay you, because I think the claim is unjust." He would put the hypothesis for a moment that the man was correct in saying it was unjust; but what right had he to say that? They would be leaving to the man to judge in his own case whether the claim was just or unjust, and he knew no man to whom they could leave the determination of such a matter. He had seen men utterly in the wrong in the opinion of every impartial person, and yet firmly persuaded that they were in the right. Nothing could be more dangerous than to allow any man to judge whether a claim made upon him was just or unjust, and yet that was what the hon. Member advocated. He would appeal to him to reflect upon the consequences to which such a doctrine would lead. They could not confine it merely to rent for land. If such a doctrine was proposed, they could not tell where it would stop. Suppose that a man honestly did think that he was paying an unjust rent. The man declined to pay, and afterwards his neighbour would say—"Oh! here is So-and-so paying no more, perhaps less, than I am; he considers his rent unjust; he is not paying, and therefore I won't pay." The man would say that, although he knew perfectly well the land was let at a fair rent. The result of this doctrine would be that people would combine for the purpose of preventing those whose who believed their rent was just from paying. He did not suppose that the hon. Member desired it; but circumstances had proved that such had been the inevitable consequences. It was suggested that all landlords in Ireland ought to go without their rents, which in many cases were perfectly just, because some people chose to consider them unfair. It was impossible that any Government could enter into these inquiries as to whether the claim was just or unjust before they put the powers of the Executive into operation to enforce it. The Legislature had not enacted it, and the Executive would be violating the law if they took on themselves such a power. He might take exaggerated notions of the obligations of law; but he could conceive no state of things more terrible than a state of lawlessness in which it was left to the Executive Government to decide what rights and contracts they

    89
    should enforce, and what they should not. Any Ministry who did that would be violating their duty, and acting with absolute illegality. And if they were not to do this, what were they to do? If, as had been suggested, the Government were to say—"We will not enforce the claim of any landlord in Ireland," the result would be that just rents would not be paid. It should be remembered that there were many landlords who had very little means and very few tenants, and would it not be a most serious matter to deprive them of that which they believed to be, and which often was justly, their due? The hon. Member seemingly assented to that; but surely the result of the doctrine he had advocated would lead to that state of things. They would find that men would refuse to pay debts which were perfectly just if they were told that they were to decide as to what was just. Moreover, if no distinction were drawn between just and unjust claims, it would be a distinct premium in favour of the bad landlords who might point to many cases where just landlords could not get their rents. Desiring, as he did to the full, that justice should be done to the Irish tenant, he would put it to hon. Members whether there was not a danger in advocating the doctrine to which he was referring? He had called attention, therefore, to the difficulties in which any Government would necessarily be placed in endeavouring to deal with this question. Hon. Members opposite would not, he was sure, imagine that the Government found it a pleasant thing to have to enforce the law. It would be much pleasanter to shirk the duty, if they wished only to make their tenure of Office agreeable to themselves, to let things take their course, and to regard the relations between landlord and tenant with indifference; but they must assume, from a serious sense of duty, that so long as the law existed, and so long as the legal right was a legal right, it was their duty to enforce it when called upon, and that they could not make exceptions in doing so. Now, however, they were attempting to do something to meet the very evil that the hon. Member had referred to. ["No, no!"] He said "Yes." The difficulty was to say what was a just and what an unjust rent, and they were seeking to obtain the most competent tribunal that could be ob-
    90
    tained for the purpose of determining what rents were fair and what were unfair. They wished to avoid that difficulty, which, he was sure, they all felt, of leaving a man to be a judge in his own case, whether landlord or tenant. He would not trust one more than the other, but would put the tribunal between them: and he should have thought, that hon. Members, if they only wished what was right to be done, would have done better to assist in the creation of such a tribunal than to have thrown obstacles in the way of it. He could not but say a word or two on one matter to which the hon. Member for Meath had alluded. He regretted very much the hon. Member's suggestion as to the publication of the handbill, because he was sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member would perceive that the Government could not possibly make any distinction between Protestant clergymen and Catholic priests. [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: One was a Land Leaguer.] The Government could not make any distinction between Protestants and Catholics, whether they were Land Leaguers or not. Did the hon. Member really believe that was the reason?—[Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: I did not impute a motive.] The hon. and learned Member had imputed a motive. What, he asked, would be the result of publishing this handbill, and were there no reasons against it? In the first place, what Mr. Kane had said was said long ago, in the course of the summer of last year, when Questions were asked about it in the House; and it had been clearly shown that from such idle vapouring no results could be expected. Did the hon. Member think that any priests would be shot on account of what Mr. Kane said? [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: I did.] The expectation had proved fallacious, then, because the year had passed, Mr. Kane had not withdrawn his language, and still no priests had been even shot at, so far as he knew. On the other hand, when words were used inciting to violence, and acts of violence followed, every one, whether Catholic or Protestant, would be forced to the conclusion that the latter case called for the interposition of the law, while the former might safely be passed over. The hon. Member had spoken of disparaging words being used by the Chief Secretary towards the Catholics j but he was confident that no-

