Commons Sitting of 10 May 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Halifax, &c.)* [158]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Acton, &c.)* [159].
Second Reading—Gas Provisional Orders*[147]; Local Government Provisional Order (Birmingham)* [144]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Brentford Union, &c.)* [149]; Water Provisional Orders* [146].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NEW STANDING ORDER.
  MR. E. STANHOPEmoved the following new Standing Order:—
  (Local Authorities to have a locus standi against Gas and Water Bills.)
  "That the municipal or other local authority of any town or district alleging in their Petition that such town or district may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any Bill relating to the lighting or water supply thereof, or the raising of capital for any such purpose, shall be entitled to be heard against such Bill."
  The hon. Gentleman said, that anyone who undertook to propose any alteration in the Rules and Orders of the House, and still more anyone who ventured to invade the sacred precincts of the Court of Referees, incurred considerable responsibility. He possessed, however, some knowledge of the practice before Committees upstairs, and the Board of Trade with respect to Provisional Orders. In the first place, he must be allowed to say that although, undoubtedly, the object of his proposal was to overrule the Court of Referees, he did not intend any act of discourtesy towards that body, who rendered great anti important services to the House. But the House would recollect that when any particular practice was objected to, and any wish expressed to alter a precedent established by the Court of Referees, the only way in which a re-consideration of the practice or precedent could be secured was by bringing the question regularly before the House, and proposing an alteration of the Standing Orders or a new Standing Order altogether. The proposal which he was about to lay before the House had no reference to any particular case, or to any particular place.

  157
  He desired only to discuss the matter as one of the general principles which ought to govern the relations between the local authorities and the Gas and Water Companies of their particular districts. As it stood at present, the Rule practically laid down by the Court of Referees in that House was that when a Gas and Water Company went to that House for the purpose of asking for additional capital, leave to oppose that proposal was not given by the Court of Referees to the local authorities. The object of this new Standing Order was to provide that when a Gas or Water Company came before Parliament, the local authority of the district should be entitled to be heard generally against such Gas or Water Company. Notice of an Amendment had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), who was himself a member of the Court of Referees, and the object of the Amendment was to limit very much the proposal which he (Mr. Stanhope) made. His hon. Friend wished to lay down by the Amendment that the opposition was to be limited to any matter contained in or proposed to be enacted by the Bill. In his (Mr. Stanhope's) opinion, that would be far too limited a proposal. The practice which he desired to establish in that House was exactly the same practice as that which now existed at the Board of Trade in regard to applications for Provisional Orders. And it was the same practice as that which now existed in regard to Private Bills in the House of Lords. He thought that the local authority ought to have power to appear in the case of any application by a Gas or Water Company for an increase of capital. The Gas or Water Company possessed a monopoly practically limited in duration by the amount of its capital; and what was suggested by the Standing Order he now desired to propose was that whenever the Gas or Water Company desired to extend its capital and came to Parliament to ask leave for that purpose, Parliament ought to have the power of reviewing generally all the circumstances of the proposal, and of imposing any fresh conditions which the circumstances of the case might seem to require. In the first place, he thought that this was the manifest intention of Parliament. If not, why did not Parliament, when it
  158
  first established Gas and Water Companies, give them an easy power by some simple process of acquiring the additional capital which might be necessary for the future development of their undertaking. Parliament decided that it would grant capital to a limited extent only, and that every subsequent application for additional capital must be made to Parliament itself, so that Parliament might have an opportunity of reviewing altogether the terms of the concession. If that were the intention of Parliament, surely it followed as the logical sequence that Parliament intended that the local authority who best represented the interests of the consumers of the particular district should have a locus standi before a Committee of the House, and should have an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the manner in which the monopoly had been exercised, and of explaining whether there were any reasons why a further extension of capital should not be granted, or to suggest the terms on which it should be granted. It was now the constant practice of the local authorities to purchase these undertakings; and in consequence of the existence of that practice, and of the fact that Parliament usually gave its assent to it, it became more necessary to entrust the local authorities with the power of guarding against the unnecessary increase of capital on the part of these Companies. No doubt, in these days there was some safeguard by the introduction of "the auction" clauses; but perhaps he might be allowed to represent to the House that these clauses did not apply at all to Water Companies; and that, over and beyond anything covered by these clauses, there were many other points which had been developed by experience year by year, which showed that those who represented a particular district should be empowered to go before a Committee of the House of Commons. They were told that the passing of this new Standing Order would have the effect of increasing litigation. He could not see why that supposition should be entertained. The adoption of the same principle had not led to any undue litigation in the case of Provisional Orders, or in the case of Committees in the House of Lords. Then why should it be supposed that it would be likely

  159
  to lead to litigation in this instance? There were one or two safeguards against undue litigation already in existence. First of all, the House would remember that a statutory power was given to every Committee of that House in any case where they considered the opposition to have been frivolous and vexatious, to inflict the costs upon the opposing parties. That power had already been exercised in not a few cases, and must have had the best possible influence upon local authorities in inducing them to abstain from opposing a Bill where their opposition would not be justified. In the second place, the operation of the Borough Funds Act of 1867 had also operated as a salutary check. That Act would be perfectly familiar to the House. Under its provisions it was absolutely necessary before any local authority could oppose a Gas or Water Bill, that it should obtain the sanction of a majority of the ratepayers at a meeting specially called for that purpose. He did not think that at this moment it was necessary to add anything to what he had now stated; but he would simply submit his proposal for the discussion of the House. He felt that the best mode, after all, of protecting the interests of the ratepayers, was to strengthen the hands of the local authorities. He believed, also, that this popular House of Parliament would not refuse to the local authorities the power which day after day, without jealousy and without inconvenience, was given by the House of Lords.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the municipal or other local authority of any town or district alleging in their Petition that such town or district may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any Bill relating to the lighting or water supply thereof, or the raising of capital for any such purpose, shall be entitled to be heard against such Bill."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
  MR. PEMBERTONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 4, after the word "against," to insert the words "any matter contained in, or proposed to be enacted by." The hon. Member said, that in rising to propose the Amendment which stood in his name, he hoped the House would allow him very shortly to state, in order to explain the nature of the Amendment, what the practice in the Court of Referees was, how it had
  160
  arisen, and how it was regulated. He thought that his hon. Friend had not described the course of the practice of the Court of Referees quite accurately, and he hoped that he should be able to set him right in one or two points. The Standing Order under which the Court at present acted was the one numbered 134, which said—
  "It shall be competent for the Referees on Private Bills to admit the petitioner, being the municipal or other authority having the local management of the Metropolis, or of any town, or the inhabitants of any town or district alleged to be injuriously affected by a Bill, to be heard against such Bill if they shall think fit."
  Under that Order the House would see that the power given to the Referees was optional. They might, as they thought fit or not, allow the local authority of any town or district alleged to be injuriously affected to be heard against the Bill. And he might say this—that in every case that had been before the Court, wherever any alteration was sought to be made, either in the quantity or the quality of the gas or water supply, or in the extension or diminution of the limits of the district, or in the price of the gas or water supplied, the Petitioners in every case had been admitted. They had gone further than that. They even admitted them in a case where the place of testing the gas was simply altered—where it was shifted from one place to another. They had considered that even so trifling an alteration formed a sufficient ground for their admission. The only cases in which they had ever been refused a locus standi were cases where it was simply sought to raise additional capital, and upon that point he must entirely differ from his hon. Friend who had moved this new Standing Order. Where new capital was sought to be raised it did not in any way increase or extend the monopoly, but it simply gave additional facilities to the Companies for the purpose of carrying out purposes which the Legislature had previously sanctioned and authorized. Of course, the Court of Referees were only anxious to carry out the Orders of the House, and it would relieve them, to a great extent, from very laborious duties if this Standing Order was carried. The House would observe that his Amendment did not in any way oppose the principle—as he understood the principle—of his hon. Friend's Motion. His

  161
  hon. Friend wished, in cases where additional capital was to be raised, that, as a matter of course, the Local Government Boards should be admitted. His (Mr. Pemberton's) Amendment did not deal with that in any way. He thought that a great deal might be said against that proposition. It might give rise to a great deal of increased expense and of unnecessary litigation; and in reference to the statement of his hon. Friend that the Local Government Boards were checked by the operation of the Borough Funds Act, he might point out to his hon. Friend that that was not so in practice, because, although the Local Government Board could not charge the rates without the previous consent of the inhabitants, yet they constantly in practice did it, and took their chance of getting it confirmed afterwards. On these occasions opposition was raised in many instances unnecessarily, and he thought with very great disadvantage and discouragement to people who had invested their money in undertakings which had already been sanctioned by the House. His hon. Friend had referred to the practice of the House of Lords and of the Board of Trade; but in neither of those cases could he draw a single argument in favour of his Resolution. The practice was entirely different, and could not be compared in any way to that of the House of Commons. In the House of Lords the same Committee decided on the merits of a Bill, and also the question whether the Petitioners should have a right to be heard or not. It was therefore as a matter of course that they were permitted to be heard in every case, because the Committee which decided the question of merits also settled the question of locus standi. With regard to the practice of the Board of Trade, the rule is this—Whenever a measure is proposed, an officer of the Board was sent down to the country, and he admitted everybody to state their objections as a matter of course. He did not think that his hon. Friend proposed that everybody, as a matter of course, should be allowed to petition against a Bill in that House. All he (Mr. Pemberton) proposed to do was to carry out what he believed to be already the Standing Order, and certainly the intention of the House. The object of his Amendment was simply to restrict the Petitioners to those points which were raised by the
  162
  Petition and by the Bill. There was already a Standing Order, No. 128, which he was convinced had that object in view. It was in these terms—
  "No Petition against a Private Bill, or Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, shall be taken into consideration by the Committee on such Bill which shall not distinctly specify the ground on which the Petitioner objects to any of the provisions thereof; and the Petitioner shall be only heard on such grounds so stated; and if it shall appear to the said Committee that such grounds are not specified with sufficient accuracy, the Committee may direct that there be given in that Committee a more specific statement in writing, but limited to such grounds of objection so inaccurately specified."
  He thought that on reading that through for the first time the impression on the House would most certainly be that it was intended that in no case of any Private Bill should the Petitioners be entitled to be heard, except on grounds of objection to the Bill stated in their Petition. But in practice it had been held that these words did not go far enough; that although, as far as any objection taken to a provision of the Bill there must be a distinct ground of such objection stated in the Petition, yet it did not in terms say that in a case where something was raised in the Petition which was not raised by the Bill, the Petitioner should not be heard on any such statement. He thought nobody could read that Standing Order without being convinced that that was the intention of the framers of the Order and of the House in passing it. All that his Amendment did was in the way of general application; but, of course, as the proposed new Standing Order applied only to Gas and Water Bills, it would at present apply only to Gas and Water Bills, although he thought it was one which should be of general application, and which, he believed, only carried out the existing Order No. 128. In this case, he thought it would not in any way interfere with his hon. Friend's proposal. It would in no way prevent a Petitioner from stating any objection to a Bill, and it would not, prevent them from being heard as to their objection. It would only prevent, in the first case, a Petitioner raising something for the first time of objection which was in no way contemplated by the Bill, and which was really not one of the issues between the parties. He thought he might give an illustration of a practice which he