    91
    thing was further from the intention of the right hon. Gentleman than to do such a thing. He had read the speech of his right hon. Friend, and he was confident that, whatever expression might have been used in it, there was no intention to be disparaging to the Catholic priests. He (the Solicitor General), had desired to speak, and he trusted he had spoken, with perfect temper, and with no language that would embitter this controversy; and he desired to show how the Government might and did feel amidst all the grievous responsibilities of the case, that there was a responsibility on them, the burden of which could not be got rid of—namely, the responsibility of repressing outrage and disorder, and discharging the most solemn of all their duties, that of enforcing the law.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he and all his hon. Friends thanked the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down for the perfect temper and kindliness with which he had spoken. If they had speeches like his a little oftener than they had, perhaps the duty of governing Ireland—though he feared it would not be made very much easier—would, at all events, be carried on with fewer unpleasant controversies. The hon. and learned Member had appealed to him, and to his sense of what was fair and. just. He had asked him whether it ought to be left to the Irish tenants to decide what the rent should be that they should pay to their landlords. Well, he did not think anyone ought to be the judge of his own case; but, at the same time, in the absence of any other tribunal or Court, it was necessary for the Irish tenants to be the judges in their own case. It was necessary for them, in self-defence, to combine, and to recommend the stronger to help the weaker. If they had not done this, the poorer tenants on the estates would have been overwhelmed, failing the support which they had been getting throughout Ireland during this struggle. It stood to reason that if the landlord could got his rents from tenants who were able to pay, he would refuse to reduce the rents of those tenants who were unable to pay; and it was for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of rents for tenants who were unable to pay that they had recommended them to combine
    92
    together and make common cause, and refuse to pay the landlord until he had given a reduction all round. Now, of course, the hon. and learned Member asked, "What can the Government do?" He did not exactly see what the Government could do, except to refuse to give the armed forces of the Crown for the purpose of carrying out evictions in Ireland—at all events, for a time. He knew it would be an unconstitutional course, but the Government were now doing a great many unconstitutional things in Ireland against the tenants; and really they might now give a little respite to the tenants in this struggle against rack-renting and unjust landlords. He thought the Government might have done something. They might have introduced a clause into the Land Bill giving the Courts an equitable jurisdiction as to the claims made by landlords; and if they had done that, they would have prevented the present position of the country. Undoubtedly, if they went on as they were acting at present, lending the armed forces of the Crown to the landlords for the purpose of evicting tenants, they would have extensive bloodshed in Ireland long before their Land Bill could be passed. Many of the tenants who owed arrears of rent would not be protected by the Bill, for reasons which it was not necessary for him to enter into at the present moment, and they saw that their only resource was to continue the struggle which they had been, and were at this moment, waging with tolerable success. The hon. and learned Member had said that it was impossible to distinguish between tenants who were and tenants who were not able to pay their rents, and that owing to the advice given by the Land League, many tenants were now in a position to pay their rents. But if the hon. and learned Member were to consult with the Chief Secretary, he would find that the cases where tenants who were able to pay their rents were evicted were a very small minority. In fact, it had frequently happened that tenants to whom the Land League had given pecuniary assistance to save them from starvation had handed the money to their landlords against all the rules of the Land League. ["No, no!"] He knew of a large number of such cases, and he was at the present time engaged

    93
    in the investigation of several. The Irish tenant would not suffer eviction if he could possibly pay his rent. He would go very close to the point of eviction. He would allow his stock to be seized, he would allow his interests to be put up to auction; but there were very few cases on record throughout the whole of this long struggle where the tenants were able to, but would not, pay their rent. The Land League had advised all tenants to refuse to pay unjust rent, and to allow it to be levied at the point of the bayonet—which latter was only a figurative expression which had been used by some, though not by him. It had been used, he believed, by Father Sheehy; but it only meant that in these cases the tenants should allow the bailiff to come before they paid their rents. This was the only reply he had to make to the hon. Member. The necessity of protecting the weaker by combining with them the stronger had been forced upon the people—first, by the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last Session; and, in the second place, by the refusal on the part of the Government to incorporate into the Coercion Bill powers that would have kept landlords in check, and would have prevented them from pressing evictions that every sensible man in Ireland knew they would press as soon as the Coercion Bill became law. With reference to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Clonmel, that some arrangement should be made with the Government by which the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) should be released from prison on parole, it would be quite impossible for his hon. Friend to assent to any arrangement of that sort, because it would subject him to the condition that he should not continue his connection with the agitation in which he had been engaged. His hon. Friend had chosen his course, and the courageous and plucky action he had taken had been of enormous advantage to the Land League. The hon. Gentleman considered that he had done his work, and was willing to remain in prison as long as they chose to keep him there, or until he died. The hon. Member had blamed him for not giving the Government some credit for good intentions as to the good government of Ireland. He could only say that if all the Members of the Government they had had to deal with were like the Solicitor