  163
  thought very objectionable, and which he thought the Amendment would remedy. During the present Session the South Eastern Railway Company—a Company with which he had no connection whatever—brought in a Bill simply to enable them to purchase an existing railway of a few miles in length, made by a private Company. In the way of objections, there were allegations raised by the Petitioners against the Bill that the fares charged by the Railway Company, not on the particular line they were about to purchase, but on an entirely different part of their system, were too high, and they asked the Committee appointed simply to inquire into a question whether one Railway Company might sell to another Railway Company their existing undertaking, to go into the whole question of rates and tolls charged by the purchasing Company in an entirely different district. There was a Committee now sitting on the general question of railway rates which might be a fitting tribunal to enter into such matters; but he did not think that on a Bill which in no way raised issues of that sort, the Petitioners should be allowed to spring a mine upon a Railway Company and propose to undo that which the Legislature only a few years before had carefully inquired into and sanctioned. With these few observations he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  COLONEL MAKINSseconded the Amendment. He thought that a new Standing Order was hardly necessary at all; and it appeared to him that, to some extent, it cast reflections upon the Court of Referees and their action in the past. But even if the House considered that a new Standing Order was to some entent necessary, he was quite sure it was only fair that it should be qualified in the manner proposed by the Amendment. His hon. Friend below (Mr. E. Stanhope) had stated with regard to Gas and Water Companies that they had a monopoly; but he forgot to state that that monopoly was a restricted one, and that it was accompanied by compulsory provisions requiring them to carry out the business they undertook, and to supply the public with the article water or gas they were empowered to produce or distribute. Therefore, under these circumstances, there was no inducement on the part of a Company to come to Par-
  164
  liament for fresh capital, because since the adoption of the auction clauses and the sliding scale initiated by Mr. Forster's Committee some years ago, it was absolutely of no advantage whatever to a Company to increase their capital. If this Standing Order passed in the words proposed by his hon. Friend, a direct encouragement would be given to the local authorities to interpose with roving Petitions in every case where a Company asked for new capital, and they would be induced to go behind the Bill and raise questions that long ago had been settled on general principles by Committees of that House. The adoption of the Standing Order would also have another effect that would be very unfair to a Company and very undesirable, for it would enable a Corporation who had an intention of acquiring the business of a Company first to attack them in Parliament when they applied for power to raise new capital, and then, having reduced the value of the undertaking by attacking it in Parliament, they might be able to purchase it more cheaply. The Company was bound to supply gas or water, and was bound to come to Parliament, as their district extended, for further powers; and it was certainly not in accordance with his ideas of fairness that in endeavouring to fulfil a responsibility forced upon them by Parliament they should be subjected to the cost and injury which the adoption of this new Standing Order would throw upon them. As he knew there were other Members of the House who wished to speak upon the subject, he would content himself with having stated the views of the Companies and with having seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 4, after the word "against," to insert the words "any matter contained in or proposed to be enacted by."—(Mr. Pemberton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MAPPINexpressed a hope that the House would agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope). He could assure the House that under the present Standing Orders considerable difficulties were placed in the way of Municipal Corporations and other local authorities in

  165
  opposing Bills of this nature. In a town with which he was connected—Sheffield—these difficulties had been felt only this very year. A Bill had been introduced into Parliament to increase the capital of the Water Company there; but the Corporation had been unable to have their objections to the Bill explained to a Committee, although very considerable differences existed between the inhabitants and the Water Company, and a very large sum of money had been expended in obtaining a legal decision in reference to those difficulties, and the Water Company were requested to have the matter definitely settled by a clause being introduced into their Bill before the present Session of Parliament, but which they declined to comply with, and the Corporation had no locus standi, the Bill being promoted only for the raising of additional capital.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLhoped he might be allowed to say a word in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton). The original proposition for a new Standing Order might very well, he thought, be negatived. It was proposed that there should be an alteration of the existing Standing Orders, and that the local authorities should have power to oppose all applications by Gas and Water Companies for obtaining additional capital. The question then arose as to the extent to which this power of petitioning should be limited, and he fully endorsed all that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent. The new Order proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln was not drawn, in his opinion, with sufficient care. It would allow the local authorities on presenting a Petition to go into a great variety of extraneous questions. He was quite sure he should have the assent of the Chairman of Ways and Means when he said that it would be much better to keep the parties, when they went before a Committee, to the absolute issue that was raised by the Bill. Let them come in and have full opportunity of being heard on the matters proposed by the Bill; but do not allow them to enter widely into questions which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The least the House could do, if they adopted the proposed Standing Order at all,
  166
  would be to adopt it with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Kent.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln is one which, on the one hand, is largely interesting to the directors and shareholders of Gas and Water Companies, but which, on the other hand, interests most directly the various local authorities throughout the country who think they are prejudiced by the present practice, which prevents them from appearing to oppose these Companies when they come to ask Parliament for power to raise additional capital. As representing the Board of Trade, I have given the most careful consideration to the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln is one that the House would do well to adopt. In saying that I beg to observe that I do not conceive that I am in the slightest degree casting any imputation upon the action of the Referees. This action, however, appears to have become much more stringent in the last few years than it formerly was. I received a letter this morning from Mr. William Livesey, the Secretary of the Gas and Water Companies' Association, and in that letter he says—
  "I have been engaged in Parliamentary matters more than 30 years, and as Secretary to this Association more than 12 years; and, so far as my knowledge extends, the rule has always been that when a Company applies for power to raise additional capital the local authority is entitled to inquire into all its powers."
  It is only recently that the Standing Orders Committee have refused this privilege universally to the local authorities. Mr. Livesey goes on to say—
  "Although this latter part has not always been adhered to, I believe that, notwithstanding the recent decisions on the question of locus standi, this is the general understanding of the Provincial Companies at the present time, and that there is no desire on their part to alter it. If, however, the decisions are upheld, the Companies will, of course, take every opportunity of turning them to account."
  I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln that there are no grounds why this House should not agree to the practice already adopted by the House of Lords and by the Board of Trade in the case of applications for Provisional Orders. The hon. Member for East

  167
  Kent (Mr. Pemberton) says the two cases are not analogous. To that I assent; but, at the same time, I must be allowed to say that the result of the practice in the House of Lords is that the local authorities have there this power of opposing which is denied to them under the interpretation of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I regret that I cannot see my way to the acceptance of the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member for East Kent. That Amendment would have the effect of limiting the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln, and would make it practically of no effect at all. Mr. Livesey, in his letter, points this out very clearly. He says—
  "If a Company exhausts its capital or uses all its land it is obliged to come to Parliament for further powers; but it is hardly possible to conceive a case in which a Company would be obliged to come to Parliament for an alteration of the price they are charging or the illuminating power of the gas they are supplying; and under the proposed Amendment, so long as these points were carefully excluded from the Bill, the public would not be entitled to inquire into them."
  MR. PEMBERTONbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The effect of his Amendment would be to allow the local authorities to be heard on everything relating to the proposed additional capital.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Precisely; but they would not be entitled, on the proposal of a Company to double its capital, to raise any question as to the quality of the water or gas supplied or the price charged. That is, I think, a most important matter. At the present time the great majority of the Gas Companies are not under the sliding scale system. The first thing to be done in connection with the sliding scale system is to fix the initial price, and in that question the local authorities have the greatest possible interest as representing the communities. And yet, under the Standing Orders, with this Amendment of the hon. Member for East Kent, the local authorities would not be entitled to appear. The only objection of any force which has been taken to the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln is that it would have the effect of seriously increasing the cost of Private Bill legislation. I do not deny that there is some force in that objection; but I would sub-
  168
  mit to the House that if this litigation is expensive, that is a reason for altering the process of litigation and for endeavouring to substitute another and less expensive mode, but is no reason for shutting the door against those who desire to be heard against the proposals of a Private Bill. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Kent and accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR (who was very indistinctly heard): I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the Amendment which has been submitted by the hon. Member for East Kent, and I shall certainly feel it my duty on this occasion to vote for that Amendment. I entirely agree with the proposition that the local authorities should have a locus standi to be heard against every Bill which affects the interests of the locality they represent. The only difference between the Motion and the Amendment is that the latter limits this right to the subject-matter of the Bill, and does not open up past issues settled formerly by often protracted and expensive contests. Recent legislation in regard to Private Bills has kept in view the necessity of diminishing, as far as possible, the expense of promoting Private Bills, whether it be incurred by a Municipality or by a private Company. I think that the effect of the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln would be to bring every Private Bill affecting a Municipality before a Committee upstairs, and would enable the local authorities to rake up every question that may have been decided by previous legislation, and might consequently increase enormously the cost of promoting a Private Bill. Let me give an instance in order to show how seriously the adoption of the proposal now submitted to the House may affect the public interests in a particular locality. Suppose that a Company desires to obtain facilities for the supply of water or gas to the suburbs of a town, and for that purpose asks for power to raise additional capital. If the local authorities have the right of opposing them in regard to the powers they already possess, the Company will naturally be afraid of coming to Parliament on account of the excessive expense they

  169
  might incur. They will therefore refrain from petitioning for a Bill and asking for additional capital, and the suburbs in question would be deprived of the benefit they would derive from the extension of the supply of gas or water. The mere extension of works, for which Parliamentary authority is required, might be made the ground for a renewed contest all along the line. I think, therefore, that it would be inexpedient to give the local authorities, on a question of raising additional capital, a locus standi in matters relating to the quality of the water or the supply of water, or to the quality of the gas or the supply of gas, when these questions have once been decided. I do not think it would be right, in such a case, to allow the local authorities to rake up every question that has been previously decided, for this would inflict great expense not only upon the private Company promoting the Bill, but upon the Municipality itself, and it must be borne in mind that this double expense ultimately falls on the consumer. I see nothing, however, but advantage in asking for a locus standi on the subject-matter of the Bill. For these reasons, I am prepared to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Kent.
  MR. RODWELLwas anxious to say a few words upon the question before the division took place. He had had a considerable amount of practical experience, and he certainly agreed to the principle of the proposition made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln. He also agreed with his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as to the danger of allowing the municipal authorities to be heard in opposition upon points that had no connection with the subject-matter of the Bill. The state of things in regard to Water Companies and the municipal authorities was very different from what it was a few years ago. The relations with these Companies now with the public were of such a description that it was necessary that Gas and Water Companies should be opposed when they went to Parliament for the purpose of increasing their capital, because that increase of capital involved a great many considerations, which might be fairly raised before a Committee. He should be the last person to say a word in disparagement of the Referees, who had rendered such great service to Private
  170
  Bill Committees by lessening time and expense; but while he recognized the principle of the Standing Order proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincoln he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYadmitted the long experience which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) possessed; but he begged to say at once that, as far as his judgment went, he should support the original Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincoln, for the considerations which had been so well put by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln was not intended as a reflection upon the Court of Referees, but to assimilate the practice of that House with that of the House of Lords and of the Board of Trade. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton) would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
  MR. WHITLEYentertained a strong feeling in favour of the Motion which had been made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope), and was quite satisfied that the Municipalities, as a body, would be much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for giving his support to the Resolution. He was sure he was expressing the feeling of everyone who had anything to do with municipal government when he said that they always felt a great difficulty in opposing any provisions submitted in a Private Bill by Gas and Water Companies. Representing, as they did, the localities, and bearing in mind the interests that were at stake when measures of this kind were promoted, they felt that they should always be allowed the opportunity of going before Parliament whenever such Bills were submitted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 311: Majority 255.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the municipal or other local authority of any town or district alleging in their Petition that such town or district may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any Bill relating to the lighting or water supply thereof, or the raising of capital for any such purpose, shall be entitled to be heard against such Bill.
  Ordered, That the said Standing Order (Local Authorities to have a locus standi against Gas and Water Bills) be a Standing Order of this House.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HALIFAX, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Halifax and Leeds and the City of Manchester, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 158.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ACTON, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government Districts of Acton, Buxton, and Crompton, the Port of Harwich, the Improvement Act District of Llandudno, the Borough of Monmouth, the Local Government District of Normanton, the Borough of Pontefract, the Local Government District of Wallasey, the Borough of Walsall, the Improvement Act District of Wath-upon-Dearne, and the Local Board of Health District of Woolwich, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 159.]