    94
    General there would be very much less cause of complaint in Ireland and much less ill-feeling against it. But when he remembered how his hon. Friend had been treated in this City of London—that he had been dogged by a detective day and night by the direction of the Home Secretary, that he had been followed about the streets like a common thief—how could they expect him to give credit for anything to the persons who had been guilty of this conduct? An explanation had been offered by the Government of the reason that had led the hon. Member to return to his cell instead of remaining in the gaol infirmary; but what the hon. Member himself had written to him was that he had been compelled to return to his cell in consequence of the insulting and offensive conduct of the doctor, who appeared to have received a commission from the landlords to insult and annoy him. The hon. Member further stated that the declaration of the Government that "suspects" were only to be confined, and not punished, was untrue and unjust, inasmuch as he was kept in a cell some 12 feet square for 22 hours out of the 24. His hon. Friend acknowledged that the prison officials, other than the doctor, were most kind and courteous. Their great charge was that the pretence upon which the Government obtained the Bill was that it was to be used for the arrest of ruffians and persons actually committing outrages. The Chief Secretary placed his case for coercion on the assertion that obedience to the commands of the Land League was enforced by intimidation in the form of outrage. The Irish Members pointed out in vain that it was really the public opinion of the country which enforced those commands; and that, he believed, the Government must have already discovered. On account of the intimidation and terrorism exercised by a few individuals, they compelled, or induced, crowds of men, women, and children to come out and submit to be shot down by the soldiers and bayonetted by the police. It was because the heart of every man, woman, and child was being arrayed against English rule in Ireland by the arbitrary and horrible conduct of the Executive Government in Ireland. The House could have no idea of the state of things which was brought about when extra powers wore given to the police,

    95
    when every sub-constable was encouraged to suspect all the people, and directed to keep registers of suspected persons, and to have always a sufficient number of "suspects" to send up to the Chief Secretary whenever he was spurred to extra exertions by his political supporters. What did the right hon. Gentleman say when he was asking the House for these extra powers? He drew pictures of the outrages by means of which he said the power of the League was enforced, and he asked for powers to lay his hands on the committers of those outrages who, he declared, were all well-known to the police. He drew most pathetic pictures of the maiming of cattle and the houghing of dumb animals; and those descriptions of injury to innocent beasts had more effect in inducing the House to grant excessive powers than almost anything else? But what were the facts? From the Returns of the persons arrested, they found that amongst all the "suspects" there was one individual suspected of houghing cattle, and he had since been released. The House was told of a great increase of threatening letters to an amount somewhat higher than at any time since 1845; yet just three persons had been arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of sending threatening letters. Then the right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary to put a stop to incendiary fires, and that some humble men on a lonely mountain were attacked, their houses set on fire, or their windows fired into, or their backs carded. How many had he arrested on suspicion of incendiary fires? Just two. The Returns showed, in short, that 11 or 12 persons had been arrested for being suspected of actually committing the different kinds of outrage, on the alleged commission of which the right hon. Gentleman based his claims for exceptional powers. And were these "village ruffians" and "midnight marauders?" One was a Member of Parliament; another was a Catholic priest; a large number were Town Councillors and Poor Law Guardians; and the rest, almost without exception, were substantial farmers and tradesmen of respectability. Whenever a man had been arrested under this Act, the parish priest had always walked by his side to the prison van, and he had the sympathy of the whole neighbourhood. His farm was tilled by hundreds, and, in some
    96
    cases, by thousands, of willing hands, and in his absence his wife and children were taken care of by friendly neighbours; while, if he had a shop, it was patronized by all his friends. All the "suspects" of the Chief Secretary, the men libelled in this Return, were the idols of their own friends and of the whole country-side, and to them in future would be given the credit of the Land Bill, which was now engaging the attention of the House of Commons. He asked the Government what they intended to do? Were they determined to press the situation in Ireland to its bitter end? Already they had alienated the sympathies and the affections of the majority of the people; and it was just possible that as the result of what they were now doing they might lose Ireland. It might seem to be very impossible that their strong power and hold over Ireland should be destroyed; but more impossible things had come about. There had never yet been a rebellion in Ireland which was taken up by more than a small section of the population. In 1798, only three counties were up, and it taxed all England's resources to put them down. He believed if, at the present moment, any revolutionary party made a determined appeal to the Irish people, every county would join in a rebellion against English rule. The people were saturated with disaffection, and justly so; and therefore he asked were the Government intending to go on sitting on the safety-valve and driving the people to desperation, or would they not exercise a little forbearance and try the effect of following Archbishop Croke's advice and see whether the people in some particular county, at all events, could not come to a peaceable arrangement with their landlords without outside assistance? Let the Government announce that in Tipperary they would give the tenants and landlords three months to settle their disputes amicably, and keep the police and military out of the county. Such a course would be for the interest of the landlords as well as the tenants. It was perfectly true, as had been stated often in that House, that the Irish tenants were willing to pay just rent; but if they were driven to desperation, he did not know how long they would continue in that frame of mind, or how long England would be able to assert its power, It was a very

    97
    difficult thing to execute these decrees. They were beset with difficulties from the first, and when they turned a man out they had no assurance that he would go back again. The whole administration of the law in Ireland was being brought into contempt, simply because the Government were supporting the unjust claims of the landlord, who had manœuvred to place them in that position which they were foolish to accept. They would do well to try the advice of Archbishop Croke, and see what would happen if they withdrew their troops and police from Tipperary for a single month. He felt sure the priests would be responsible for the peace and order of the county, and there would be an entire cessation of outrages. If, however, things were allowed to go on in the course they were now taking, nobody could predict the result, and he feared it would end probably in the loss of the entire property of the landlords in the land. If the people once found out that they could, by combination, successfully resist process of law and evade payment of rents, was it likely they would return to pay rents even after the Land Bill had been passed? They were willing now to pay just rents; but they had been urged by some to strike against all rents. He had, up to the present, successfully opposed any such advice generally; but he did not know how long he could continue to do so. Events were marching so rapidly in Ireland that it was impossible to say what the situation might be that day four weeks or four months. It might happen, if they went on in their course of aggression and irritation, they would find themselves face to face with a strike against all rent, and when the people had once struck, it would not be found easy to get them to pay any rent at all. The outlook was a serious one for the Irish landlords. He knew no class who had more to obtain by prudence and moderation in the present crisis. The Government had before them the prospect of being utterly discredited in Ireland. They were teaching dangerous lessons to the Irish people; and those who occupied a middle position, as it were, in this movement, did not know when they might find others very much in advance of them. He had endeavoured to put the case as plainly as he could as regarded the present
    98
    situation in Ireland. Unless the Government did something to stop evictions in Ireland there would be a very large increase of outrage. If blood were shed by the police and military in Ireland there would be undoubtedly a rebellion—he did not say this at all as a threat—and landlords would be murdered in retaliation. Nobody would regret such a thing more than himself; and he could assure hon. Members that he should regret to the last extent that the life of either landlord or tenant should be sacrificed in this movement. But he could not help saying—and he did not say it in the least degree in the nature of a threat—that if things wont on as they were now going that the lives of many landlords and tenants would be lost. The Government had the control of events. They could control the forces of the Crown. Let them try the experiment of accepting the advice of the Archbishop of Cashel, and let them, leave to the clergy of the premier county, Tipperary, the responsibility of maintaining order and peace for three months, and neither landlords nor the Government would regret the result.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I can assure the House that I have no intention of following at any length the course of the debate on the present and on a former occasion; but I think there are a few words of the hon. Member who has just sat down of which it is necessary that some notice should be taken. The hon. Member has pursued on this occasions course which he has been frequently in the habit of pursuing, and against which, I think, it is necessary, on the part of the Government, that a protest should be made. The hon. Member has, under a very thin disguise, uttered some very serious threats. I admit that they are in disguise; but I will ask the House, when I have described what he has said, whether they were threats or not. The hon. Member has not said he wishes—on the contrary, he has said he hopes certain things will not take place—but, under the guise of prophecy, he has told us that, unless we accept his bidding, the following things will happen:—We may lose Ireland; probably the landlords will lose their property; there may be considerable bloodshed, and a considerable number of landlords will lose their lives. He has also told us that the people are saturated with disaffection;

    99