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB -INSPECTORS.
  MR. FAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the ease that, when the pay of the Irish Constabulary was increased in 1872, the sub-inspectors were the only members of the Force whose work was increased by the enlargement of their districts, and yet they got the smallest addition to their pay; so small, in fact, that it did not do more than cover the extra travelling expenses consequent on the enlarged district; is nearly half the income of Constabulary officers made up of "allowances;" and, is it the case that these "allowances" are ignored when pensions are calculated, whereas in all other branches of the Civil Service the officials have one fixed sum for salary, on the whole of which their pensions are calculated?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas understood to say it was the case that when the pay of the Constabulary was increased in 1872 the sub-inspectors were the only members of the Force whose work was increased. Between 1874 and
  172
  1877 the number of sub-inspectors was reduced. It was again increased last year; but it was still under what it was in 1874. The sub-inspectors received considerable allowances, and, as a general rule; the allowances were not taken into account when the pensions were being calculated.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF CHARLES FROST AND EDWARD SMITH.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention in the case of Charles Frost and Edward Smith (who were on the 1st of November 1878 convicted of burglary, but who being subsequently shown to be innocent received on the 26th of August 1880 a free pardon) to recommend that they, or either of them, should receive any compensation or solatium in the shape of money or otherwise?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that after careful inquiry into this case he had come to the conclusion that it was a case of mistaken identity, and consequently he had advised that a free pardon should be given to those men. But he did not find that the circumstances of the case brought it within the very rare instances in which compensation had been made for the miscarriage of justice. He was happy to say that, as to one of the men, he had been able to find employment for him in the Public Service, for which the man had expressed himself grateful. The other man he had heard nothing of since.

  CURRENCY—MONETARY CONFERENCE AT PARIS—BI-METALLISM.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the mission of Sir Louis Mallet to Paris, who is understood to have gone thither with a view of taking part in the Monetary Conferences, is to be interpreted as giving any sanction on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the project of conferring a fictitious value on one of the metals employed as currency, and of aiding whatever consequences may reasonably be anticipated from the adoption of what is called "Bi-metallism?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, what

  173
  I have to state is this. The French and American Governments have accepted the terms on which the delegates were to be sent, on the part of India, to the Monetary Conference before these delegates were nominated, and therefore the view supposed to be entertained by Sir Louis Mallet does not enter into the question. The terms upon which the attendance of the British delegate was accepted were these—The Secretary of State for India, in Council, would not be held by his actions to commit the Government of India to any act or proceeding in the nature of the adoption of the principle of bi-metallism. He was unwilling to encourage the expectation of any material change in the monetary policy of India; but he would favourably consider any measure for adoption in India calculated to promote the re-establishment of the value of silver. That is the extent of the pledge given; and I do not believe there is any necessity for making any additional proposal.

  ARMY—PORTABLE ENTRENCHING TOOLS.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken with a view to providing English infantry regiments or portions of such regiments with portable entrenching tools, such as have long been in use in the Austrian and Roumanian armies; and, if not, whether he can state the reason why such equipment is deemed unnecessary or undesirable?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to state that this question has not been neglected. Two hundred and eighty-five Roumanian spades were issued last year to eight battalions for trial. The reports were generally satisfactory; the spade was well adapted for use in light soil, but not in heavy or hard soils. Seventy spades, of a pattern recommended by the School of Military Engineering, are now being tried in the same battalions. This spade is longer than the other, and has a different shaped head. A portable spade is included in the proposed equipment for the Infantry soldier, and the Roumanian spade can be so carried. Three thousand spades of this pattern have been sent to South Africa; but the
  174
  question as to the best portable entrenching tool is not yet settled.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED FORCED LABOUR.
  MR. BURTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to an article which appeared in the "Newcastle Chronicle" of the 3rd instant, under the heading of "What the Miner's Agents saw in Galway," in which, among other statements of great hardship and poverty suffered by the tenants and labourers, it is declared that a system of slavery and forced labour exists in that part of Ireland; whether, in particular, he has noticed the following passage:—
  "Mr. Bryson remarked, on the principle that a horse may be led to the water yet he cannot be made to drink, that, after going to the landlord's place by compulsion, they need not work harder than they liked; but he was met by the retort from the men to the effect that the agent, or some one deputed by him, stood over the tenant, armed with a stout cudgel, which he did not fail to lay on to the back and shoulders of the tenant if he showed any signs of shirking his work. The exclamation 'Impossible!' broke out from both of us involuntarily, as we could not for one moment realise that such a system of slave-driving could exist. Up jumped one of the men before us, a respectable-looking man enough, who told us that if we had the slightest doubt on this matter of the stick, he would then and there strip to the skin, and show us undeniable evidence of the beatings he had sustained, the shape of sundry bruises and discolouration which he had received at the hands of the bailiff;"
  whether he can confirm, contradict, or give any information relative to these statements; and, if they are true, whether he can do anything to afford protection to these tenants and labourers against the infliction of such gross cruelties and indignities upon them?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member was kind enough to show me the newspaper from which he has made an extract, and I cannot believe that there is any truth in the statements referred to. I have received no information, either official or otherwise, which tends in the slightest degree to confirm them, and I really think the statements appear to be quite incredible.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had received information contradicting those statements?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: If the House looks at this Question, it will see that it is utterly impossible for me to have received such information. The statement is that injury has been inflicted on some persons in the county of Galway. I do not suppose that anyone who is in official communication with me is acquainted with everybody in the county of Galway. We have never received any information which gives us the slightest reason to believe it is true, and I do not believe it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—RELIGIOUS PRO CESSIONS IN BELFAST.
  MR. BURTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state whether it is true, as reported in the Belfast newspapers, that three Primitive Methodist Ministers have been summoned before the magistrates of that town and sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for singing hymns and conducting a procession through the streets, though it was proved by the testimony of the policemen who prosecuted that the procession was most orderly and well-behaved; and, whether, if this is true, the conviction was legal; and in any event he will obtain an explanation regarding a sentence apparently extremely severe under the circumstances?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I find that three Primitive Methodist ministers were summoned before the Belfast borough magistrates, under the Borough Act, which provides that any person who shall be guilty of riotous or indecent behaviour shall be liable to a penalty of 40 s. In two cases the defendants were fined 40 s., and in default to be imprisoned 14 days. The case against the third was adjourned, and an appeal is to be heard on the 17th instant. I cannot pronounce any opinion on the legality of the conviction. I am informed that singing hymns in the public streets, accompanied by a large crowd, was considered to be an offence; and I must remind my hon. Friend and the House that very frequently crowds and processions in Belfast have excited serious disturbance.

  THE ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— MURDER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If
  176
  he can state the number of British subjects murdered since the 1st of January 1880, including the officers and crews of the "Ripple," "Esperanza," "Lolia," "Mystery," "Borealis," "Dauntless," "Annie Brooks," and H.M.S. "Sand-fly," in the Pacific, and how many of the murderers have been tried at Levuka or elsewhere?
  Ma. GRANT DUFF: I fear it is but too true that not a few British subjects have recently been murdered by savages in the Pacific; and if the right hon. and gallant Admiral will repeat his Question some day next week—perhaps on Thursday—I will endeavour to get full particulars for him.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BASUTOS (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that the Basutos have rejected the terms of peace, that au Africander Ministry is about to be installed in Cape Town, that a repudiation of British sovereignty is imminent in consequence of the general disgust at the Transvaal Peace, that the governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, is now 1,000 miles away in the Transvaal, and that a Colonist of influence is on his way to England with claims against the Home Goverment to the amount of £5,000,000 from loyal Colonists who are being driven out of the Transvaal; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will state what steps they propose taking to preserve British sovereignty and the ten million pounds' worth of yearly trade between this Country and South Africa?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: We have not heard that the Basutos have rejected the terms of peace, nor have we any news from Basutoland. The new Cape Ministry seems a very fairly representative one, so far as we can judge from the lists which have appeared. A repudiation of British sovereignty is not imminent. Sir Hercules Robinson is, I should think, quite 1,000 miles from Cape Town, though in constant telegraphic communication with that place. He is not in the Transvaal, but in Natal. We have heard nothing of the influential Colonist; and I should regret that any Colonist, influential or otherwise, had embarked upon what could hardly be described as "a wise man's errand." In reply to the hon. Member's sixth and

  177
  last Question, I would say that it will be my duty to answer it pretty fully when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) makes his intended Motion; but that to do so now, even in the most cursory manner, would oblige me to tax the patience of the House to an altogether intolerable extent.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—INVASION OF TUNISIAN TERRITORY.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any assurance has been given in writing to Her Majesty's Government by the French Government to the effect that the French Forces will be withdrawn from Tunisian territory as soon as the Kroumir question has been disposed of?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have received no written assurance to this effect from the French Government; but the French Minister for Foreign Affairs has more than once disclaimed in his conversations with Lord Lyons any intention on the part of the French Government to annex Tunis. The latest assurances given to Lord Lyons by M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire, which were of a very decided character against conquest or annexation, have already been made known to Parliament by my noble Friend, Lord Granville.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED OUT RAGE AT BALTINGLASS.
  MR. M'COANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state to the House the Report received front the Irish Police authorities respecting an alleged riot at Baltinglass on Thursday last, in which, according to the Dublin correspondence of the "Times" of Saturday, many Protestant houses were wrecked, and other serious outrages committed? He wished to add that he had received telegrams contradicting the report, and stating that it was a case of a few boys throwing some stones, the matter being grossly exaggerated.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: All I can say is, I have not yet received sufficient information with regard to this matter, and the hon. Member will be kind enough to repeat the Question on Thursday or

  LAW AND POLICE—ELIZABETH BURLEY.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the letters of Elizabeth Burley and Mr. Alfred Dyer, in the "Daily News" of yesterday, Monday 9th May, the former asserting her innocence of the conduct imputed to her, and the latter detailing circumstances and the opinions of others in confirmation of her assertion; and, whether he will deem it right to cause inquiry to be made by an impartial person with such care and discretion as an investigation into the character of a woman demands?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, if this poor girl were innocent, there was no doubt that a great wrong had been done her, and she was entitled to entire sympathy and redress; and he was sure that his hon. and learned Friend would not doubt that he was as anxious as he was that entire justice should be done to her. When he was questioned on this subject, he was bound to answer according to the information which was accessible to him. Anyone conversant with this painful class of cases must know how difficult it was, in the midst of prejudice by which such cases were surrounded, to arrive at the exact truth. When called upon to form a judgment in this instance, he did not think it right to rely on the statement of the girl herself, or upon the statement of the police, both of which would be naturally biassed. He looked rather to the surrounding circumstances, and to the statements of unprejudiced witnesses and persons not likely to be deceived. In the proceedings before the magistrates, the chaplain, who had acted as the girl's friend, made a statement which appeared to be altogether inconsistent with his belief in her innocence. At the conclusion of the proceedings, one of the magistrates who heard the case said he had had some conversation with the unfortunate girl, and that she had expressed her willingness to act properly if anything could be done for her. The Chairman said he "could do no more." If the magistrates had been of a different opinion, they would have condemned the conduct of the police, which they did not do. His (Sir William Harcourt's) position was not au easy one. He had, on the

  179
  one hand, to take care that no one was molested on unjust suspicion, nor, when justly suspected, that they were harshly dealt with; but, on the other hand, he had to see that the police were not deterred by unfair accusations from the discharge of a difficult duty. He had already stated that if the girl was not innocent the police had acted with a want of discretion for which they would be severely reprimanded. If the girl was innocent, the case would assume a different aspect, and would have to be dealt with in a different manner. If an innocent girl was pursued with unjust suspicion, she was entitled to all the reparation that could be afforded her. He had already directed that inquiry should be made and the facts ascertained by all the means at his disposal. If his hon. and learned Friend could suggest any more effectual manner of dealing with the matter, he should be most happy to co-operate with him for arriving at the exact truth of the case.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  MR. PARNELLrose to put a Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when—
  MR. BRADLAUGH, who had been standing below the Bar, advanced again to the Table, and, amid cries of "Order!" from Mr. Speaker and the House, said: I am here, Sir, in order that I may fulfil the duty imposed upon me by Law, as a duly elected Member, and take the Oath required by Law.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has already ordered that Mr. Bradlaugh, upon presenting himself to take the Oath, should withdraw below the Bar. Until the House has otherwise ordered, I shall consider that that Order of the House is in force; and I, therefore, in fulfilment of my duty to this House, call upon Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Most respectfully I submit, Sir, that the Order of the House is illegal, and I refuse to obey.
  MR. SPEAKER: In discharge of the Order of the House, I call upon the Serjeant at Arms to remove Mr. Bradlaugh.
  The Serjeant at Arms accordingly conducted him below the Bar.
  MR. BRADLAUGH, standing at the Bar: It is my intention to refuse to obey the Order of the House, as it is illegal.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has been the witness of the course taken by Mr. Bradlaugh, and my powers in this matter being exhausted, I must ask the House for instructions as to the course to be taken, so as to secure the orderly conduct of Business in this House.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know, Sir, whether I am to conclude from the silence of the Leader of the House and of the Government that it is his intention to pursue upon this occasion the same course which he pursued upon former occasions. When an intimation is given to me that it is the intention of the Leader of the House to make any proposal I shall resume my seat, considering that it is more appropriate for him to take steps to support your authority and the Order of the House than it is for a private Member. But, in the absence of any such intimation, I beg to make a Motion, and the Motion I shall submit to you is this—
  "That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."
  It appears to me that this meets the case. It is necessary that the Order of the House should be preserved. We have no desire to press anything in the shape of penal infliction upon Mr. Bradlaugh; but we think it absolutely essential that we should take steps to preserve the peace and order of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a Motion which, from his point of view with respect to this question, is perfectly consistent and becoming, and in making that Motion he has used language to which no one can take exception—language of which certainly I do not feel that I am at all entitled to complain. I am, however, desirous that he should distinctly understand the exact nature of the difficulty which leads me, after very full reflection, to consider myself disabled from making such a Motion. On the other hand, I do not hold myself bound to resist the Motion, nor do I encourage resistance on the part of others. On the contrary, I think it is

  181
  our duty as a minority—I am referring back to a recent occurrence—to tender a respectful submission to the Order of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is one thing to respectfully support the Order of the House, and another thing to undertake to guide the House by making a Motion. My belief has been all along, and is still, that Mr. Bradlaugh—whether right or wrong in his own mind—is legally entitled to come into this House and take his seat. With that belief it would not be consistent, it would not be becoming, it would not be dignified, and I do not think it ought to be an acceptable service to the House that I, who entertain that belief, should be the person to move that Mr. Bradlaugh should be taken away from this Table, where I think he has come to discharge the duty which the law requires him to discharge. That is the ground, and not any indisposition to interfere with the proceedings of the House, nor any indisposition to assist and support the authority of the Speaker in the Chair, but a very definite conviction that has led me to see that it is clearly wrong on my part to undertake or to endeavour to guide the House; but it leaves me still fully persuaded that it is right and fit that I should respectfully submit to the House, and that I should tender, as far as I may venture to do so, to those who think with me on the general question, a recommendation that they should pursue a similar course.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have not risen to ask the House to divide against the Resolution. As the Prime Minister has said, this is the logical outcome of the Resolution passed by a majority of the House the other day. It is very evident that we are here to carry on Business, and that it would be impossible to carry it on if Mr. Bradlaugh were to exercise what he considers, and what we consider, his statutory rights, and persistently to come up to that Table to take the Oath. Therefore, I am not going to ask the House to divide against this Resolution; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon to be good enough to explain what is the precise meaning of the Resolution, because I think many Gentlemen here do not quite understand what it is. Is it that Mr. Bradlaugh should be forbidden to enter the pre-
  182
  cincts of this House; and, if so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what those precincts are? It is simply for information that I ask, and not with any intention of opposing the Resolution.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understand that when a Gentleman has been returned as a Member of this House, and from any circumstance is unable to take his seat in the House, or is restrained from doing so—as has been the case in several instances, and among them in that of Baron Rothschild, who was in that position for several years—the Gentleman so returned is regarded as an incomplete Member of this House, and as such is entitled to take his seat below the Bar. That has been the practice which has been followed in these cases, and Mr. Bradlaugh has lately followed that example himself, and even remained there during our divisions. It is obvious that Mr. Bradlaugh, remaining in that position, can at any moment, with great ease, enter the body of the House, which he claims to be legally entitled to do, for the purpose of tendering to take the Oath at this Table. I think it impossible that, so long as Mr. Bradlaugh retains that position, it is impossible for the House to have any security that its proceedings will not be interrupted at a moment's notice, and scenes which we all feel, whatever our opinions, to be deplorable may occur. I therefore by the Motion propose that Mr. Bradlaugh shall be excluded from the House—that is to say, that he shall not come within the door that is kept by the doorkeepers, until or unless he shall undertake to the Speaker that he will not disturb the proceedings of the House, in which case I can see no reason why he should not do that which other Gentlemen who have been returned to this House and have not been able to take their seats have done. In that way we shall have security against disturbance in our proceedings without inflicting any hardship on Mr. Brad-laugh other than that which is inflicted upon him by our objection to his taking the Oath.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DILLON.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether he would inform the House as to the words or acts for which the hon. Member for Tipperary had been arrested, and when and where the words were spoken?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think, Sir, I had better read the words respecting the arrest of the hon. Member. The warrant declares—
  "That John Dillon, North Great George's street, city of Dublin, Member of Parliament, is reasonably suspected of having since the 30th day of September, 1880, been guilty as principal of a crime punishable by law, that is to say, inciting persons to forcibly oppose and resist the execution of a process of the law to give possession of land, committed in the aforesaid proscribed district, and being an incitement to an act of violence tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order."
  That is the only reply I can give to the hon. Gentleman, and for this reason—that, at the time of the passing of the Act under which the arrest was made, the question was repeatedly brought before the House as to whether more information could be given than that contained in the Warrant. I have read to the House what was decided by a large majority in one, or, I think, two divisions, which decided that more information should not be given. I do not think, therefore, that I should be acting in accordance with the Act of Parliament or with respect to the House, without an Order of the House, if I gave more information in this case. I can only say for the Government and for myself, so far as I have anything to do with it, that we are perfectly prepared to meet any Motion which may be brought forward impugning our conduct in this matter.
  MR. PARNELL: Then, Mr. Speaker, I wish to further call attention to this matter, and to conclude with a Motion. I think the right hon. Gentleman has altogether misinterpreted the intentions of the House in refusing to give information with regard to the arrest of my hon. Friend. In coming to their decision I think probably the House has been influenced by the supposition that, under certain circumstances, it might be impossible or inconvenient to give informa-
  184
  tion; but I submit that in the case of the hon. Member for Tipperary, and in the case of almost everyone arrested under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, it is perfectly within the power of the Government to give the information required. Let me call attention to the situation. An hon. Member of this House has been arrested for an offence which is not named, although generally described in the Warrant. That hon. Gentleman has no information as to the particulars of the offence; and when I ask the Government to give me information, and to tell me what offence my hon. Friend has been guilty of, and at what time and place the offence was committed, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says he is not required to do so by Act of Parliament. When I turn to the circumstances connected with the case, I find that the Government have been singularly unmindful, not only of what is due to this House, but also what is due to an important Irish constituency. My hon. Friend at the time of his arrest was on his way to this House to speak on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; and it is true that he had announced his intention of criticizing very severely the provisions of that measure, and to influence his Colleagues to reject that measure. This course might have been fraught with some inconvenience to the Government; but my hon. Friend certainly represented a particular school of thought and a particular political line with regard to this Land Bill in Ireland not represented by anyone else. I affirm, then, it was a deliberate interference with the Constitutional rights of my hon. Friend to arrest Inns on his way to this House. In fact, this Protection of Person and Property Act has been used simply for the purpose of blackening the character of certain Irish politicians. The Government know that they can make no case if they specify the acts and the offences under which the prisoners are charged, and they shelter themselves behind a Parliamentary Return which I have in my hand, which recites in ambiguous terms and in awful language the general character of the offences which are alleged against the arrested persons. But when we ask for information, and when I gave Notice that I should move for a Return in reference to a person detained in

  185
  prison under the Coercion Act, and under a Warrant that he was "reasonably suspected" of acts of violence or intimidation, or inciting to the same, together with the time and places of the offences, what course did the Government take? The hon. and gallant Member (Sir Arthur Hayter), at the direction of the Government, under the half-past 12 Rule, rendered it impossible for me to obtain the information which it was absolutely necessary for me to have in order to make my Motion. We do not know of what all these persons are accused; and I take it I have shown that the Government have not acted candidly in this matter, and are seeking to evade a full and fair inquiry into the subject. During the first reading of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, the Prime Minister, with a great flourish, said that all these arrests would be open to challenge on the floor of the House. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, when he made that statement, that he had in contemplation that Irish Members desiring information should be obstructed by a paid official of the Government? Many of the gentlemen arrested occupy respectable positions, and are honoured by their neighbours, some of them holding places of trust and responsibility in the local Municipalities and Poor Law Boards for the country. It is a perfect mockery to discuss the imprisonment of these men so long as the Government refuse us information; and I desire to move that the information be given. I think I have shown that I have especial interest in directing the attention of the House to the question of the arrest of my hon. Friend. When the Chief Secretary answered a Question put to him yesterday with regard to the health of my hon. Friend, he had received no official information on the subject; but, of course, the House could not be expected to liberate the hon. Member for Tipperary so as to enable him to continue the course he was pursuing at the time of his arrest. Now, I have had opportunities of becoming acquainted with my hon. Friend's character and constitution, and I know very well that confinement and imprisonment lasting for any time will be absolutely fatal to him. He is a man suffering from an illness which requires constant occupation in the open air to keep him alive. Several members of his family have al-
  186
  ready died of this illness. Ono of his sisters died this year of the same complaint from which my hon. Friend is suffering; and all his friends and his medical advisers know well that if the imprisonment of John Dillon is long continued it will result in his death, imprisonment crippling him in such a manner as will lead to his death within a short period. I now ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to keep John Dillon in prison until he dies? I ask him to enable us to show that he does not deserve imprisonment; and, for my part, I believe the House would recognize that fact, and would recognize that he was not deserving of the punishment of death which, practically, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant proposes to inflict upon him. I would ask the Government to re-consider the position they have taken up with regard to their refusal to give information as to the particulars of these cases. I do not want information from them where it is impossible to give it. I do not want information from them where they have not got it to give, or where the giving of it would inflict any wrong or injury upon any other person, or would be prejudicial to the administration of the law or this Act. But I submit that where the Government have no other reason than the mere fact that the House of Commons refused in this Act to direct them to give information, it is perfectly competent for them to consider each case in itself and, where no public wrong would accrue, to give such information as we ask for. I beg, Mr. Speaker, to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is my duty steadily to decline to enter upon the course to which the hon. Member invites us for reasons which appear to me perfectly clear and perfectly unquestionable. Parliament has thought fit, after long and full consideration, to intrust the Executive Government with powers of a character beyond the ordinary rules of the Constitution, for the purpose of preserving peace and order in Ireland; and Parliament has therein proceeded on the supposition that, under the peculiar cir-