    and having, on former occasions, by himself and his Friends, told us that he and they represent the people of Ireland, he then thinks it is likely, and probable, and desirable that we, the British House of Commons, should follow the advice of those who, he has informed us, are saturated with, disaffection. What is the advice which, after these, if I may not call them threats, prophecies, has been offered for our consideration, and which he tenders to the Government? It is that the Government should withdraw from the execution of the law the military and police forces, and, in fact, that we should resign the functions of government altogether. That is, I must say, with all respect, not the course the Government have any intention to pursue. It was not for the purpose of abdicating their functions, it was not for the purpose of settling difficulties between landlord and tenant as between those who have property and those who have not, it was not for the purpose of placing all the social and legal relations of the country in the hands of the Land League, or even of the Archbishop of Cashel, that the Government asked for and obtained from this House exceptional powers. We have been intrusted by Parliament with exceptional powers for the purpose of maintaining, or, at any rate, attempting to maintain, law and order in Ireland, and we intend to use those powers to the best of our ability. We have used them, I believe, with moderation—["No!"]—and forbearance, and we shall continue to use them until we are convinced that they are not effectual for the purpose for which they were given. We are told we have not used our powers with moderation and forbearance; but the description which has been given of the Act to-night, when compared with the use which has been made of it, shows that it has been used with great moderation and forbearance. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) informs us the Act is the most drastic on our Statute Book, and compares unfavourably with the legislation of any other country. The last Returns showed that something like 50 persons had been placed in confinement, which, according to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), was not of a rigorous description. I have no desire to follow all the arguments that have been used; but
    100
    after having listened to the language employed by the hon. Member for Cork, I think it is due to the Irish Government that I should say, on the part of my Colleagues and myself, that we are content with, and we stand by, the defence of our Irish policy which was made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland the other night. The debate was resumed, as I understand, on the urgent representations of the Irish Members, and especially of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that the statements of my right hon. Friend had not been answered because there had not been time. I have not heard to-night any attempt to answer them. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) complains in his letter to the Speaker that he is unable to answer the misrepresentations made by the Chief Secretary in the House. It is somewhat hard for the hon. Member for Tipperary that no attempt has been made to explain in what respect his speech was misrepresented by the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and it is rather astonishing, considering that the debate has been resumed for the express purpose, that no attempt has been made to controvert the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and which has been repeated to-night by the Solicitor General for Ireland, that arrests have been made either on reasonable suspicion that the persons had been concerned in the commission of actual outrages, or concerned in an incitement to a breach of the law. Reference has been made to the arrests of Mr. Dillon and Father Sheehy, and an attempt has been made to prove that those arrests were of a character different from that which was anticipated when the House was induced to pass the Coercion Bill. But no attempt has been made to show that those arrests were not legally made, that the Government had no legal power to make those arrests under the Bill, and that the offence for which the two gentlemen were arrested did not come within the terms of the Bill. If the Government had the power they were bound, in the present state of Ireland, under a very heavy responsibility, to exercise that power. The condition of Ireland, no doubt, has changed since the passing of the Bill. To a considerable extent the Bill has been successful in suppressing secret outrages; but while secret outrages have been

    101
    diminished or checked within the last few weeks there has been an increase of open resistance to the execution of the law. I am sure hon. Members opposite look upon this state of things with very grave anxiety, as we do, when we see large armed mobs offering resistance to the constabulary and military forces employed supporting the civil power. When we see the military forces attacked, if not with dangerous weapons, at all events with stones and other missiles, we cannot but feel there is an imminent danger of a collision that will be productive of the most serious results. In that case the heaviest responsibility rests upon those who, having the power to arouse or to calm the passions of an excited people, do abuse that power by language calculated to excite them to resistance. Is it possible to suppose that passages such as those read by the Chief Secretary the other night from the speeches of Mr. Dillon and Father Sheehy were not calculated to produce breaches of the peace, and to rouse the people to actual resistance likely to lead to a lamentable loss of life? I have said that great responsibility rests on the Government. Great powers have been placed in our hands, and this House and the country will hold us responsible if, possessing those powers, we neglect to use them in a way as would tend to prevent those distressing events of which we have lately read. An attempt has been made to show that this resistance is justified by the conduct of the landlords in enforcing their rights. But no facts have been brought forward to show that the landlords are using their legal powers improperly. The latest Return of evictions shows the number to be 3,000, and it has been represented by the hon. Member for Galway City (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that this was equivalent to sentence of death upon 15,000 persons. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was quoting the Prime Minister.] I know the hon. Member quoted from a speech which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has repeatedly alleged has always been misquoted, and which was made in circumstances altogether different from the present. Now, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends, who have the direction of the Land League entirely in their own hands, are preaching the refusal of rent, and have done so for nearly nine months.