  187
  cumstances of the case, it is desirable that the Executive Government should have those powers upon grounds apart from those on which they would or might be prepared to challenge the conduct of the parties who are brought to justice. They have established an exceptional method of procedure, to be exercised upon the discretion of the Executive Government. After a discussion upon the Amendment to the Bill which was proposed on the part of those who resisted the measure, that in every Warrant for the arrest of anyone under the Bill should be specified particulars analogous to those for which the hon. Member now calls, Parliament distinctly rejected that Amendment. I am not sure whether it was not tried more than once; but the deliberate judgment of Parliament was that the information should not be given. Were that information to be given, the effect would be that the whole of these cases would be liable to be vaguely and generally discussed in this House, and the House would become partners in the responsibility which Parliament requires the Government to assume whole and undivided. For that reason it was that the Government did not think it right that occasions when the House might be exhausted, with but few Members in attendance, should be made use of for the purpose of making Motions with a view to the production of this information, as I may call it, wholesale. But the ground that we took during the discussion was a different ground. What we said was this—"Our conduct on each and all of these occasions will be liable to be challenged. Where you think you have cause to think that our proceedings are open to question, there will be nothing to prevent you from raising the question in this House. When, instead of a mere discussion at large upon the merits of a case, you are prepared to make a charge against the Executive Government, then the Executive Government will be prepared to meet you upon that charge." But the hon. Gentleman does not make a charge against the Executive Government. He makes a speech upon the subject, but does not embody in a Motion the allegations which he travels over in his speech, and he concludes with a Motion that the House do now adjourn. Is that course necessary owing to the position in which the
  188
  hon. Gentleman is placed? No; nothing of the kind. We had, even so late as yesterday, upon the Notice Paper a Motion which, however incorrect in the allegations which it made, was perfectly legitimate as to the mode in which it proposed to raise the question of Mr. Dillon's arrest. It was a Motion as follows:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the action of the Irish Executive in arbitrarily arresting a Member of this House without reasonable ground, and in proclaiming a state of siege in Dublin, is an abuse of the exceptional powers conferred by Parliament; and, coupled with the conduct of the Executive in affording the use of the armed forces of the Crown for the wholesale execution of wanton and cruel evictions, is calculated to promote disaffection in Ireland, and to mar any possible good results from the remedial proposals of the Government."
  In this particular case of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had given Notice of a Motion, and no doubt ho would in his speech have stated the specific grounds on which he would have founded the charge which he embodied in his Notice of Motion. The Executive Government would then have been put on its trial; and it would have been the right and the duty of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and those who thought with him to place the Executive Government on its trial in relation to matters of this kind. The Executive Government would have taken no step, whether by blocking the Notice of Motion or otherwise, to evade it; but would immediately have challenged the judgment of the House. But as to vague discussions ending in Motions for adjournment, when hon. Gentlemen without any responsibility can say what they please, the Government will decline to allow false issues to be raised, and to abandon the position in which Parliament has placed them by intrusting them with exceptional powers for the maintenance of the law for the protection of life and property in Ireland. I have now stated distinctly the path in which we are prepared to walk; but in the path opened to us by the hon. Member for the City of Cork we decline to walk, for it would be a cowardly attempt on our part to divide our responsibility with the House, and to shift a portion from ourselves on to the shoulders of

  189
  hon. Members. We intend to bear it undivided, and to confine ourselves—which would be our duty if the case arose—to defending ourselves from any and every allegation that may be made against us.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYfailed to find in the right hon. Gentleman's speech any answer to the arguments of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The right hon. Gentleman did not show by any Resolution or by any clause in the Act that Parliament prevented the Chief Secretary for Ireland from giving this information in cases where it was thought fair and right to do so. It was entirely in the discretion of the Government, if they pleased, to answer the questions which had been put—they could give the reasons why the hon. Member for Tipperary was arrested by the Irish Executive. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Motion which stood in his (Mr. Justin M'Carthy's) name was not proceeded with, and protested that the Government were eager to meet it. But he would ask what chance was there of bringing it on at a reasonable hour for discussion? The right hon. Gentleman only suggested that if he waited his chance he would, no doubt, be able to bring the Motion before the House. That was to say he might be able to bring it on at the fag end of a long discussion, perhaps at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, when he should be speaking to empty Benches. The right hon. Gentleman was willing enough on two or three occasions to interrupt the course of Business in the House for the purpose of introducing questions which might very well have waited. He was willing to interrupt the course of important Public Business in order to propose a Vote of Thanks to men engaged in a war which he himself little more than a year ago condemned as a crime. He was willing to interrupt the course of Business to propose a National Monument to the memory of a statesman of whom he had said not long since that he had given some of the best years of his life to thwarting and opposing his policy. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) did not find fault with him for taking that course; he only mentioned it to show how easily he found an opportunity for interrupting the Business of the House for any purpose which he himself wished to carry out. The right hon. Gentleman had referred in that
  190
  House to the grievance of having a constituency deprived of one of its Representatives. For the purpose of preventing such a thing he was prepared to give up the time of the House to a most disagreeable and unnecessary discussion, especially at this period of the Session; but when they came to raise the question whether the act of the Government had not practically disfranchised Tipperary, he had no suggestion to make, except that anyone who had a Motion to make on the subject might wait for his chance, and take the first chance he got. If he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was not mistaken, the event which they were discussing was absolutely without precedent in Parliamentary history. He believed there was no other case, so far as he could recollect, in which a Member of that House was arrested and imprisoned under the same conditions as his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. Mr. Smith O'Brien was sent to prison on a direct charge, openly made and formally recorded against him; and he was, on the first opportunity, brought before a public Court of Law, and tried for the alleged offence. But in this case his hon. Friend was arrested and consigned to prison without himself or any of his friends having any chance of knowing what was the exact charge on which he was committed, and whether he was fairly suspected of being guilty of it. This, he did not hesitate to say, was without precedent in, and reflected discredit upon, a civilized country. His hon. Friend was coming over to Parliament to ask the Government whether the charges which he had made against landlords in regard to the evictions going on were not correct. No reasons had been given by the Government to justify the course which they had adopted; and, therefore, many persons would see in the arrest not the act of legitimate authority, but the desperate stratagem of a political partizan. If the health of his hon. Friend should be seriously injured by his imprisonment, and if the worst should result from it, he would not be the first who had sacrificed his life for the benefit of the Irish people. The speech which his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) had made was not in the nature of a plaintive appeal to Her Majesty's Government for mercy to his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary,

  191
  but was a note of warning to them of the serious and important responsibility which they had taken upon themselves in having, without reasonable cause, arrested an hon. Member of that House, and in continuing to detain him in prison. Her Majesty's Government had also incurred the responsibility of proclaiming a great, populous, and peaceful city like Dublin, and of placing it in a state of siege by a stroke of the pen. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, who certainly was not an admirer of the Land League, shortly before the Government took that step had declared the state of Dublin to be eminently tranquil; and, indeed, the only ground that the Chief Secretary himself had assigned for proclaiming that city was because one or two speeches had been made in it of which the Government did not approve. Could a parallel case be found in modern history, a case in which a great peaceful city had been placed in a state of siege merely because one or two persons, whose very names were not given, had made speeches which were disapproved by a Member of the Government of the day? He admitted that the course which had been pursued on this occasion of moving the adjournment of the House was somewhat irregular; but the Irish Members had felt bound to take it in order to bring a matter of utmost urgency under the notice of the House and of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Her Majesty's Government were compelled, in the first place, to make the laws of time country respected and obeyed in Ireland. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) supposed they could exact and enforce a sort of sullen obedience to the law by the use of their military and police; but to make the law respected in Ireland was not within the power of all their police or all their soldiery until they made the law different from what it was, and administered it otherwise than they did at present.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that the course adopted by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M 'Carthy was unfair and unreasonable. It was in the power of the hon. Member to have brought forward that night the Motion of which he had given Notice—a Motion which brought a direct charge against Her Majesty's Government, which the Government were perfectly prepared to
  192
  have met. To the insinuations of the hon. Member the Government could give a perfect reply. The hon. Member had said that he had been prevented from proceeding with the Motion; but he might easily have made it that night. ["No!"] The hon. Member for the City of Cork dissented from that statement; but, looking at the state of the Order Book for the night, no one could doubt that the Motion might have been brought on. Indeed, he had been much surprised that morning, on looking at the Business for that night, to find that the Motion had been withdrawn. The hon. Member had chosen to raise the question on the Motion for the adjournment of the House rather than by direct Motion, because he was aware that by doing so he could make no charge which the Government could meet.
  MR. DALYsaid, that his hon. Colleague had asked what were the words or acts on which the hon. Member for Tipperary had been arrested; and they believed that all the evidence which the Government possessed, and on which the arrest was made, could be given by the Government officials; therefore, the Chief Secretary need not shelter himself behind the extraordinary powers given to the Government by the Coercion Act, and. refuse to answer the questions which had been put. The Government had 30,000 soldiers and 12,000 policemen in Ireland; and, therefore, they could have no fear of any result arising from the reasons which they might give. The Government should have courage, and answer all the questions categorically. He believed that this Liberal Government would be accused of doing a mean and dastardly act, and then of sheltering themselves from the consequences of that act in a cowardly way. Practically, Her Majesty's Government had, of their own motion, disfranchised one of the Irish constituencies. His hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary could have spoken with authority in regard to the evictions in Ireland, and which were going forward in the most monstrous manner, as on all these things he had a more intimate knowledge than any other man. The position of the Government, in not answering the questions put, was unsound and untenable.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, ho was astonished that the Government had not given a more satisfactory answer to the

  193
  question that had been addressed to them. They would have reasons for arresting Mr. Dillon, and surely they might state them. In the absence of this information, all the House could do was to speculate on the cause of the arrest. No one, he supposed, would accuse Mr. Dillon of having been engaged in houghing cattle, shooting landlords, or burning property. There was no overt act that he had committed. The only ground for his arrest, therefore, must be his speeches. He had not seen any report of those speeches, except such as had appeared in the English newspapers, and these reports were not to be trusted. They were usually at-tempered to the appetites of English readers. Many of the statements that appeared in the English papers respecting Ireland were absolutely false—others were grossly exaggerated. Even when the statements were themselves correct, the explanation necessary to their understanding was withheld. To form an estimate of what had been said by any man in Ireland from what appeared in the English newspapers was to do that man an injustice. Before the House passed a condemnation of his Friend he begged it to pause. He asked it to consider the circumstances—the strongly extenuating circumstances—under which Mr. Dillon had spoken. There had been great agricultural depression over the whole Kingdom. This depression had been most severely felt in Ireland. In some places it had deepened into distress—in others into want and starvation. Mr. Dillon, during several months, had employed himself in going from one part of the country to another, and had been brought face to face with the realities of the situation. The Government had introduced a Bill designed to improve the social condition of the Irish people. The measure might be wise or unwise; but that was its purpose. The landlords, or at least a large section of them, feared that the operation of the Bill would be injurious to their interests, and, with a view of getting quit of the responsibility that it entailed upon them, they were scattering notices of ejectment broadcast. These ejectments had, in many instances, matured into evictions. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen had witnessed an eviction. The harrowing scenes that accompanied them could not be viewed unmoved by any
  194
  man. To see a starving family crouching in the cold on a bleak hillside was a spectacle that no one could behold without emotion. Mr. Dillon had witnessed these scenes, and he had spoken in strong, but not too strong, reprobation of them. He might probably have overstepped the thin line that separated legality from illegality. But the surroundings being recollected, no generous man would judge him harshly. Especially ought this to be the case with the present Government. There were Members of the Administration who had lived amongst Leagues, and had risen to power through agitation. If everything they had said and everything they had done during periods of excitement had been as strictly watched and as strictly judged as Mr. Dillon's speeches and doings had been, some of them would certainly not have escaped a prosecution if they had escaped imprisonment. Mr. Dillon knew that the mass of the English people were ignorant of the condition of Ireland, that a large number were not only ignorant but indifferent, and that some even were hostile. It was a cynical but too common observation that this country would be benefited if Ireland was cut adrift from us, or if she was sunk beneath the Atlantic waves long enough to procure the destruction of her population. This hard view of Ireland and her people was not so prevalent now as it was in former years; yet still it existed. Mr. Dillon also knew that nothing ever was obtained in the way of political or social consideration from this country until there had been an agitation amounting almost to an insurrection. We conceded nothing to Ireland from a sense of justice—only from force. We yielded to fear what we refused to reason. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members denied that statement. He appealed to history in confirmation of what he had said. Since the Union there had been three serious attempts made at ameliorative legislation in Ireland. And how had those attempts been initiated? One of the pledges given by the English Government in 1800 was that if the Irish Parliament would consent to the Union the penal laws against the Catholics should be at once repealed. How was that pledge fulfilled? Thirty years were allowed to elapse before any serious attempt was made to comply with the

  195
  engagement, and then it was not complied with because of its righteousness or its justice. The Prime Minister of the day had the audacity to declare that Catholic Emancipation was yielded because there were only two alternatives. The one was emancipation and the other Civil War. Emancipation was therfore, in his judgment, only a less evil than Civil War, and hence it was conceded. Sir Robert Peel endeavoured to deal with the three great Irish grievances—Land, Education, and the Church. But he did not deal with these questions from any intrinsic sense of the injustices under which the people were labouring. England was at the time in trouble with foreign States. There was a dispute with America about Oregon, and a dispute with France about Otaheite. The Government were afraid if they went to war with either or both of these Powers that French or American troops might be landed in Ireland. The Irish, being discontented, might receive them as deliverers. It was not because the people were suffering from an injustice, but because it was desirable to send them what Sir Robert Peel described as a message of peace, that the three measures he had indicated were proposed. It was fear of the Irish aiding the French or the Americans in the threatened wars that got for them the Queen's Colleges, an increased grant for Maynooth, and an attempted amendment of the laws respecting land. The third occasion when Parliament essayed to solve the Irish difficulty was during the last Liberal Government. The circumstances were still fresh in their recollection. They all knew how many times the question of Land Reform had been submitted to the House by Mr. Sharman Crawford and others, and how often Resolutions respecting the Irish Church had been rejected. The House refused to legislate on these points until the Fenians broke open a prison van in the streets of Manchester, released two of their leaders, and blew down the wall of Clerkenwall Gaol, in the expectation of setting free a third. It was a fear of the Fenian insurrection that caused the Church and Land Questions in 1868–9 to pass from the domain of speculation to that of practical politics. Mr. Dillon knew all this. Every Irishman knew it, and they also know that the legislation of the present Session
  196
  would never have been attempted if it had not been for the action of the Land League. If there had been no Land League there would have been no Land Bill. The movement directed by the League had created a public opinion such as had compelled the Government to take action. The League really had forced the Government measure. The Ministry was the acting power, but the organization which Mr. Dillon controlled was the motive power. It was most unfair to send to prison the men who bad aroused the public opinion which rendered the measures of the Ministry possible. What were the simple facts of the case? Mr. Dillon had collected a larger amount of information respecting the condition of Irish peasants than was possessed by any other man in the House. There was no Member there, not even the Irish Secretary, who had anything like the amount of information on the subject that he had. He was on his way to Parliament to submit this information to it. An announcement to that effect had been made in all the papers. It was well known to his Friends that he intended to be in the House last Thursday and to take part in the discussion. The Government arrested him on his way there, and landed him in Kilmainham. And what would be the consequence of that step? If he had been in Parliament his power would have been circumscribed; but now that he was in prison his counsel would be more potent than ever. The Irish peasants trusted him and respected him, and they would trust him and respect him all the more since he suffered for them. Mr. Dillon might be a rebel at Westminster; but he had long been a patriot in Tipperary, and now he would be a martyr. Ministers used no end of smooth words about the condition of Ireland; but they did not back up these words by their actions. The arrest of Mr. Dillon was like sticking a blister on a raw wound. The English people were singularly unfortunate in their government of subject races. For some reason or other—even when they had the best intentions—they failed to win the good feeling or the affections of those they ruled. He could not explain it. He could only lament it. But such was unquestionably the fact. They had ruled Ireland for 700 years, and the people were as discon-

  197
  tented and dissatisfied as they were centuries ago. France ruled Alsace some 200 years, and in that time the Alsatians became even more French than the Gascons. There must be something either in the manner or the spirit of the English administration that engendered in the Irish people so much distrust. The minds of some statesmen were said to be like the pupils of the human eye—they contracted themselves the more the greater the light that was shed in upon them. With all the experience of the past, and with good intentions, the present Government were treading in the footsteps—the painful and disastrous footsteps—of past Administrations. Just let them look for a moment at what they had done during these troubled times. There never was an agitation that did not have at its head one or two men who typified the hopes and aspirations of the people. These men in the present agitation in Ireland were Mr. Davitt and Mr. Dillon. They embodied, to a larger extent than any other two, the spirit and wishes of the Irish race. And how had the Government treated them? They had sent one to penal servitude and the other to gaol. The late Government, when they believed that Mr. Davitt was guilty of some offence against the law, attempted to put him upon his trial. This was a fair and honourable way of treating him. If he had broken the law, it was right that he should be made to feel the consequences. But the present Government did not follow a like course. They went back upon a conviction that in equity and morals, if not in law, had been more than complied with. He did not speak of the wisdom, of the cruelty, of the justice of Mr. Davitt's re-imprisonment. But he was there to declare that he did not know in his experience—and he did not believe any man in that House knew—of a meaner thing having been done by any Government than the sending back to slavery of this man. If the Government imagined that that was the way to pacify the Irish people they were grossly mistaken. The treatment of Mr. Davitt would neither be forgotten nor forgiven by those who shared his opinions and admired his character. And Mr. Dillon. He was not a common man. He was not angling for Office—he was not canvassing for a job. He knew the wants of his countrymen. He had seen and sympathized with their sufferings.
  198
  He was in earnest in what he did and said. He would not equivocate, he would not excuse; he would be "as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice." If they laboured under the delusion that by degrading such men they would facilitate their rule in Ireland, they were in error. He knew their theory was that Ireland ought to be taught to fear before she was taught to love. The falsity of that theory had been shown by experience. By Coercion Bills and Arms Bills they could not win the confidence of a suffering, struggling, and sensitive race. They could not kill ideas by chains and prisons. Ideas were as indestructible as either earth or heaven, and the attempts to annihilate them by pains and penalties would fail now as they had failed in all past times. It was a source of deep regret to every man concerned in the future of Ireland to see the prospects of the legislation the Government were prosecuting blasted by the harsh, unwise, and illiberal treatment that they were now manifesting towards Mr. Dillon, Mr. Davitt, and their countrymen.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he agreed most cordially with much that had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken. It was not necessary to approve of what Mr. Dillon had done to condemn what had been done by the Government. What the hon. Member for Tipperary had done had been compared fairly in the light of what the Prime Minister himself said when he was in Opposition. But the Government allowed this agitation in Ireland to go on to an extent they ought not to have done. They might long ago have stopped this agitation, which had led to the formation of this Land League; but they did not wish to do it. The Prime Minister said that the explosion at Clerkenwell Prison and the murder of a policeman at Manchester were necessary to bring the Irish Church Question within the range of practical politics. He (Mr. Mac Iver) spoke directly to the right hon. Gentleman, the apostle of peace, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who represented Birmingham, which provided arms and ammunition for all the world. His inconsistency on this and every question was well known to all in that House; but he did say that the right hon. Gentleman in his Irish views was perhaps more inconsistent than on any other question,

  199
  The right hon. Gentleman, however, had always been perfectly consistent in one respect. He disliked the landed interest of this country. He (Mr. Mac Iver) had no desire to make any lengthened remarks; but he wished to say that he thought the Government had been very lax. They ought either to have arrested Mr. Dillon before or not at all; but they allowed the time to go by, and they had now arrested him when he was coming to take his seat in that House. He cordially supported the views expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had been much astonished by the speech of the Prime Minister, which was a remarkable instance Of the way in which a great master of Parliamentary Forms could evade the real issue. The right hon. Gentleman said that was an irregular mode of bringing forward that subject, and because he considered it to be so he declined to enter into it. He further challenged them to bring a substantive Motion before the House, when they might discuss the whole transaction; but when the Government were asked to give facilities for the discussion of a substantive Motion they withheld all such facilities. The Irish Members had been prevented at all points from bringing forward the matter in a regular way; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the face of all the facts they had had to confront, had risen in his place and declared that the Irish Members were afraid to bring the subject forward. He had told them they could have brought on the Motion that night; but if he had looked at the Order Book he would have seen that there were seven Notices of Motion down for that night, four of which were opposed. One of them related to police superannuation, and the hon. and gallant Member in whose name it stood (Colonel Alexander) took too deep an interest in the subject to give way in favour of the Irish Members. To another of those Motions Notice of opposition had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who, though his career in the House had not been long, had already acquired a reputation for unyielding and relentless hostility to any proposition which he wished to prevent from coming before the House. If there was any-
  200
  thing which the hon. and learned Member desired to impede the discussion of more than another it was an Irish grievance. The line taken that evening by the Government was altogether inconsistent with their arguments when the Coercion Bill was passing through the House. The Government had said that they could not give the House further information, because, if they did, the person who had supplied it would be liable to be intimidated by his neighbours. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had now changed his ground completely. Who could intimidate those who had given the information on which the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had been arrested? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) took it that his hon. Friend had been put in prison because of certain speeches which he had made openly at a Land League meeting in Dublin. That speech had been published in all the newspapers, and there could be no fear of anyone being intimidated in consequence of the information given against him. Therefore, the whole reason for the absolute silence and secrecy urged in regard to the nature of the information disappeared in the case of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had said the arrest should have taken place sooner, or not at all. If his hon. Friend were engaged in the utterance of speeches which were exciting to public disorder, he ought never to have been allowed to make a second speech, and accordingly they were driven to this conclusionthat—that the hon. Gentleman was arrested for a speech made months ago, or he was arrested for a speech made two or three weeks ago. If the arrest was in respect of a speech made months ago, it had come too late; but there could be no doubt it was made on account of a speech delivered only two or three weeks ago. The only recent speeches made by his hon. Friend that he knew of which bad attracted notice during the last few weeks were two, one of which was made on a Sunday, and the other at a Land League meeting in Dublin. The speech made on the Sunday could not have been the cause of his arrest, because his hon. Friend was in prison before the report of it could have come before the Dublin authorities. He was, therefore, forced to the conclusion that it was in consequence of his speech be-