    102
    After they have actually driven the landlords to resort to legal powers, was it to be wondered at that there should be an increase in the number of evictions? The House has to be persuaded that resistance to the law is justified by the conduct of the landlords. Some instances should be given of the circumstances in which these evictions have taken place. But, after all, whatever may be the circumstances of the evictions, it is not, as the Solicitor General has pointed out, the question for us to try. The Government cannot choose in what place they will act, and in what place they will forbear to act. If the landlords use undue powers in the process of eviction that is a question for legislation; it is not a question which, in a Constitutional country like ours, can be decided by the mere will and pleasure of the Government. We are endeavouring to alter and improve the law, though we have not received much assistance from the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sit opposite. I am not now speaking of the Land Bill; but the first act of those hon. Gentlemen this Session was to protract the discussion of a measure which the great majority of Parliament thought necessary for the preservation of peace in Ireland for two or three months, thereby postponing for that time the introduction of the Land Bill. And although I admit they have not taken any undue length of time in the discussion of the Land Bill, they have certainly contrived, on various occasions, to raise discussions which have not tended to the progress of that measure through Parliament. Whatever may be the fate of our efforts to improve the law, we hold now, as we have always done, that it is our duty to carry out the existing law as it stands, and not to surrender the powers, ordinary or extraordinary, which Parliament has confided to us, into the hands of the Land League or any other body.
    MR.O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord that some disappointment might naturally be felt that some direct reference was not made in preceding speeches to the elaborate speech which the Chief Secretary delivered a few days ago. He attributed that circumstance to the fact that several days had elapsed—that perhaps his hon. Friends near him might have been influenced somewhat by the reports of

    103
    occurrences in Ireland since the delivery of that speech, and wished to direct particular attention to them. Although he listened to every word of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland the other day, the right hon. Gentleman did not convince him, and he believed he did not convince the House of Commons, that the now famous Circular was not a very unfortunate document. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to prove that the action of the Government in respect of the Circular was either politic or just to the people of Ireland, or to the police who were intrusted, at the present time, with very important duties under the Bill for the preservation of life and property in Ireland. He would like to try and present the kernel of the question absolutely before them. What would be the effect of the adoption of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Longford? It was a very ably and a very clearly drawn Resolution. The point which it sought to establish one could apprehend at a glance. It did not strike at the heart of the present difficulty; but it contained a series of negative propositions. It said the Government did wrong there and did wrong here; but the most important part of the Resolution was the concluding section, which declared that the Government were doing wrong in employing the armed forces of the Crown in executing wanton and cruel evictions. He would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), who would have the opportunity of replying, how it would improve the situation in Ireland if they affirmed that proposition? They would still have the difficulty before them, because if the Executive Government were not to employ armed forces, the Executive Government must determine what eviction was wanton and cruel in its character, and what eviction might be legitimately carried out. If it were not presumptuous in him he should certainly say that the speech of the Solicitor General was a statesmanlike utterance from beginning to end. The hon. and learned Gentleman really did grapple with the serious difficulty of the situation, and with the difficulty which any Executive Government must have to contend with in a crisis similar to that through which they were now passing. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) would suggest, therefore, that an effort should be made, if it
    104
    was not now too late, to draw from the Government some more emphatic expression of opinion in reference to the class of evictions which his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), according to the terms of his own Resolution, thought might not be assisted by the armed forces of the Crown. If the Government exercised their influence in discouraging the exercise of arbitrary powers on the part of the landlord, they might possibly arrive at some modusvivendi until the Land Bill was passed. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had recommended Her Majesty's Government to adopt the advice of the Archbishop of Cashel; and, for his part, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman himself had not adopted that Archbishop's advice with reference to the second reading of the Bill. It would be uncandid not to admit that there was a divided responsibility as to the present condition of Ireland. The true patriot—whether Englishman or Irishman—was the man who would labour to bring about a reconciliation of the two great classes into which the agricultural population of Ireland was divided, but who remembered, at the same time, that no such reconciliation was possible except on the basis of absolute justice. If the Executive Government, by its extraordinary powers, enabled the landlord class in Ireland to obtain the supremacy for a time, the subjection of the mass of the population would be avenged when those extraordinary powers had been withdrawn; and if, on the other hand, this powerful organization, the Land League, succeeded by its power, in any given locality, in inducing those tenants who were not subjected to unjust rents to refuse to pay those that were fair, the landlords would in time be avenged; but they would still be only at cross purposes, and would have made no real advance towards establishing the just rights of either class of the community. There was an important subject included in the Motion which he regretted to see had been lost sight of—namely, the position of the gentlemen arrested under the Coercion Act. He had understood, when it was first intended to draw the attention of the House to this subject, that the action of the Chief Secretary in reference to certain arrests would be discussed, and that the Chief Secretary would be challenged to defend the exer-

    105
    cise of those extraordinary powers confided to him in certain cases. Now, considering the powers vested in the Irish Government by the Coercion Acts, he thought the number of arrests which had been made was not very extraordinary, and, when he was in Ireland during the Easter Vacation, he supposed there were not more than 20 men who had been arrested under those Acts; yet the result of his inquiries, even then, was sufficient to convince him that at least two or three innocent men were suffering under the operation of those Acts. He said this in all sincerity, and not because of an extravagant supposition that those intrusted with the powers could exercise them with more discretion or less hardship. He merely stated it as a fact, and as a warning to those who thought that they could exercise such exceptional powers without inflicting gross injustice upon innocent men. He should not think of accusing the Chief Secretary of having been wanting in sufficient consideration of those cases before he signed the Warrants under which those men detained were arrested; but there were some things the right hon. Gentleman might have done which, he thought, he had not done in regard to these cases. He was entitled under the Act to withhold from Parliament all knowledge of the evidence on which the reasonable suspicion was based in connection with these arrests; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) could not understand why, in any given case, when evidence was laid before the Chief Secretary that a certain person was suspected, an opportunity could not be given to that person, within 24 hours of his arrest, to lay before the Chief Secretary a statement of the grounds calculated in the opinion of the prisoner to rebut the accusations against him. He understood that they were to have a review of these different cases; but he remembered only two cases in which prisoners had been liberated since this Act came into operation. Then it must be borne in mind that the Act was enforced not merely against members of the Land League, who had been charged with violating the law, but it was also put in force against a class of politicians known as Nationalists. He himself was a Nationalist, and he knew two or three young men who were subject to imprisonment under this Act; and, as far
    106
    as he could learn from their own statement of the case, with the references they had given him, there was no solid ground on which suspicion could be based against them, except the fact that they cherished that sentiment of Irish nationality which certainly had been supported by some of the greatest names that were to be found in the roll of Irish history. He would ask what object the Government meant to achieve by keeping in prison men of National opinions? He was not referring to men whose National opinions were to be defended by force of arms; but to men who merely defended a Constitutional National principle. These men were prisoners who had never taken part in the Land League. He only mentioned these points to show that the Irish Government ought to exercise the powers conferred on them with very great discretion, and that immediately after his arrest every prisoner should have facilities to lay the most ample evidence before the Chief Secretary, so that the Chief Secretary might judge whether or not he had been prudently and reasonably advised. He felt so strongly the inutility of coercive legislation to re-establish peace in Ireland that he should be bound to vote for the Motion if it were persisted in; but he would not recommend his hon. Friend to take a division, because the propositions contained in his Motion were of a negative character, and did not propose any distinct course which the Government should adopt to bring to a termination the present unfortunate state of things in Ireland.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that as to the Motion suggesting no remedy, his hon. Friend who had just sat down, with his longer experience of Parliament, must know that the negative form was one of the conditions of a Vote of Censure on the Executive. They could only say—"In the past you acted badly in such and such a thing; and we feel bound to protest against it." He should, therefore, not fail to go to a division, however overwhelming the majority against him might be. They had been challenged again and again to go to a division, and it had been said that they had refrained because they did not dare to face the opinion of the House. He and his Friends were not so simple as to suppose

    107