  201
  fore the Land League meeting that his hon. Friend had been arrested. But, on April 7, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald stated in a Charge to the Grand Jury that Dublin was in an unusually peaceful and orderly condition. For himself, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had never seen Dublin in anything but a peaceful and orderly state. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was questioned with regard to the Charge, and his reply was that since the Charge of Judge Fitzgerald one or two speeches had been made in the Land League. Was the Metropolis of Ireland to be proclaimed in a state of siege, and were the liberties of 300,000 people to be placed at the mercy of every policeman, because one man made speeches which it was sought to prevent? If such a thing were heard of as occurring at Berlin, or even at St. Petersburg, English Members would receive it with disgust, and would hardly believe it possible. What was the speech of his hon. Friend? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had himself declared that if the Irish people had the control of their own affairs, either justice would be done to the Irish tenants, or the Irish tenants would exterminate the landlords. If he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) were to act the part of a plagiarist, and to give as his own, in the Council of the Land League in Dublin; some of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year, with regard to the horrors of eviction, with regard to the process of eviction, with regard to the threats of violence, and the difficulty of preserving and maintaining the public peace, he had no doubt he would have an uncomfortable lodging in Kilmainham before 24 hours were over; but if he were to adopt some of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he did not think he would even be let off with a lodging in Kilmainham, but believed that he would be brought before a packed jury, if a packed jury could be got in Ireland now, and sentenced to penal servitude for inciting to riot. No one could deny the truth of what the hon. Member for Tipperary had said; but its very truth was its guilt in the eyes of the Government. His hon. Friend had said that there were 10,000 persons threatened with eviction; and
  202
  that was true. The hon. Member was understating rather than overstating the case. Was he to be put in prison because he spoke what was true? Did anybody suppose that the public peace and order could be preserved in Ireland if the Government were criminal enough to allow evictions to be made? No one who knew the animosity which the present action of the landlords in Ireland created, or the feeling of the people towards them, could fail to be aware that 10,000 or 12,000 evictions could not take place without resistance. If that were so, could his hon. Friend, knowing the fact, be blamed for stating it? As a chief officer of the Land League, it was his duty to proclaim the facts; and instead of having been imprisoned for doing so, he ought to be thanked for it; if he had abstained from doing so, he would not have been performing his duty as a citizen. Instead of that, there could be no doubt that that was the speech which led to his hon. Friend's arrest. It was deplorably strange, but it was true, as had been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that the Irish people had never gained anything from England except by violence or threatened insurrection, and the Land Bill was no exception to the rule; whereas his ideal was that of a country where legitimate ends were pursued by Constitutional and legitimate means. Indeed, a country could scarcely be said to be civilized in which the means did not exist of influencing public opinion by peaceful meetings or through the Press; while violence was the miserable concomitant of English rule in Ireland. He charged that upon the Government as one of the worst and most demoralizing influences which they exercised in this country; and, in conclusion, he begged to say that if the Government gave the Irish Members facilities for discussing the arrest of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), the question would be discussed in a frank, full, and fair manner; but if the Government demurred to or denied that reasonable request, then they would be compelled to take such means as the Forms of the House might afford of securing attention for a matter which lay near to millions of Irish hearts.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he had opposed the passing of the Coercion Bill, and he now regretted some of the conse-

  203
  quences of that Bill. He did not rise to criticize the policy of the Government with regard to the arrests that had taken place in Ireland, because he was not in a position to say whether or not any of the action taken there was justified. There was, however, abroad, he thought, a very general feeling of regret that, as the Government had stayed their hands so long, they had not found it consistent with their duty at the last moment to avoid arresting Mr. Dillon. No one that had read the speeches of Mr. Dillon could doubt that he had made statements which would justify his arrest; but what he (Mr. Collings) wished to ask the Government was this—when were they to stop in the process of arresting various Leaders of the Land League? He could not help regretting that the Government had chosen that particular time to create a feeling of irritation by their action in Ireland, a time when a Land Bill had been brought in, which redeemed the promise of the Government. It was a Bill which throughout the whole of England had been received with favour, and generally in Ireland with thankfulness and appreciation. ["No, no!"] The Bill was generally received with appreciation, and in a manner better than the Government could have expected; and by doing what they had, they were likely to destroy, to a great extent, their remedial legislation. The state of Ireland appeared to be now even worse than it was a few months ago as regarded the feelings of the people; and a word ought, he thought, to be said about those who were the real culprits in the case, and without whom the Dillons could not exist in Ireland. He meant the men who were evicting the tenants from their farms. By arresting 50 Dillons the Government would not secure the object which they seemed to have in view. It had been said by the Prime Minister. that "crime dogged the steps of the Land League;" but anyone who had read the statistics of crime in Ireland would see at once that crime dogged the steps of eviction, and if crime was to be stopped evictions must be seen to. The Government must be aware that the Coercion Bill was being put to a purpose which they never contemplated. A week or two ago, evictions were enforced at the instance of a justice of the peace for the county of Armagh, Mr. M'Geough, with the aid of
  204
  50 policemen, at which the most painful scenes were witnessed. And who was Mr. M Geough? Why, a gentleman who, according to the evidence given before the Bessborough Commission, was one of those who had brought Ireland into the condition in which she was now placed. It appeared that one of his tenants, a widow, wished to sell her tenant right in a farm for which she paid £20 a-year; but that he refused to accept a man as tenant who was ready to take it, unless he consented to have the rent increased to £27 a-year. Those terms were refused. The widow, inconsequence, could not sell her tenant right, and she was evicted without any compensation. That such proceedings should create a deep feeling of irritation in the minds of the Irish people was scarcely matter for wonder. He (Mr. Collings) gave the Chief Secretary for Ireland credit for his humanity; but he must say people were tempted to commit offences in their despair. They might say that that view was not logical; but then they were dealing with a people who thought they had no right to be turned out on the roadside. When they talked about sending large forces to be present at these evictions, so as to prevent resistance, they lost sight of the fact of what human nature would do under such circumstances. They must not forget that the very beasts would fight for their lair and young ones when driven to desperation; and these evictions must be stopped, unless they were to increase even the disorder which they had now. There had been the greatest misconception in this country as to the character of the agitation in Ireland, and it seemed to him that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been duped by the Tory landlords in Dublin Castle. The story which had been placed before thousands of people by the English Press as to the roasting alive of a process-server had turned out false. The Times, a short time ago, represented the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to have told the Irish people to stick to their arms; but, on turning to the Dublin Freeman, he (Mr. Collings) found that what the hon. Member really had said was—
  "Your organization has given you the benefits you have gained, and I advise you to stick to the arm which has done so much for you."
  What was to be done? He strongly advised the right hon. Gentleman at the

  205
  head of the Government to publicly signify his intention of making the Bill retrospective in its clauses. Even this Bill might not pass this Session, and the landlords would be protected in their legalized plunder.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was travelling into a Bill which was appointed for a future day.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS, apologizing, said, he was led away from the question by a consideration of the injustice done to the Irish people while the Land Bill was being delayed in the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, speaking last August, stated that if the landlords used their powers in such a manner as to force the Government to support them in injustice, the Government would accompany their request for special powers with a Bill which would prevent them being obliged to support injustice. After that speech, one might have hoped that something would be done to prevent the injustice which the Government would not deny was at present taking place in Ireland. He did not know, for instance, whether it would not be possible to refuse the use of troops and Constabulary at evictions, until the justice of the case of the Irish tenants was first settled. He would appeal to the Prime Minister to say one word of comfort to these poor Irish people, every one of whom, as well as every one of the people of England, believed in the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "No!" from the Irish Members.] He would say yes, and, speaking from experience of public meetings in England, he said the mention of the name of Gladstone always raised unbounded enthusiasm.
  MR. HEALY: No, no!
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I say, yes.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Not lately.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSmaintained that even recent proceedings had not destroyed the popularity of the Prime Minister. He made the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman from a sense of pity for the poor people of Ireland, and could assure the House that, if he were the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he could not sleep in his bed for thinking of the injustice inflicted on these unfortunate persons. He would remind the Prime Minister of the theory he propounded long ago, but which was still well remembered—namely, that the
  206
  people were our own flesh and blood? [Several Irish MEMBERS: No, no!] Oh, yes, they were. He was sorry the Irish Members were so parochial that they could not understand his meaning. In a wider sense the Irish people were their own flesh and blood. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to hold out some hope to these poor creatures who were turned out of their homes every day, and who, if they left the country, left with curses on England. The Government dare not logically carry out the Coercion Act; if they did they would be compelled to shoot down the people. [An Irish MEMBER: They have done so already.] He maintained that the people of England were not prepared to approve of any such extremities. The Government were in the position of an unskilful physician dealing with a skin disease. They were taking steps to spread that disease inwards, and, by casting into prison the leaders of the Land League, they were leaving the whole thing in the hands of the ruffian part of the population. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say something whereby the bad landlords would be taught that if they persevered in the course which led to crime they would have to make restitution. He was saying nothing against the Government; but he was asking that they should give effect to their good intentions. He regretted that the Coercion Act was being used simply for the purpose of evictions and of collecting rents whether those rents were just or unjust, in a most barbarous manner, and with a total disregard to the position and poverty of the poor people who were evicted. Let the House remember that the Irish people were turned out of their homes for resisting a law which Parliament was about to proclaim an unjust law. Insisting on those evictions, bad landlords were doing that which they knew two months hence it would be unlawful for them to do; and what was more natural than that the people of Ireland should refuse obedience to the law which gave them no protection in return?
  Mr. GIBSONSir WILLIAM HARCOURTrose together; but Mr. SPEAKER called upon
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who said, that he did not rise to reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings),

  207
  but to ask the House to consider the Position in which it had been placed by the hon. Member. He would admit, as fully as the hon. Member could desire, that the evictions in Ireland, and the consequences to which they led, were a very serious question; but he could not help thinking that the hon. Member had ingeniously intended to do the Government a good turn by continuing the debate on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. That evening was devoted to private Members; but his hon. Friend had managed to make a speech which would have been very suitable for the second reading of that Bill, but was scarcely appropriate to a Motion for the adjournment of the House. He did not propose to follow up the discussion introduced by his hon. Friend. That would be very irregular on the part of the Government. The debate had been diverted into that channel, and that was why he rose at the same time as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), who, he rather thought, was about to make an elaborate reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich. There was no doubt the discussion had been raised upon another matter, and no doubt it was a very serious and grave matter that a Member of the House should be arrested and imprisoned. So serious a matter was it that it was a most unsatisfactory thing to attempt to deal with it upon a Motion for adjournment, for on such a Motion no decision of the House could be taken. If there ever was a question upon which the House should definitely pronounce, it was upon the conduct of the Government in arresting a Member of that House; but it was quite clear that no definite and distinct opinion could be pronounced upon such a Motion as that, however willing anyone might be to give an opinion. How, on a mere interlocutory Motion, could the Government enter on the details of the grounds of the arrest of the hon. Member for Tipperary? That was a question of the gravest gravity, and the Government were not entitled to go into it except upon the most urgent grounds, and after a distinct challenge of their conduct had been given, and a decision of the House invited. He thought that, in the circumstances, the House would, upon reflection, agree with him that no advantage could be gained by continuing the debate.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in thinking that no good object would be gained by discussing the matter further. He would have been glad if the discussion had terminated before the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings) had spoken; but a new direction had been given to it by that hon. Member, who had made a peculiar, not to say extraordinary speech. The Motion had been introduced unexpectedly by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Thereupon the hon. Member for Ipswich, watching his opportunity, had risen and produced a mass of letters and documents which he fired away for half-an-hour, and pleaded earnestly for a reply from a Minister. He avoided calling upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who the hon. Member knew was always ready to speak; and, indeed, he looked thoroughly put out when the right hon. and learned Gentleman got up to say a few words on the subject. He (Mr. Gibson) had no intention of making an elaborate speech; but he should like to make a few remarks in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Ipswich. The hon. Member from one of his documents drew comfort, which he found in the speech made last August by the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he forgot to draw the obvious moral, when the right hon. Gentleman stated last August that if he saw occasion for interfering with the landlords he would not hesitate to take action. It must therefore be fairly and honestly assumed that he had found nothing since that time, with all the vast information at his disposal, that would justify him as a responsible Minister in submitting to the House a proposal on the subject. But the case did not rest on that obvious inference; for, within the last two months, the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated in the House there was nothing whatever in the conduct of the landlords as a class calling for objection from him, and similar remarks were made on a recent occasion by the Prime Minister. What, then, was the meaning of the extraordinary remarks about landlords made by the hon. Member for Ipswich? Some glimmering of what was due to justice appeared to have crossed the

  209
  mind of the hon. Member towards the close of his speech, when he said no one could tell at present whether the evictions were just or unjust. That thought should have suggested to him some caution, when he said just before the real culprits were the landlords; that they were trying to clear the land from tenants as from vermin. What proof did he offer of that, or of his other statements, that they were seeking for ill-gotten and legalized plunder, and that what they were doing were reckless outrages. ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members.] He did not object to applause from any quarter. He desired to point out that those were strong statements to be made in that House without any proof, especially as they culminated in the statement that the speaker was unable to tell the House whether evictions were just or unjust. In the name of common sense, what did the hon. Member for Ipswich think the Irish landlords should do when they were not paid their rents? Had the hon. Member the faintest conception that, at the present moment, on many thousands of holdings in Ireland rents were deliberately, without reason, justice, or cause, withheld from the landlords? Were the landlords to remain idle in those circumstances? Was it to be suggested for a second that the landlords, face to face with an organization whence came unjust and improper teaching, were to remain utterly quiescent, and not to seek to recover their legal rights? The proposition of the hon. Member, when seen from a sensible point of view, was utterly absurd. Did the hon. Member deny that in thousands of cases rents were improperly and unjustly withheld? Did he mean that the landlords so treated were to do nothing? Why, there must, in the very nature of things, be a substantial increase of evictions. That would of necessity be so, unless the landlords were, in the words of the hon. Member for Ipswich, to submit to be made the victims of legalized plunder and legalized outrage. He regretted that there was some truth in one sentence used by the hon. Member for Ipswich. The hon. Member had said that the condition of Ireland was worse now than when the Peace Preservation Act was passed. He held also that the state of things in Ireland now was grave and serious, and the re-
  210
  sponsibility of the Irish Executive was of the gravest kind. He (Mr. Gibson) concurred in that, and should not, at the proper time, hesitate to criticize frankly and fully the conduct of that Executive. Before the Irish officials were strengthened by the addition of exceptional powers, they did not apply until on the very eve of the meeting of Parliament the powers left in them by the ordinary law with anything like adequate vigour. Before the meeting of Parliament the Executive in Ireland had, in fact, been so administered that it did not command proper respect in that country. For a short period after the passing of the Peace Preservation Act many people thought that a quieter state of things was going to arise; but the fact remained at that moment, that with the powers of the ordinary law and of the exceptional law at their disposal, the administration of the country had been such that the Irish Executive was not regarded by the community, from the Giant's Causeway to Cape Clear, with anything approaching to due respect. These, of course, were matters to be gone into when they should come regularly before the House for discussion, and the Government had the opportunity of defending themselves. He should then, probably, not hesitate to take part in the discussion. He would admit that the position of those responsible for the maintenance of law and order was a difficult and responsible position, and that every fair allowance should be made in reference to their conduct; but, at the same time, they must expect that their conduct would be jealously scanned and anxiously scrutinized by those who had to look to the law for their vindication and protection.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had made some very natural observations on the strange divergence of the debate from its original purpose. It might, accordingly, have been expected that his right hon. and learned Friend would have kept in mind the principles which, according to him, ought to have guided the hon. Member for Ipswich, and, at all events, would not so far have forgotten his position as to make the Motion for adjournment the occasion for a somewhat fiery

  211
  Party attack upon the Irish administration of the law during the last six months, at a time when he knew that the responsible Minister who could best answer him must sit with his mouth closed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have known, indeed had called attention to the circumstance, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was one of the two principal Ministers now present who, having already spoken, could not be heard again on the question before the House. Knowing, however, that this was not the proper occasion for such a speech, his right hon. and learned Friend had delivered an angry philippic with the not very amiable object of destroying any respect that might be entertained for the present Administration. His right hon. and learned Friend, after administering his gentle rebuke to the hon. Member for Ipswich, might, without any disadvantage, have wandered back to the particular subject under consideration, and not have proceeded to make a gratuitous attack upon the conduct of the Government under cover of a Motion such as this. A proper occasion would, no doubt, soon arise for the discussion of that question; and the Government would be then perfectly ready to meet the charges made by his right hon. and learned Friend and take the judgment of the House upon them.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he did not think that Her Majesty's Government ought to regret the discussion which had taken place, as it had been turned into a very good debate upon the Irish Land Question. If, however, they did regret it, he could only say that they could at any moment have stopped it by giving an honest and straight answer to an honest and straightforward question. The question was—why did they arrest Mr. Dillon? They defied the Government to give them an answer there that night. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said this was a question of the greatest gravity, he (Mr. R. Power) said that was all the more reason why the Government should give them an opportunity for discussing it. Would the Government give them an opportunity for discussing the question? He thought they would not. He thought the Government had too much common sense to allow them to discuss the arrest of
  212
  Mr. Dillon. He quite admitted that Mr. Dillon was, to the Government, a great annoyance and a great inconvenience. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did not want him in Ireland, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not want him in the House of Commons. The Chief Secretary for Ireland imagined he saw in him a great conspirator against his authority in that country; and he (Mr. R. Power) could not help thinking that the Secretary of State for the Home Department imagined that he saw in Mr. Dillon a second Mr. John Devoy, who might come into that House and put a cask of dynamite under the Government Bench and blow it up, thereby sending the right hon. and learned Gentleman to another place. Was Ireland in a disturbed state at present, and was it on account of Mr. Dillon? He did not think it was on account of Mr. Dillon; and he was very glad indeed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) gave them, the other night, the reason why Ireland was in a disturbed state. He said that "Rapacious landlords keep the country in a state of disturbance." He (Mr. R. Power) should like to know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not put into Kilmainham some of those gentlemen who, he said, kept the country in a state of disturbance? He himself should be sorry, in Ireland, to say, in the Land League rooms in Dublin, for instance, that the rapacious landlords kept the country in a state of disturbance. He did not think it would be a safe thing to say under the present circumstances. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had certainly qualified himself to become an honorary member of the Land League by that statement. He did not remember any speech made in Ireland which would excite people more than to tell them that the rapacious landlord was the man who created all this disturbance—the man who turned them out on the road-side, and had no mercy for his tenants in any respect. But he would ask seriously—what was the feeling that the arrest of Mr. Dillon had created in Ireland? If there was one man in Ireland whom the people looked up to for counsel and advice—if there was a man who, by his character and his acts ever since he came into public life, merited

  213
  and obtained the confidence of his countrymen—it was Mr. Dillon; and the arbitrary arrest of that man could not but weaken the hold of the Government, if they ever had any, upon the affection of the Irish people more than all the Coercion Bills they had ever passed in that House. He had just received a resolution from the Dungarvan Board of Guardians condemning the Government for what they had done, and they might expect similar resolutions of condemnation from the various Boards and public bodies in Ireland. They might depend upon it that by his arrest they had done more to create disloyalty and disaffection in Ireland than anything Mr. Dillon ever could or ever did do.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that when the Coercion Bills were being passed through the House, he warned the Government that those measures would be used for the purpose of vengeance by the Irish landlords, and used by the Government for the purpose of suppressing political feeling in Ireland; and he thought the result had proved the perfect truth and justice of those forewarnings. It was a notorious fact that the men now arrested and imprisoned in Kilmainham and Galway were not the class of men described to the House by the Government as the persons whom they desired to arrest. The Government alleged that they desired to arrest the inciters to outrage, the midnight marauders, the village ruffians, and all the rest of it; but they, the Irish Members, alleged, on the other hand, that that was not their intention, and that their intention was to arrest the young men who were carrying on in a spirited, but in a perfectly legitimate and Constitutional way, the organization and the agitation of the Irish Land League, and that was really the case. With respect to his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), it was a remarkable fact that he was not arrested until the eve of the second reading of the Land Bill, and after he had made a speech which did not differ in character from many of those he had previously delivered. He must say that that looked very like foul play. Only last week a young man of excellent character, named Higgins, was arrested for signing, as honorary secretary, a resolution passed at a meeting of a local branch of the Land League, and sending a copy of
  214
  it to a farmer residing in the neighbourhood. No one had, in fact, been arrested under the Acts answering to the character of those who were described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland during the debates on the Bills. The Government secured the passing of the Coercion Acts by false pretences; the grounds they gave to the House did not and do not exist; the whole story was shown to have been a mass of exaggeration by the manner in which the Acts had been carried out. The Government should have been slow to arrest Mr. John Dillon at any time, and especially at the time they did. At the commencement of his political career he was grossly attacked in his absence by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The most serious outrages in Ireland were those that were being committed under cover of the Act. The real criminals nestled in Dublin Castle, and their "head centre" was the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he would ask the Government to remember that clemency was far more powerful than cruelty. What was the result of the course the Government had pursued? Had any good ensued? Was Ireland any quieter, were the peasantry more contented, or were there fewer evictions? No; the evictions were increasing day by day, proving that the policy the Government had pursued was a bad policy. Everybody was sorry that Mr. Dillon was arrested; but the question was whether his imprisonment had been for good or evil. He was as much interested in the success of the policy of the present Government as anyone, believing the failure of it would be a misfortune to the country; but he must admit that Mr. Dillon's arrest was producing no good in either Ireland or England. Let them remember how English public opinion was aroused in regard to the trial of Governor Eyre for proceedings in Jamaica. The English people disliked the trickery used in that case; they resented the manner in which, in Jamaica, Gordon was arrested in a district not subject to martial law, and then transferred into a district where martial law had been proclaimed, and there tried by subaltern officers under such law and hanged. What was the feeling of England in this case? Was it not that the proclamation of the City

  215
  of Dublin was made with a view of entrapping Mr. Dillon? Was it not also felt that he was arrested at a time when of all others he should have been left free, when he was corning over to England to discharge his duty, and when he considered his person safe. He (Mr. T. C. Thompson) said the feeling of the people of England was a feeling of indignation. The Government had many opportunities of arresting him. They had heard Mr. Dillon say many things in that House for which, supposing the Government had done their duty now, they ought to have arrested him then. Why did they arrest him now? A belief had gained ground that it was simply because his evidence on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill would have been most important? The Land Law (Ireland) Bill was a middle-class Bill, and there were few men in that House who represented anything but middle-class people, while Mr. Dillon represented a class he would have been proud to represent—the peasantry of Ireland. The blot upon that Bill was that there was no provision made in it in favour of the peasantry, no provision to prevent eviction in bad seasons, and Mr. Dillon would have spoken strongly against such an omission. They might pass hundreds of measures to relieve Ireland; but if no relief against evictions in such seasons as the peasantry had gone through lately was included in them they would be of no use. He appealed to the Government to let one of their first acts be the release of Mr. Dillon from prison, and the next the repeal of the odious Coercion Acts.
  Mr. O'DONNELLrose to address the House, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. O'DONNELLresumed, by saying he wished to utter a few words upon the matter. It appeared hopeless to expect that either the English or Irish Government, so amply represented on the Treasury Bench at the present moment, would give anything like a satisfactory reply to the request of the Irish Party that evening. They had asked for facilities to discuss the case of Mr. Dillon. It was admitted on all hands that various suspicious circumstances attended that arrest; and they wanted an oppor-
  216
  tunity, in a straightforward manner, of grappling with the Government case. It certainly appeared that the probability of his appearing in the House to express the opinion of a very large body of the Irish people on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill had something to do with his arrest. Mr. Dillon had said nothing within the last few weeks preceding his arrest in any way different to what he had been saying months before; and the matter required a little more explanation than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given it, for he had simply defended himself for not giving information by reference to the bare letter of the Coercion Act. But an engagement had been given, when that Bill was under discussion, that the causes which led to every arrest should be laid upon the Table, and the breach of that engagement ought to bring a blush to the face of every Member of the Government. He saw that he was still more unfavourably situated than when he rose to address the House, because now there was not a single Member of the Government present. But he must say that there was as much intelligent knowledge of the affairs of Ireland on the Treasury Bench now as at any time since the Government came into Office.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had no sympathy with the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon); but he must say he had, at least, been consistent in delivering exactly the same kind of speeches five months ago as three weeks ago; and it was the duty of the Government to have arrested him long before they had done. He (Mr. Warton) had himself brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireland many passages from the hon. Member's speeches; but ho was always met by the right hon. Gentleman in a shuffling manner, and told that the passages cited were correctly given, though in some cases he had produced reports from different sources. The right hon. Gentleman was inconsistent in his conduct, and deserved the epithet he (Mr. Warton) had applied to him long ago.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The House was adjourned accordingly at a quarter before Nine o'clock.