    that by any argument or statement of theirs they could obtain a majority; but they were anxious to get some opinions of theirs placed on the record, in the hope that they might in some way obtain the judgment of the English public and gradually work their way to some substantial good by arousing the sense of the English people outside the House of Commons to the present condition of things in Ireland. He felt satisfied that they had succeeded in doing something to that end, and, for himslf, he should be satisfied with the result if it was only for having elicited the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), for he could not help thinking that that speech would have an effect upon the English public. So long as it remained unanswered—and it must always remain so—there would be something to go to the country in their behalf to claim the sympathy of the public. The Secretary of State for India had made use of a kind of argument not uncommon in that House. It came from those in authority, and was most unfair and unjust. The noble Lord had charged the hon. Member for Cork City with having used threats scarcely disguised under the semblance of a warning. Where was the justification for this? The hon. Member had warned the Government already more than once, but always in vain. He had now warned the Government most wisely, and it would be well for them to profit by it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had once been accused of using threats against the peace of the country, because he pointed out that if a certain state of things continued disturbance would be the result. The right hon. Gentleman had made use of a powerful illustration in reply to the accusation, for he asked—
    "If I stand near a volcano and see that an outburst is about to come, that the lava is about to descend, am I to be accused of using menaces because I warn you of the danger?"
    That he (Mr. M'Carthy) wished to apply to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. But the noble Lord himself, almost in the next breath, warned Members opposite that if they did not do something he did not know what would happen—that bloodshed would occur, that the forces of the Crown would have to be used. In fact, the noble Lord had used a menace, and his manner was much more like that of
    108
    a person using a menace than was that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork City. Some hon. Members spoke of healing the breach between the landlords and tenants of Ireland, and had referred to the existing difficulty as though it was a thing of yesterday or to-day. But with the birth of the landlord system came the birth of eviction, and the law had always been against the tenant, and the tenant had always suffered until the Land League had sprung or had been forced into existence. The tenantry had found that if they did not band themselves together for their own salvation, they would have no chance of protection from the law, the Minister, or the Government. That discovery was the author of the Land League—not the hon. Member for Cork or any other single individual. The Solicitor General in his speech had not taken account of the serious nature of this question, with all its traditions. It was not to be settled by an appeal to the ordinary conditions of debtor and creditor, or by asking whether any man was to be allowed to decide for himself what he was bound to pay. No man should have it in his power to say what he was entitled to pay; and no tenant in Ireland would contend under the influence of any organization that he had such a right, if it were not for the fact that the landlords had gone on squeezing what they wished from the tenants, by means of the forces of the Crown. He thought the Irish Members had fairly established their case, and they would be content with the result. He should have been glad if the Chief Secretary had been present to hear some of the arguments. They did not know what weighty business was occupying him at that moment. Perhaps he was concocting another Police Circular, or perhaps leading an attack of the forces on Quinlan Castle. They had heard it stated the only person in occupation of Quinlan's Castle was an old woman; if so, he did not think that was the only castle in Ireland in a similar occupation. The Irish Members were well aware that they would not be in a majority; but they would gladly allow the House to divide. He hoped, however, that they had succeeded in impressing some portion of their case on the minds of the English people, and had done something to bring about that better state of things in Ireland—that

    109
    reconciliation between all classes, without which Ireland could never be prosperous.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 130: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 229.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was understood that no other Business would be taken to-night, after the debate had been concluded. There were several Notices on the Paper, and perhaps the best course would be that he should move that the House do now adjourn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

  STATE OF IRELAND.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Government whether they have, in accordance with arrangement come to this afternoon, telegraphed to Ireland, and whether they have received any communication in regard to any of the points on which inquiry was made at the commencement of the Sitting, and on which the Government were not at that time in possession of any information?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received the following telegram from the Chief Secretary in Dublin, dated a quarter-past 8 last evening:—
  "No resistance to the force at New Pallas. Report of Lord Dunsandle's son having been fired at untrue. No report of importance from the provinces to-day."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Thursday next.